Woodstock CT Café

Observer and Doubtful:

The pattern has been the same whether the issue is gross overfunding of the Fire Department; the blatant imbalance in funding of the private and public sides of the educational system; the false fiscal justification for the Open Space fund; the deflationary fiscal ratchet contained in Proposition 46; or the grossly flawed Special Permit anti-zoning regulations.

When the inequities, falsehoods and true costs of these programs is laid bare, the beneficiaries at first attempt to debate their merits and quickly lose. They then resort to hysterics, as with the Fire Department or Academy. Then they resort to hostile, verbal assaults and physical intimidation by manipulated, ignorant and angry hillbillies at town meetings.

Any individual who persists in an effort to identify the town’s problems is then smeared in the press. Finally, as the coup de grace, the passive-aggressive crowd shows up with the false pretense of indignation and denounces the persistent individual as somehow being uncivilized.

I have witnessed or experienced angry hillbillies catcalling women in the town hall parking lot who were attempting to vote for educational funding; slanderous pictures and comments posted right now on WoodstockTruth.com; an Academy Trustee pounding his fist into the palm of his other hand and demanding, like a Teamsters boss, “names, I want names of BOE members who oppose us”; an extremely angry man bellowing at the chair of our BOE while storming toward her jamming his fist at her; First Selectman Wholean refusing a unanimous request for a constable to bring order to PZC meetings brought to a halt by Jerry Ralston’s repeated angry rants; older women afraid of the local roughnecks asking me to walk them to their cars after town meetings; younger women apologizing for dropping out of the educational support groups fearing “someone’s going to get hurt”; angry hillbillies Read the rest of this entry »

Those who can not rebut a substantive argument substantively, chose to attack the form of the argument and that’s not a good form of argument. One might think that a physician whose training must have at times subjected him to the incivility of the medics training process could get beyond his concern about civility and profer a position on merit, rather than evading the issue in a smoke screen of indignation over politeness. Since he wandered into the Cafe, where political correctness is not required, Dr. Gordon owed the readership a substantive response to the important issues and questions raised by Snuffy. But, alas, he took his ball and went home.

The five towns represented by their Town Halls shown below are tied together by the fact that these are the major sending towns to the Academy. During the school year more than 600 students from outside Woodstock travel to Woodstock to go to high school subsidized by a major slice of their respective home town tax base. Yet all of these sending towns have little or no relationship with each other. Most of us living in Woodstock know little about what’s happening politicly in these other town’s – we show little interest in our neighboring towns. With regard to sending their high schoolers to Woodstock, it’s my impression that all of these sending towns are perfectly happy unloading their students to Woodstock with a ‘what me worry’ attitude. Their attitude is to ‘Let Woodstock deal with the bullying tactics of the Academy. We don’t have a problem with the Academy, so we’re happy.’

I have to confess that I know little about what’s going on in these neigboring towns. I have been aware of certain hot buttons in each town through newspapers and statements here at the Cafe. I’ll tell you the little I know, but I am hoping to learn more from Eastfordites, Pomfretites, Brooklynites, and Canterburyians.

Eastford

I’m closer to Eastford and drive through Eastford on the way to work. In the mid 1960′s when my parents started visiting Woodstock, we learned that the matriarch of the Bowen’s family (Bowens Garage) was the half sister of my father’s father, a family that originated in Spenser Mass – hence Spenser Bowen, the father of Steve who runs Bowen’s Garage today. Bowen’s is the oldest surviving Ford dealership. I bought a 2000 Ford Focus station wagon from them in December and had a problem with the door chime. They gave me a rental while they fixed it without charge. Then I had to get the car ready for Becki’s trip to California, and they discovered quite a few things that needed to be fixed. So again, they gave me a rental free of charge. A few years ago I gave Harold at Bowens my 1975 Jeep that was in significant dis-repair. He made it look and work like new, so you can see ’green weenie’ parked at Bowen’s every morning. Read the rest of this entry »

Boo Radley makes an important point about the problem of “political correctness” in a comment under the article below “Snuffy sums up…” The Cafe has does not endorse ‘political correctness.’ This is what differentiates us from all other forms of media. And we are all dealing with ‘politicly incorrect’ adversaries like the one below.

As everyone in Woodstock knows or should know, Dave Richardson has accused Woodstock of overtaxing residents the last four years through clerical errors and improper accounting procedures in the calculation of the town’s spending cap, Proposition 46.

Richardson sent a letter of intent to sue claiming $3,044,230 in damages from the last four years and the letter states the suit will be filed within one year. The Town Hall recieved this letter yesterday.

Communicate with Admin by email: woodstockctcafe@gmail.com

The tagline above is meant to encourage contributions from residents in surrounding towns. We would like to learn more about what is happening in neighboring towns.

The Cafe challenges residents of surrounding towns to contribute. Those who speak up at the Cafe dominate the discussion. So there is really no reason why the Woodstock Cafe could not become the Eastford Cafe or the Pomfret Cafe. It boils down to who speaks up about important issues that other readers find interesting. The Cafe already has valued contributors from Eastford, Pomfret, and Canterbury. We are all in the same ark and a significant part of Eastford, Pomfret, Brooklyn, and Canterbury’s budget is sent to the Woodstock Academy. Let’s turn the Woodstock Cafe into the WEBCPPT Cafe.

WPZC motion that affirmed the assignment of the task of drafting new zoning regulations to Ken Goldsmith. This motion was offered shortly before the election to address the repeated, false allegations of Dottie Durst, Wayne Durst and Dan Very that the PZC had never assigned this task to Ken Goldsmith and that the new regulations had “fallen out of the sky” – a blatant falsehood which shocked and disgusted several members of PZC. The motion passed unanimously without change with one abstention – Dottie Durst. The comments of Dottie and Wayne Durst and Dan Very are in the public record. John Filchik of NECCOG was so impressed with Ken’s work that he has since asked the PZC’s permission to use Goldsmith’s document in re-drafting the town’s zoning ordinance. Joe Breen

MOTION 
Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission 
October 4, 2007

Whereas, the Town of Woodstock Zoning Enforcement Officer has over a period of several years reported frequent difficulty in enforcing the Town of Woodstock Zoning Regulations;

Whereas, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the current Zoning Regulations contain extensive contradictions, omissions and ambiguities that make administration and interpretation highly problematic;

Whereas, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that enforcement of the current Zoning Regulations in its current form exposes the Town of Woodstock to significant risk of legal and financial liability;

Whereas, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the Special Permit process within the current Zoning Regulations is insufficient for proper management of commercial and other nonresidential zoning applications;

Whereas, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the problems inherent in the current Zoning Regulations cannot be adequately addressed through further amendment;

Whereas, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission accepted the offer of its member Kenneth Goldsmith to draft new Zoning Regulations that preserve the town’s current zoning plan but provide best practices to address Special Permit, enforcement and other problems as described above;

Whereas; the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission has accepted an initial Draft of said new Zoning Regulations for consideration;

Now, therefore, based on the above factors, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission hereby commits to review the proposed new Draft Zoning Regulations with such review to be consistent with the advice of the Town of Woodstock land use boards; the Town of Woodstock legal counsel; and the advice and interests of all citizens of Woodstock with the objective of adopting new Zoning Regulations that properly address the issues described above.

Article V, Section 3.  Prohibited Uses -   1) Penal institutions;    2) Manufacture of explosive or highly flammable products;    3) Junkyards;   4) Solid, radioactive or hazardous waste.  

Article V, Section 2.  Special Permit Uses -  1) Professional offices;   2) Retail commercial uses;   3) Service establishments;   4) Multi-family residential uses;   5) Houses of worship and related buildings;   6) Commercial recreation facilities;   7) Cemeteries;   8 ) Light industrial/manufacturing uses;   9) Excavation and removal of 1500 cubic yards . . . of earth materials;   10) Horse riding academies;  11) Cottage resorts;  12) Zoos, wildlife sanctuary . . . nature centers;  13) Outdoor Recreational Facilities for Schools and related accessory structures;  14) Higher-density Residential Subdivision.  

Article IV, Section 4.D.  Special Permits Evaluation Criteria - 1) Compliance with Woodstock zoning regulations;  2) Conform to Plan of Conservation/Development & Plan of Open Space/ Conservation;  3) No adverse impact on existing traffic . . . streets adequate for additional traffic . . . no traffic safety problem (e.g., poor sight line);  4) Generate minimal off-site impacts including . . . adverse impacts on property values and the reasonable use, enjoyment and development of properties in the surrounding neighborhood;   5) Adequate landscaping and buffering;    6) No additional storm water runoff or adverse effect on downstream drainage systems, wetlands, watercourses;   7) No adverse effect on ground/surface waters or . . .  drinking water supplies;   8 ) Adequate systems for sewage disposal and water service;   9) Erosion and sedimentation control plan;   10) Unhindered emergency vehicle access;   11) No adverse effect on health and safety of residents or workers.    

Article IV, Section 4.A. Expansions of Special Permit Uses – Any . . . Special Permit Use . . . may be expanded . . .  without the need for a special permit provided the . . . expansion . . . does not exceed 25% of the (remaining) (sic) area of the lot.

Eastford voters say NO to the Town Hall expansion. See the Norwich Bull.

The referendum on the Eastford Town Office Improvement project is scheduled for tomorrow, July 21. The issue on the table is specifically the approval of up to 1.5 million towards the expansion of the Town office building, roughly doubling its space and eliminating a number of problems with the current structure. Unfortunately very few people showed up to the hearing on the plan (2 committee members missing it due to a regular Monday night Poker game). I only counted about 30 people there including the committee members and moderator even though there was seating for well over 100.

The biggest problem seems to center around privacy, where selectman have to share office space with other town officials and there is no way to have a private conversation anywhere inside without locking the exterior doors. Eastford also is debt free at the moment and borrowing some money for this project would be a good move according to accountants. Other issues include humidity free storage for town records, and increased space for public functions. A committee has put together a very detailed plan and are waiting for town approval to put this thing out for bids.

It is likely to be voted down if you listen to the bluster from some town residents who claim that a town office building open only 2 days a week should consider other alternatives (such as opening for 4 days with some officials being there for 2 days only). Read the rest of this entry »

I was amused by the article in the Norwich Bull describing attempts by the Canterbury Selectmen to trim the town operating budget so that they will not have to close down the town. I met Brian Sear last June when he began his successful campaign to become First Selectman in a town where logic defies reason.

Brian is a young, thoughtful, intelligent leader; so Canterbury residents should recognize the importance of their decision to elect him. If you’ve followed the hysterical nonsense that goes on in Canterbury, you would NOT be less frustrated with what goes on in Woodstock; but at least you would realize that it could be much worse. Now Brian probably knows the meaning of ‘you can’t fix stupid’. Eventually he’ll leave public office because he will tire of talking to idiots.

Brian offered to cut the costs of the town transfer station by charging residents $120 who use it, just as we do in Woodstock. It was not mentioned in the Bull article, if he planned to offer a discount to $80 for eldery as we do in Woodstock. He estimated that 700 residences use the transfer station so this annual charge would generate up to $84,000 to off-set the cost of the Transfer Station. If this fee were to be initiated, then non-users would not have to pay for the full cost of the transfer station. Seems reasonal to me.

But shouters at the public budget meeting disrupted the meeting and forced the Selectmen to cut the meeting short before the full list of budget cuts could be determined. The vociferous argument against charging a transfer station fee was something like this: ‘If you charge a fee, residents will simply dump their trash on the roadside.’ Someone ought to tell these idiots that people who throw trash from there cars, will do so anyway. If increased roadside trash can actually be substantiated, then hire a town cop to track down the trashers from their garbage receipts. Read the rest of this entry »

1. Regulation of land use by municipalities in the United States relies on a SIMPLE LEGAL PRINCIPLE which requires creation of “ZONES” allowing different development activities (single family; industrial; retail; recreation; etc.) in the different ZONES. This is why this regulation is called ZONING.

2. Proper, legal ZONING establishes ZONES with RULES that are INTERPRETED AND APPLIED EQUALLY to various development applications by the PZC. In contrast, improper, illegal “SPOT ZONING” is capricious, has no rules, and fosters corruption due to the fact that development potential establishes land values. THIS IS WHY SPOT ZONING IS ILLEGAL.

3. As an analogy, think of PZC as the REFEREE announcing the RULES of the game prior to commencing play and then interpreting the rules as fairly as possible. Now think of the PZC as a REFEREE that commences play and asserts authority to establish the rules as he goes along. The first arrangement provides a sensible basis for playing a game; the latter provides chaos – sound familiar?

4. Woodstock has ONLY ONE ZONE which has ONLY ONE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT – single family homes. ALL COMMERCIAL AND ALL OTHER NON SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT is regulated through the “SPECIAL PERMIT” process. The “SPECIAL PERMIT” process has a few vague standards which are RARELY AND SELECTIVELY enforced. So the SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS IS AN ILLEGAL “SPOT ZONING” legal platform. Therefore, the PZC cannot legally deny any special permit application. Thus the town really has no commercial zoning regulation at all.

Snuffy

Last night’s PZC meeting brought this saying home.

If you’re not a devotee of football, it’s time to appreciate the game. Approval of the Academy’s application for expansion is only one more meeting away. Thank god.

For all those who are wondering how you’ll pay for home heating oil next winter – rest assured, your heady pleasure at Centaur games is planned to make you forget all your worries. PZC has already forgotten any worries regarding this application.
 
The Academy (or really us as their funding source) is about to embark upon a pricey construction project to take place down a slippery slope. Keep in mind that this football stadium will be used no more than 12 times a year. It still isn’t clear if this means that both football and baseball won’t occur more than 12 times a year or those two sports combined with other things like Trustee Coronations or Styx concerts won’t occur more than 12 times a year. Nonetheless, if the Academy spent this type of cash on additional classrooms, science labs or linear feet of sewer pipe – these items would get used . . well, daily not just 12 times a year.
 
But hundreds of thousands of dollars spent is trifling compared to water retention, run-off, sedimentation and erosion control regarding construction on this pesky piece of land. Dutifully, PZC asked Design Professional’s Principle, Semperdom to attend last night’s meeting just to explain a few things. Semperdom naturally didn’t have time to read the minutes of the last meeting in which Marc Goodin presented his pithy concerns over environmental issues. No matter, PZC didn’t really want Semperdom to comment on Goodin’s material anyway. Show biz being show biz — on stage and live at the PZC.
 
Following the completion of this football stadium, I’m planning to request that a marble bust of Syd Blodgett be artfully chiseled and placed within a hanging niche just under the scoreboard. Hopefully, the sculpture along with scoreboard won’t tumble down the hill when the first big rain storm comes along. Blodgett is the only PZC member who actually finds matters of water run-off, suspended solids, and erosion in to wetland etc. really important. But then we do have an applicant who views safe sewering as nonessential to daily life.
 
Dickinson objected to the Portapotties. This brought a murmur from the group. She thinks that potable water, with no toilets, no showers; no First Aid accommodations within a large athletic complex may not meet the Regs for Special Permit due to numbered criterion of “provide adequate sewer.” Anastasi is concerned that a neglect of Health Department approval on their part may give grounds for a successful Appeal from dissenters. A gasp was heard. But, not to worry, Durst ordered the potties up in shades of forest umber as she said, ” they’ll be tastefully camouflaged” in to the forest that will be gone of course. But we’ll have the portapotties instead of trees. And to think, Snuffy believes there is a “build anything anywhere” policy in Woodstock, when we obviously have all the important controls covered. Read the rest of this entry »

“In any other town in CT, this application would never get out of Inland/Wetlands.” See comment 1. Admin

Snuffy,

Your attendance at PZC Regulation Review Subcommittee meetings is relevant because as you attack the work of the PZC through politically oriented arguments about Republicans and state things that you push forward as fact, the reality is that if you attend our PZC meetings, then you will know that the PZC is busy at work looking into commercial zoning regulations and areas in town where commercial growth will be likely to occur. Our recent Subcommittee meeting had as one of its focuses a discussion of commercial zoning regulations, including specific discussions of details. Instead of you attacking the Republicans on the PZC or myself in particular, you will see that I have indeed answered the BIG questions you have been asking about regarding “build anything, anywhere” and commercial zoning.

The PZC, all members, be they Republicans, Democrats, and Independent, are working together in a nonpartisan manner (unlike your own statements) to develop meaningful commercial zoning regulations. Read the rest of this entry »

From Jeff Kellerer: 

Snuffy,

I think the real question ought to be
“What do we need to do in order to get modern zoning regulation in Woodstock?”

Jeff Gordon took the time to reply here. I think that’s a pretty brave political move. Political blogs tend to attack rather than discuss. Political rhetoric and/or partisan based politics tend to make readers dismiss anything they see on web sites.

For example, woodstocktruth.com puts rather mean-spirited attacks on it’s main page. Someone who is inclined to disagree with positions on that site will not read much, and will dismiss anything they see there.

The cafe, on occasion, depending on the current front page articles, can do the same. Just because the truth represents the far right (as far as I can tell), the cafe does not need to represent the far left. If the cafe does represent the far left, then I want no part of it. If the cafe strives to foster intelligent discussion, I’ll keep posting (for better or worse).

If we expect the cafe to be a place to discuss opinions and be a mainstream venue for discussions on town politics and interests, we must discuss thing s in a civil manner. If people who make logical, even-tempered, and well-meaning posts are attacked, then this site loses value.

I support your right to disagree with Jeff Gordon. But attacking him for the lack of zoning regs in Woodstock probably isn’t the most constructive approach.

How about – going to a P&Z meeting and asking what needs to be done in order to move Woodstock’s regs into the 21st century. You could even pose that query here…

Attacking anyone willing to serve as an elected official isn’t likely to accomplish anything worthwhile.

Just my 2 cents.

From Ken Rapoport: 

Snuffy is asking some very direct questions that deserve answers. He might be blunt, direct, and even a little rude but the points seem valid. Read the rest of this entry »

Dr. Gordon -

Your persistent comments related to my attendance at PZC meetings are not relevant, of course. I am not on the PZC – you are. That is why I asked you to address the issue of the town’s commercial zoning.

The Special Permit process has been codified in the Zoning Regulations since 1992. The problem is straightforward and is at the heart of the town’s commercial zoning conundrum.

To state the problem yet again, all commercial development in Woodstock is regulated through the “Special Permit” process. The “Special Permit” standards in the zoning regulations are brief, vague and rarely enforced. So the town has either an illegal “spot zoning” program, or worse, no commercial zoning at all. In either case, the town has virtually no regulation of any commercial development – anywhere in town. You can deny it all you want, but this is, in fact, “Build Anything Anywhere”.

And despite your protestations to the contrary, you have not addressed this critical issue – you have sidestepped and attempted to dismiss the question while attacking the motivations of your questioner, reciting redundant lists of meaningless activities that create the impression of a whirlwind of activity, making personalized inferences, and then continually changing the subject. But you have not answered the basic question posed above. This follows the pattern of the Republican campaign last fall.

Just as one example, I just today re-read the proposed Draft Zoning Regulation changes currently under review – they consist of a lot of minor language adjustments for clarity and consistency that are long overdue. But they do not address ANY issues related to the enormous, gaping hole that exists in the town’s commercial zoning regulations – i.e., there really are none.

Likewise, the Fee Schedule has been kicking around for about four years – I am glad this is settled but this does nothing to address the lack of any meaningful commercial zoning regulations.

It is truly unfortunate that, for all of your prolific writings here and in the Villager, you have no substantive, intelligible response to this basic question. So please, rather than continue to insult everyone’s intelligence, just address this issue for us. I mean you promised to do so in the campaign.

Snuffy

Below are the changes between 2007 and 2008 that occurred in % of 10th grade students meeting No Child Left Behind (NCLB) goal for Math, Sciences, Reading, and Writing.

The additive difference in NCLB % Goal Scores between 2008 and 2007 are shown for the State, Darien, Woodstock Academy and the surrounding towns. Here the differences in all four % goal scores are added together and plotted.