2012 News Flashes

SHARE News Flash - October 12, 2012

SHARE Candidate Questionnaire for

Connecticut House16th District Candidates

With Responses from Charity Folk, John Hampton and Robert Kalechman

"The person who will not stand for somethingwill fall for anything"-Rosa Parks

Dear Ms. Folk, Mr. Hampton and Mr. Kalechman:

As you know, SHARE (Simsbury Homeowners Advocating Responsible Expansion) advocates for responsible economic, environmental and lifestyle friendly expansion of Simsbury and surrounding towns. In turn, we encourage elected officials to represent residents, landowners and business people in a manner that conforms to important land use and economic development plans published by the Town of Simsbury and the State of Connecticut. Documents like the Simsbury Plan of Conservation and Development, the State of Connecticut Plan of Conservation and Development, various Simsbury town design and zoning guidelines, and state and local environmental safety regulations evolve from or result from state laws and regulations as well as the desire and intent and regulations of the Town of Simsbury.

SHARE believes that our state representative and senator must serve Simsbury with keen attention paid to the issues that could impact favorably or unfavorably on the lifestyle, environment and economy that we all treasure in Simsbury. As a result, we have many questions and concerns about how issues at the Connecticut state level are evolving, how they could impact our town and how you, if elected, will represent Simsbury on the issues that SHARE focuses on.

We would like to ask you a series of questions which we are respectfully requesting you to respond to in writing via reply to this email. Feel free to either respond to these questions in a reply to this email or you can cut/paste them into a document and email us the document. Please keep the wording of the questions entirely intact and answer the questions completely in your own words. SHARE will then consolidate all of your responses EXACTLY as you provide them to us and publish the questions and all of your responses in alphabetical order (Folk, Hampton, Kalechman). We will not alter your responses in any way. We will then email the consolidated response document to all SHARE members - about 4000 Simsbury residents and we will post the results to the Simsbury Patch as well.

We ask that you please send us your written responses by 11:59 PM on Monday October 8, 2012 and we will send out the response email shortly afterwards to all SHARE members and we will of course be sure to email you a copy too. If we do not receive your response or you choose not to answer a question, we will publish the other candidates' responses and put "No Response Provided" or another appropriate comment next to your name.

IMPORTANT - Please reply to this email immediately upon receipt to acknowledge that you have received it.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation in this important candidate and campaign information exercise. If you have any questions, feel free to email me.


John Lucker - President of SHARE (on behalf of the SHARE Steering Committee and all SHARE members)


1) On the Town of Simsbury website, it says "While Simsbury has experienced development in the past few decades, the Town government has been sensitive to maintaining the rural environment and historic charm that makes Simsbury the quintessential New England community". Please provide your own written statement about how, if elected and as a fellow Simsbury resident, you will work at the state level to ensure that Simsbury can maintain its desired personality, bucolic environment, quality schools, excellent services, quality infrastructure, safe and clean environment and economic integrity.

Charity Folk:Over the past fifty years Simsbury has been concerned with the same issues. With our high quality volunteer boards and commissions, planning tools such as the Plan of Conservation and Development, Design Guidelines, recent charrette and vigilant residents, Simsbury is far ahead of most towns in maintaining its quality of living. A strong relationship with our State legislators both in the past and in the future will be a part of this equation.

John Hampton:Difficult times call for proven, experienced leadership. And these are difficult times indeed the most recent deficit projected at a staggering $27 million.

Difficult times call for a State Representative ready to go on day one to tackle a multitude of issues and to represent all of Simsbury, not just one constituency.

I am the only candidate in this race with a proven record in government, a proven record of streamlining government, a proven record of cutting budgets, a proven record of fiscal conservatism.

On day one, I am ready to cut spending - I've already done that as a Selectman in Simsbury, voting for zero increase budgets for the last three years without jeopardizing town program and services and Simsbury's quality of life.

On day one, I am ready to address pension reform - I've already done that in advocating for Simsbury to move towards a defined benefit plan.

On day one, I am ready to draft legislation improving the lives of senior citizens--I've already done that in Simsbury, initiating a bi-partisan senior tax relief committee that expanded benefits for the elderly, allowing them to stay in their homes.

On day one, I will be ready to support measures that protect our environment, --I've already done that as the Founder of the Clean Energy Task Force and I am the candidate endorsed by the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters.

We would do well to listen to what economists are recommending. We need to get our fiscal house in order. Stop spending more than we take in. Stop trying to tax our way out of our problems. Start eliminating the waste and downsizing state government. Simsbury can do it, why can't the state?

Robert Kalechman: No Response Provided

2) The Town of Simsbury, like other towns in the state has a Board of Ethics whose mission is to ensure ethical conduct by all town employees and elected and appointed officials. There has been discussion at the state level to create a municipal ethics oversight board. What are your views on this? Why do you think this would be beneficial or not beneficial? Also, there has been discussion at the state level about having ethics concerns/complaints reviewed by ethics boards from another town(s) in addition to the originating town in order to ensure complete independent evaluation and judgment of ethics concerns/complaints. Why do you think this would be beneficial or not beneficial?

Charity Folk:I would not be in favor of another layer of government oversight.

John Hampton:I would strongly support any efforts to enhance ethics in government and would support the creation of a municipal ethics oversight board to serve as another check point to ensure adherence to ethical principles. I do think it is agood idea having ethics concerns/complaints reviewed by ethics boards from another town to ensure complete independent evaluation and an objective viewpoint.

Robert Kalechman: No Response Provided

3) The State of Connecticut has passed numerous land use and environmental and wetlands rules, regulations and statutes that require towns like Simsbury to conduct business in a compliant manner. Over recent years towns like Simsbury have on occasion had lapses in the rigor in which they follow such rules, regulations and statutes - often without penalty from the State. How do you think the state should better monitor, enforce and penalize Towns and Town leadership that do not have complete compliance with such important land use, environmental and wetlands laws?

Charity Folk:The State has adopted "enabling statutes" that provide a broad and flexible authority for our local land use boards and commissions to allow communities to develop as they see fit. I am not in favor of using penalties to gain compliance. I support education as the approach to compliance.

John Hampton:The state needs to step up its monitoring of towns as it relates to wetlands. I will advocate for river front protection, conservation of natural vegetation along rivers and streams, sprawl control and water supply land protection initiatives.

Robert Kalechman: No Response Provided

4) The State of Connecticut is considering S.B. 343 which, interpreting the title and text of the draft bill, would reduce the ability of the public to oppose development applications considered undesirable and/or unfavorable to a town. The bill could subject interveners to unfavorable, legally hostile or punitive actions. Bills like this are called SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) friendly bills. The bill could (a) eliminate the right of a citizen intervener to appeal an undesirable land use decision; (b) require an expensive and cumbersome process for a citizen intervener and make it financially very challenging for a citizen to compete with the deeper pockets of commercial development interests; (c) require citizen interveners to provide extensive information which may not always be possible as the interveners may not have access to some documentation; (d) expose citizen interveners to the possibility of paying the legal costs of developers. In short this potential rollback of the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act could discourage arms length examination by the public of the environmental impact of development proposals. Please provide a detailed response with your views about the pros and/or cons of this potential law. Please also include discussion about how you think passage of this law could favorably or unfavorably effect Simsbury. How would you vote for this law if elected and why?

Charity Folk:I am in favor of accountability when it comes to instituting lawsuits. Our system of government allows for the use of the legal system to achieve redress but I believe it should not be used as a tool to simply stop or stall an unwanted project. The State Supreme Court affirmed that citizen intervenors must produce evidence of a claimed harm.

John Hampton:SB343 is clearly an attack on the landmark Environmental Protection Act of 1971 and would weaken the public's ability to oppose development applications.

I would not support such legislation because of its potential negative impact on the state's natural resources and its lessening of restrictions on developers as it relates to their adherence to environmental guidelines.

Furthermore, I cannot and will not support any efforts to minimize public dialogue and discussion in government.

Robert Kalechman: No Response Provided

5) Several years ago the State of Connecticut approved a land conveyance bill that allowed the Town of Haddam to swap a piece of open space in a land trust for another parcel nearby in order to facilitate a real estate development. This law was passed without a public hearing. Many Connecticut residents view land deeded to a town as permanent open space as needing to remain permanent open space and treated as it was gifted to the state or town - not traded by a town in order to enable economic development. Please explain your views on this issue and how you think it applies to Simsbury. How would you vote on an issue like this one if elected and why?

Charity Folk:Our town's land use boards and commissions must be allowed the flexibility to provide for appropriate growth opportunities. I am a strong supporter of the Simsbury Land Trust and while land swaps should never be taken lightly, I feel that there may be a situation in our town's future where it might make sense. Public hearings and citizen input must always remain part of the process.

John Hampton:I would have opposed the land exchange for the following reasons:

a.) The land was conveyed to the state for the specific purpose of preserving it as open space under the Recreation and Natural Heritage Trust program.

b.) The deed to the property contains specific, statutory findings by the DEP commissioner and plainly states that the property should be maintained as open space.

c.) The public and those who convey land to the state, by sale or donation, to be held as open space have a reasonable expectation that the property will be so held.

d.) The contemplated transfer would set an unfortunate precedent for developers acquiring land to trade for more desirable land held by the state.

Robert Kalechman: No Response Provided

6) There has been much debate at the State and local levels about the need for public hearings and public audience on all land use, economic development and environmental impact issues. However there have been numerous examples throughout the state where the public has not been provided the opportunity to provide its views and opinions on issues and pending matters. This has occurred in Simsbury as well. This has been a widely discussed issue in Simsbury with many residents desiring the requirement of all land use board and commissions to have public audience at every meeting. Please provide your views on these issues at both the state and local level and what you would like to do about the issue if elected as a state legislator.

Charity Folk:I believe that "public audience" is up to each board and commission. When a private citizen is in compliance with our rules and regulations and does not ask to change those rules then I see no need for a "public hearing."

John Hampton:I have been a strong advocate for transparency, openness and honesty in government. I have lamented that fact that some boards in Simsbury continue to not allow public audience at their meetings.

As Selectman, I hold regular office hours to solicit public input and would continue to do so as a state legislator.

At the State Capitol, public hearings are a critical component of the legislative process and I would welcome and encourage Simsbury residents to participate.

Encouraging community and stakeholder collaboration can lead to creative, speedy resolution of development issues and greater community understanding of the importance of good planning and investment.

Robert Kalechman: No Response Provided

7) The State of Connecticut is considering H.B. 5465 - An Act Concerning Stream Channel Encroachment Lines and Permits. Among other concerns, this bill intends to grant automatic approval to all development applications if the CT DEEP cannot render a decision in 90 days. While the DEEP has considerably improved their project review timeframes for permit issuance, the DEEP is also faced with significant budgetary and staffing cuts and the pragmatic reality that sometimes the proper and responsible evaluation of projects require complex research and deliberation which can take more time than the prescribed 90 days. Responsible development advocates like SHARE believe that this bill, as evidenced by those backing it, is potentially a mechanism for developers to gain express approval for projects without full and necessary evaluation of safety issues related to aquifers, waterways, streams, rivers, etc. This draft bill also includes language to repeal the DEEP's authority to "establish stream channel encroachment lines, issue permits for encroachments upon, or regulate uses and activities within them". This essentially would allow developers to develop regardless of the impact of the development on waterways, aquifers, etc. SHARE observed a similar phenomenon in Simsbury when the Zoning Commission recently approved the special exceptions for the Big Y without evaluation of the project impact on the aquifer that lies underneath the proposal's property. As a candidate and if elected, what do you think of issues like the ones surrounding this pending bill, how would you vote for this bill if elected and what would you do to to ensure that development is always done responsibly and with an eye for the safety and integrity of our environment and precious resources like our water?

Charity Folk:I believe that if the State of Connecticut is to remain competitive, the 90 day rule is a good first step.

John Hampton:I would not vote for S.B. 5465. This bill would remove DEEP's critical oversight on stream channel encroachment and puts more emphasis on economic development benefits than it does potential detriments to the environment.

More attention should be given to the impact of proposed activities on the floodplain environment, including wildlife and fisheries habitats, and on flooding and the flood hazards to people and property posed by such activity.

Robert Kalechman: No Response Provided

8) This year the state legislature will be required to vote on the updated State Plan of Conservation and Development. If elected, one of you will have to vote for or against this plan. The draft state Plan of Conservation and Development is in the last days of public review and comment. This is a five year plan for 2013-2018. What are the 3 best features of this plan and why? What are the 3 most problematic features of this plan and why? How do you think the pro and con issues you have identified apply to Simsbury? And how will you vote for this plan assuming the current draft remains essentially unchanged before it comes before you for a vote and why.

Charity Folk:The State's POCD has been available for review and comment to members of the community. As a State Representative I will carefully review the final draft before a vote and would welcome additional comment from Simsbury constituents.

John Hampton:

The three (3) best features of this plan:

a.)The plan attempts to expand housing opportunities and design choices to accommodate a variety of household types and needs.

b.)The plan appropriately focuses on the redevelopment and revitalization of the economic, social, and physical environment of the state's traditional centers of industry and commerce.

c.)The new plan rightly promotes integrated planning across all levels of government to address issues on a statewide, regional and local basis.

The three (3) most problematic features of this plan:

a.)The new plan does not include as many strong policies to protect drinking water watersheds as the last plan.

b.)The new plan does not stress enough the importance of open space as an important part of reducing runoff pollution that can hurt aquatic organisms in rivers and lakes, and in making sure that clean, pure water reaches Long Island Sound to keep beaches safe and our fisheries healthy.

c.)The plan should include detailed and meaningful guidance for transit-oriented development and other "smart growth" principles that will benefit our state by protecting existing open space, reducing vehicle miles traveled (which saves money for residents and cuts pollutant emissions), and encouraging vibrant cities and small towns.

Robert Kalechman: No Response Provided

9) What are 5 ways in which you will advocate for issues that bring appropriate and needed state funds to Simsbury to assist our town with responsible economic development? Please explain each.

Charity Folk:Simsbury is one of the leaders in promoting the HOME CT (incentive housing) program, and is a leader in preserving open space and environmentally important lands.Different State programs that support these efforts financially should continue and I will pursue such funds for Simsbury

John Hampton:As State Representative, I would focus on the following five (5) areas to assist our town with responsible economic development:

a.)Providing a Variety of Transportation Choices:Providing people with more choices in housing, shopping, communities, and transportation is a key aim of smart growth. Communities are seeking a wider range of transportation options in an effort to improve beleaguered current systems. We need to implement new approaches to transportation planning, such as better coordinating land use and transportation; increasing the availability of high-quality transit service; creating redundancy, resiliency and connectivity within their road networks; and ensuring connectivity between pedestrian, bike, transit, and road facilities.

b.)Preserving Open Space & Farmland: Open space preservation. Open space preservation bolsters local economies, preserving critical environmental areas, improving community quality of life, and guiding new growth into existing communities. Protection of open space provides many fiscal benefits, including increasing local property value (thereby increasing property tax bases), providing tourism dollars, and preventing local tax increases (due to the savings from avoided construction of new infrastructure). Supplies of high quality open space also ensure that prime farm and ranch lands are available, prevent flood damage, and contribute to clean drinking water.

c.)Strengthening and Directing Development towards Existing Communities: We should direct development towards existing communities already served by infrastructure, seeking to utilize the resources that existing neighborhoods offer, and conserve open space and irreplaceable natural resources on the urban fringe. Development in existing neighborhoods also represents an approach to growth that can be more cost-effective, and improves quality of life. By encouraging development in existing communities, communities benefit from a stronger tax base, closer proximity of a range of jobs and services, increased efficiency of already-developed land and infrastructure, reduced development pressure in edge areas (preserving more open space), and, in some cases, strengthening rural communities.

d.)Creating Walkable Neighborhoods: We need to create walkable communities. Walkable communities are desirable places to live, work, learn, worship and play are a key component of smart growth. Housing, offices, and retail and services such as transportation, schools, and libraries should be located within an easy and safe walk. Walkable communities make pedestrian activity possible, expanding transportation options, and creating a streetscape for a range of users - pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and drivers. To encourage walkability, communities should mix land uses and build compactly, as well as ensure safe and inviting pedestrian corridors.

e.)Encouraging Community and Stakeholder in Collaborating in Development Decisions: Encouraging community and stakeholder collaboration can lead to creative, speedy resolution of development issues and greater community understanding of the importance of good planning and investment. Involving the community early and often in the planning process vastly improves public support for smart growth and often leads to innovative strategies that fit the unique needs of a particular community.

Robert Kalechman: No Response Provided

10) Please explain in detail your views on how towns like Simsbury can best balance the need for responsible economic development, growth of the tax base and sensible business friendly guidelines with the need to also generate net economic benefit for the Town, control traffic/crime/noise, maintain quality schools, preserve our environmental integrity, and ensure the bucolic nature of Simsbury now and for generations to come.

Charity Folk:The question reveals the best answer.Balance among different interests, growth and preservation is the age-old challenge.Projects will always continue to be in someone's backyard. I believe we can balance these issues and we already have the tools to do so through our laws, regulations and resident boards and commissions as well as professional town staff.Communication, education and compromise have served us well.

John Hampton:Please see answer to question Nine (9).

Robert Kalechman: No Response Provided


EDITOR'S NOTE:SHARE did not receive responses to the individual questions from Candidate Robert Kalechman, but did receive the following email.


To:(redacted personal email address)


Sent:Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:25:40 PM

Subject:Let get the real story out please hold a debate

Mr lucker:

I was always on the right side of Share in her dark hours when the town made the deals in the back room and hope you known this all along Konover and his good old boys and girlsare still around and its as if what ever they touch is against the people of Simsbury after share they took the people of Eno housing for a ride even thought Amos Eno left the land to the public in need so it is the same people who stood against Share are still in the town Government please hold a debate and find out whatI say is true and just were the other candidates the Democrat and Republican stand on these issues let me say it again I stand with you on all the issue's as I have in the pass what better way to say other then in a debate for the State House either wayI pledge you my word thatI will supportThe Share group and their interest

Robert H. Kalechman





SHARE News Flash-February 11, 2012

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever has" - Margaret Mead

It has been some time since we last emailed all SHARE members. We will begin to email you more frequently in 2012 now that many more important land use issues are percolating throughout Simsbury. We ask that you please pay careful attention to these many issues and events and feel free to attend Town meetings and speak out about your points of view (pros, cons, suggestions, comments). It is essential that your voice be heard and our elected officials hear what you have to say and frame their thinking based on the tenets of their Oath of Office - to be your representatives and advocates.

This News Flash is to provide you with a letter sent with nearly 30 resident's signatures to the Simsbury Zoning Commission from a new neighborhood group that is very concerned about the Simsbury Zoning Commission's recent "quick and dirty" preliminary blessing of a proposal for a new gas station on the site of the Pool Barn at 155 Hopmeadow Street across from The Hartford.

You can see the informal presentation by the developer to the Zoning Commission athttp://simsburytv.org/video/5839533. Please notice the enthusiastic support of the gas station by the zoning commissioners despite the many issues outlined in the letter below. The commissioners didn't ask a single question about the environmental or wetlands impact or risks of a gas station at that location. They didn't ask a single question about impacts to neighboring properties. They seemed anxious to facilitate a zone change for the property and they seemed to endorse an outrightfabrication of a mixed use of the property when the developer didn't even seem to envision anything but retail on the site. Also, notice that the commissioners deliberated and discussed the presentation for only 21 minutes and then gave the developer a thumbs up to continue his planning.

You can also see a live presentation for this gas station development if you want at the Simsbury Design Review Board Tuesday February 14th at 5:30 PM in the Main Meeting Room at Simsbury Town Hall.

Your SHARE Steering Committeethinks the discussion in the following letter is very important for all Simsbury residents to see. Because if something like this isn't happening in your neighborhood and endangering your soil or your well water now, the next time it could be you and your neighborhood!

Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors.


Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee


Letter to Simsbury Zoning Commission from Latimer Farms Neighborhood

January 26, 2012

Zoning Commissioners,

We had hoped, and requested, that we be allowed to present these concerns to the Zoning Commission as an agenda item. Our request was denied even though there is no legal reason that we should be barred from addressing the Commission. Please consult the Town Attorney on this matter. Our inclusion is at your discretion. Unfortunately, this letter seems to be the only way that we can be heard on this urgent matter.

At your December 19, 2011 meeting, the Simsbury Zoning Commission heard an "informal" presentation regarding re-development plans for 155 Hopmeadow St. (the Pool Barn). The purpose of the presentation was to give the Zoning Commission a general outline of presenter's plans and to get feedback from the Commission as whether or not he should proceed with a more concrete proposal. One of the key elements of the outline was to build a gas station and convenience store on the site. There was a brief discussion and the presentation ended with the Chairman saying "I have no problem with this" and another commissioner suggesting that the presenter "continue with his study".

Gas stations have long been regarded as one of the lowest forms of development, as well as a major environmental risk their surrounding area. Gas stations at the Stop and Shop location, the Dorsett Crossing site and at the corner of Old Meadow Plain Rd intersection with Route 10 have all been forcefully discouraged by previous Zoning Commissions and therefore never got to the application stage. We hope that you re-consider your support for a gas station at 155 Hopmeadow St. while we are still early in the process and before the land owner invests too much in developing plans.

Some of our objections are:


  • The site in question and the surrounding area have a very high water table. It extends all the way to surface in many areas as evidenced by the standing water in the ditch next to Dunkin Donuts, along the bike path behind the site and on residential lots next to the site. The water table is so high that many of the neighbors have to run their sump pumps 24 hours a day most of the year. A ditch has been dug along the southern side of the site in an attempt to drain it. There has been running water in this ditch for months that travels towards our wells some of which are 500 feet away from the proposed gas station. There is a community well that is 600 feet away that serves several families. The high water table provides an easy "highway" to our wells for runoff from the gas station. The proximity of the wells to the gas station and the high water table create an unacceptable health and safety risk.
  • Gas stations pollute soil and groundwater. A list of contaminated sites from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, dated January 2011, lists these gas stations in Simsbury as having leaking underground storage tanks: 269 Hopmeadow St., the Getty on Rt. 10, 850 Hopmeadow St., 955 Hopmeadow St.,404 Hopmeadow St., and 125 West St. Nearly every gas station in Simsbury.
  • "Groundwater covered by thin porous soil, or soil layers, is most vulnerable to the spread of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's)" VOC's come from gasoline and are associated with central nervous system damage and the development of cancer. (Source: MN Dept of Health). The area around the gas station has a thin layer of soil or none at all.
  • The distance of a well from a gas station is a factor in the risk of contamination. "Many wells contaminated with VOC's are located near commercial areas, gas stations, landfills and railroad tracks." (Source: MN Dept. of Health)
  • We have wells 500 to 600 feet away from the proposed gas station. The Minnesota Department of Health recommends that wells should be routinely tested if they are within 500 to 1000 feet of a gas station.
  • Leaking underground storage tanks are not the main source of contamination. "The main source of concern with respect to underground storage tanks and groundwater contamination are vapor releases from the gasoline and small spills of fuel that routinely occur when fuel is being dispensed to vehicles" (Source: New Hampshire Dept. of Env. Services)


The main function of Zoning is to protect private property values. Economist Dr. Derek Johnson has advised that this type of development lowers non commercial property values like "ripples in a pond" with the greatest devaluation nearest the development.


Simsbury's Zoning Regulations recognize the undesirability of gas stations by severely limiting where they can be built. Article 10, Sec.G entitled Commercial Garages and Service Stations prohibits service stations within 400 feet of playgrounds, churches, hospitals, public libraries or institutions for children. Surely the Synagogue next to this site warrants the same protection as a church. Desirable uses carry no such restrictions.


This site is zoned I1 (light industrial).Permitted uses include office buildings, research labs, warehouses, and the manufacture and processing of goods. With a public hearing, various recreational uses, banks, salesrooms and restaurants are allowed. All of these are preferable to a gas station.


Simsbury has become known for its planning efforts to protect what the Plan of Conservation calls it's "sense of place". We have received recognition for our Charrette and several grants because of our efforts to keep Simsbury an attractive place to live while still promoting intelligent development. Every development that is approved sets the stage for the next application. Attractive ideas go to attractive areas. A gas station is a low rent idea that will attract more low rent ideas. Allowing a gas station sets the bar far too low. This idea is completely inconsistent with the public input obtained at the Charrette.


Gas stations are slowly becoming dinosaurs. In a time not that far away we will see more and more abandoned gas stations as we move away from fossil fuels. We do not need another abandoned gas station on a polluted site. The ARCO station at Bushy Hill Rd and Rt 44 was taken down years ago and the site is still vacant because it is contaminated.

There are 6 other convenience store / gas station combinations within a 2 to 6 minute drive of this site and at least 2 abandoned gas stations in Town. We do not feel that adding another source of pollution, and more competition to other stations in Simsbury creating more abandoned stations, to be in the best long term interests of the Town.

With respect and some sense of urgency, we ask that you reconsider your support for a gas station at 155 Hopmeadow St.

We are alarmed at the proposal to build a gas station on this site. We feel that, had the Zoning Commission been given more information, they would not have endorsed the concept of a gas station as was the case on at the 12/19/11 meeting.


The Latimer Farms Neighborhood

cc: Planning Commission, Conservation Commission, Design Review Board, Board of Selectman

Hit Counter:

Simsbury Homeowners Advocating Responsible Expansion (SHARE) - 2012 - Simsbury, CT - http://www.sharesimsbury.com

EMAIL Us At:sharesimsbury@gmail.com