Woodstock CT Café

What sort of jurisdiction does P&Z have with regard to funding? Can P&Z require a surety bond in order to guarantee proper completion of the project? Such a bond would seem to require a budget for the project in order to come up with a reasonable amount for that bond. JK

October 15, 2008
Dr. Gail Dickinson
Chair, Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission
415 Route 169
Woodstock, CT 06281         

Dear Chairman Dickinson and Commissioners, 

Thank you for your service on this commission, and for your efforts in support of your mission “to manage development in a responsible manner in order to protect the public health and safety of the town’s citizens, as well as the environment, natural resources and character of the Town, and to further the goals of the Woodstock Plan of Conservation and Development.” 

For the record, I speak as a private citizen, not as a member of WBOE. Also, for the record, as I have stated publicly in the past, I endorse athletics as part of a balanced program for students’ whole development. I support athletic field expansion for Academy students, in concept, IF pursued in a manner which (1) is financially and environmentally responsible, (2) does not displace funding for academic priorities at the Academy or in the K- 8 system, (3) reflects restraint and good judgment by developing only those fields/facilities providing capacity which cannot otherwise be met in existing fields or other community fields, (4) is appropriate in scale to its surroundings, and (5) does not otherwise materially adversely impact its surroundings. 

With regard to your consideration of the proposed Bentley complex expansion, and in furtherance of your mission and of the 11 criteria required for a Special Use Permit, I respectfully request the following: 

1. All materials relating to the prior application be carried over and entered as part of the record for this current application, including my letters submitted to PZC dated May 12, 2008 (concerning the costs, funding, and impact on tuition and Woodstock’s taxpayers) and June 17, 2008 (concerning conditions to reduce negative impacts on the historic district and the town of Woodstock as a whole). These letters are attached.  

2. All Condition for Approval, as submitted in draft form by Syd Blodgett on July 17, 2008, and as submitted in draft form by Jeff Gordon on August 12, 2008, be given careful consideration and adopted as Conditions for Approval of the application. These documents are attached. 

Read the rest of this entry »

The following list is a draft of conditions by Syd Blodgett (PZC member) submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the Commission’s consideration of the Academy application for expansion of their athletic fields. In the memo to the Trustees from Headmaster Foye (below), referring to these conditions Mr. Foye makes the following statement “There were a number of criteria that the interveners brought forward which were discussed by the Commission, and were not accepted by the Commission.” Since Mr. Blodgett is a member of PZC, should he, or any other member of PZC, be considered an “intervener”? The Cafe believes that Jeff Gordon has also submitted draft conditions but the Cafe does not have that draft. This draft has been FAXed to “John G” presumably at CME for review. Delia Fey says in an attached note that she will also be reviewing Mr. Blodgett’s draft of conditions.

All three legal Intervenors receive all information regarding this application.

Read the rest of this entry »

Both Syd Blodgett and Jeff Gordon are elected, seated members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Yet Headmaster Foye, in his memo to the Trustees below, seems to refer to these two Commission members as “intervenors”.

I attended the PZC meeting. Several people opposed to the athletic field plan were there. I saw a couple of Academy trustees too. I’m not a lawyer, but when it was pointed out the wording that began the special permit section that requires all zoning rules must be met in order to approve a special permit, then I understand why the PZC voted to deny the plan if the athletic field frontage on a road is not in agreement with the zoning rules. They used the term “without prejudice” when denying the plan. I heard a couple of PZC members ask if it were O.K. to require the minimum frontage to be met as a condition of approval, but the zoning rules don’t allow an application to be made to comply with the rules as a condition of approval if the application doesn’t already meet the rules beforehand.

The town planner distributed copies of conditions of approval from several sources. One was what Blodgett wrote. Another was what Gordon wrote. Blodgett’s copy is written in the post above. Gordon’s is copied below word for word from an eletronic version sent to the town planner. Parts of it have italics, but I can’t make italics on this blog. I’m trying to get the electronic version of what the town planner wrote to the PZC that night. Anyone have a copy?

*****
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL JEFFREY A. GORDON, M.D.
THIS IS A DRAFT VERSION ONLY AUGUST 12TH, 2008

This is a list of some of the Conditions of Approval that I have written down during the course of the PZC discussions on #SP577-08-02 Woodstock Academy Athletic Field. This is not intended to be an all inclusive list. This list having been prepared by me does not indicate any approval or disapproval of any item or part thereof on this list by me. This is meant to be a draft version only for the purposes of discussion. The following items are listed in no particular order.

1. Additional measures may be required during construction as required by the Town of Woodstock, CT. This is something repeated throughout Design Professionals letters.

2. The use of town constables shall be required to direct traffic into and out of the athletic complex whenever a single large sports or other event is held, or more than one sports or other event is held at the same time. Appropriate traffic control management shall be provided on-site by town constables and/or WA staff, as determined by the Town Constable, in order to maintain designated flow of traffic, proper access for any emergency/safety vehicles, and availability of handicap parking spots. Will need to better define what “large” means regarding events.
Read the rest of this entry »