Evelyn O'Connor - Oct. 4, 2006 I hope serious consideration is given to any development to keep Bolton beautiful and not overdeveloped. Many good points by Ed....how many coffee shops and gas stations are needed within such a small radius? Do we want empty vacant businesses left in other areas as a result of a new more properous business starting up? Capitalism at its best can be the demise of already prospering business. We already have two gas stations serving coffee and donuts within less than a 1/2 mile radius! We have witnessed an incredible increase in business development Manchester and South Windsor over the past few years. Perhaps we should talk with these two towns and see if and how it has helped them. I have been told taxes in both these towns have only risen and that the increase in development (incredible amount of "sprawl", if I do say so) has not helped to reduce taxes at all. I do not know this to be a fact, but again hope Bolton will be very careful in how we proceed to try and bring in more revenue. We have many towns in CT that have set the groundwork, so why not utilize them and avoid the same mistakes. Ed Del Signore - Aug. 29, 2006 In order to address the questions raised by this forum it would be advantageous to know the following: 1. What specific properties are possible for development in the near future, say the next five years. 2. Aside from the Cider Mill property which properties are greater than One acre in size and thereby potential sites for large i.e. Big Box developments? 3. What effort and regulations exist or are planned to ensure the desired types of development in the corridor? Having witnessed the terrible developments along RT 44 in W. Hartford and beyond and along many roads in R. I. and some of the more recent good developments at Cape Cod it's my opinion that the Rt 44 corridor in Bolton can be developed without being an eyesore or detraction to Bolton. The effort to accomplish this will require diligence and most likely new and more specific zoning regulations. For example, in my opinion there are enough gas stations along the Bolton RT44 corridor. A new regulation should limit the number of gas stations and repair shops in some manner. Maybe no more than One station every so many miles(?), the existing sites being grandfathered. Another consideration may be to limit the minimum lot size for specific commercial uses to 2 acres. And certainly, as done at the Cape, architectural designs are scrutinized to ensure they conform to the nature of the town. Bolton does not need an endless number of fast food places , more gas stations or the big box chain stores clustered along RT44 or RT 6 for that matter. My thanks to the person who informed me of this forum knowing I would have to to get my two cents in. Keith Allsop - Aug. 15, 2006 Another piece of the puzzle comes into view: http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17052142&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=569422&rfi=6 "...town and school officials say the time is right to start talking about what to do about the growing space needs of both the town and Bolton High School." "Included in the planning would be an analysis of whether the high school should be renovated or a new building constructed..." Keith Allsop - Aug. 1, 2006 The underlying issue with Bolton and many other towns is that the rate of town government spending increases is outpacing the rate of residents wage increases. This is not sustainable. Taking a simple view, we either have to more rapidly increase revenue or cut the rate of spending increases. Adding commercial development will probably add new revenue above and beyond the associated costs, but typically that revenue enables more rapid growth in town spending, rather than reducing the burden on residents. Are there any examples in Connecticut of smaller towns with new commercial growth and small property tax increases? If there is one, how can Bolton clone this example and ensure that local growth is used to relieve the tax burden to residents rather than balloon spending? Year after year of government spending increases that exceed the growth of paychecks tells us that we can't expect any slowdown there, unless it's enforced by legislation. For example, the citizens of Maine are voting in November on a taxpayer bills of rights (TABOR): http://www.taxpayerbillofrights.com/ Summary here: http://www.taxpayerbillofrights.com/taborsummary3.pdf The basic idea is to limit government spending growth to the rate of inflation, and extra revenue is returned to the citizens rather than spent. School spending has additional considerations that are taken into account, such as growth or deline in the number of students. Without these kind of citizen protections, it's unreasonable to expect much to change and we'll be looking at first budgets with near 10% tax increases in every year ahead. TS - July 20, 2006 To Mr. Boltonian--For someone who is against personal, anonymous attacks, you certainly have violated all of your own principles by attacking me using a fictitious name. At any rate, you do not seem to understand that just because someone is an elected official, and volunteers time to the town, this does not exempt his or her decisions from public comment and scrutiny. I still cannot believe or understand why the BOS have chosen now as the time to eliminate our full time town engineer and replace that position with fragmented contracted engineering services and only a part-time planner (this information is from town meeting minutes). Now, more than any other time in the Town's history, is the time that Bolton needs full time professional town management in these areas. Between all the proposed housing developments in town and the push to overly commercialize the Route 6 and Route 44 corridor, now is not the time to be reducing staff in these planning and regulatory areas. This is not an attack on the Selectmen as individuals, but on their decisions. It is a common trick to turn valid criticism of a person's decision into an attack on that person in an effort to somehow belittle the substance of the criticism. Regardless of what anyone may think of the BOS as individuals, which is really not the issue I raise here, their decisions are a matter of public record and are subject to scrutiny. But I think you know this already. By the way, my information on the road crew foreman acting as the town engineer (at present) is correct. This information also came from sources at the town hall. Even if this might be a "temporary measure," how many very important projects are in the works now or will be coming up for approval and monitoring in the near future that our road crew foreman might be asked to oversee? This is very scary to me, does not represent professional town management of growth and development, and does not bode well for this current push to overly commercialize the town. The real issue is not how we should commercialize Bolton, but what is behind this short sighted plan to pave over Northern Bolton for a "quick fix" of tax revenue. The culprit, as we all know, is the current structure and cost of our school system, and how our BOE refuses to look at ways to make our school system more affordable while maintaining its quality. I agree that we cannot look to the State or Federal government for more financial help. That help would only result in higher State or Federal taxes for us all to pay anyway. We must look to ourselves and be creative and innovative. We cannot accept the status quo. We must look beyond the current way of doing business. For example, after watching many Town meetings like yourself and after reading many meeting minutes from our BOE I have yet to see any serious or studied approach to regionalizing the Bolton Schools with any neighboring town like Columbia, Coventry, or Andover (if they could managed to leave the RHAM compact.) Regional school districts work. They add resources, more students (that allow more course offerings and better sports programs) and are cost effective by the sharing of expenses. Many existing regional districts have high-test scores and place children in the top colleges in the country. Regional school districts enable positive changes by sharing resources, sharing responsibilities, and sharing control. Ah, there's the rub, isn't it. If Bolton were to regionalize, the school board would have joint membership from more than one town. Control would still be local, but it would be local control by two or more towns, not just Bolton. I can understand how those currently in control would not want to share their power for to do so would necessitate compromise, negotiation, and sometimes not getting everything they wanted. Well, for the sake of the Town, and in the best educational interests of our children, I think that it is time that our BOE seriously take up the issue of school regionalization. To not do so will result in our current school system just draining the town dry of funds and result in this continued push to overly commercialize Bolton under the false assumption that growth can be "controlled" and that growth will be "cost neutral." Why not put the issue to a town-wide referendum? Let the town's people decide if school regionalization is the way to go. Other options also exist to economize costs within our school system so that this push for commercialization of the Town would not be needed. Our BOE could negotiate more limited growth of salaries to the unionized teachers, and not pay such large salaries to the schools administrators. Did you know that most of the increase in this year's school budget went to pay for the increased costs of salaries for school employees! Even though taxes and went up again this year in Bolton by 4+ %, level funding for the school was not maintained. In layman terms, this means that even though the public approved at referendum a generous tax increase, most of which went to the schools, services for our children will be cut, while at the same time school employees will receive raises. To me, this is an atrocity, and should have resulted in an immediate request by our BOE to ask teachers and administrators to take a pay freeze for one year so that the increase in school funding could have been used for more educational services for our children instead of just salary increases for staff. Regrettably, no such proposal came from our BOE. We all will pay more towards education in town this coming year yet, unbelievably, our children will receive less in educational services. There are ways to economize and reprioritize school costs while also enhancing the educational opportunities for our children. Instead, the BOE drum constantly beats for more money. Without an electorate willing to approve 10% plus tax increases each year, some are now chanting the virtues of added commercial growth and new sources of tax revenues. We must not forget that commercial growth also has costs--environmentally, culturally, and financially. Growth will bring the need for more services like police, fire, building and zoning enforcement, and sanitation. Commercial growth is not cost neutral and will permanently change this community for the worse. How foolish it would be to give up that which is truly unique to Bolton, its beautiful undeveloped land and country atmosphere, because our BOE is not be willing to accept compromise, be financially innovative, look at ways to reprioritize spending the substantial amount of money already dedicated to education in this town, and perhaps even share their control and power over our educational system. Quality schools and a rural Bolton are not mutually exclusive. Paving the town over to support a school system that has outgrown the ability of the residents to pay for is most definitely a lose-lose situation. Just a couple of other responses to Mr. Boltonian's comments: I am aware that the PZC has amended the zoning regs. As far as your statement that these amendments will bring more control to growth, that is a matter of opinion. Just look at the clear cutting on Johnson's Road, the gasoline station that was approved next to the Hop River Brook on Route 44, the metal box building across from Bolton Lake, and the multiple storage rental units that are now eyesores on Route 6 and Route 44. Our scenic vistas are not adequately protected in zoning regulations, nor are our aquifers or watersheds. Zoning regulations also currently allow for higher density housing if "open space" is donated to the Town, even if some of this "open space" is wetlands that could not be built on anyway. Developers get to build more houses and make more money on the land they own, and the Town becomes the proud owner of the swampy wetland--what a deal! The required distance between fast food restaurants and residential zones has also been recently reduced in regulation. And don't forget, even when there are stated zoning requirements, the PZC always has the ability to grant "variances" to the zoning regulations for developers. My fear is that the ease in obtaining a zoning "variance" will be directly related to the amount of tax revenue a project may generate, regardless of how that project will detract from and degrade from Town's environment and quality of life. After all, development is our goal, according to the EDC. If this is controlled growth, we are in big trouble! Also, as you know, most people who live in Bolton do not work in town. Having a "big box" and or large grocery store in Bolton as you suggest will not save Bolton residents gasoline costs as most of us already drive by numerous commercial areas in other towns at least twice a day for our shopping convenience. Unexpected or forgotten items can still always be picked up locally at one of the 4 convenience marts that already exist in town. In terms of your dislike of what you--not me--dubbed a conspiracy theory, you still fail to acknowledge the overlapping membership and perhaps "interests" that do exist on many of our Town boards and commissions. For example, the former head of the PTA is now the Chairperson of the Economic Development Commission. That person's spouse is on the Planning and Zoning Commission and is also Chairperson of the Democratic Town Committee. The Chairperson of the Democratic Town Committee is instrumental in selecting all of that party's candidates for elected office. The spouse of one of our current Selectman was the former President of the PTA. The BOE chairperson's son also serves on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Our Open Space Committee Vice Chairperson is also Chairperson of the Inland Wetlands Commission. All but one of these persons has or has recently had children in our school system. A conspiracy? I think not--overlapping membership and perhaps a bit of a "single-minded purpose"? very likely. Let's try to remember this before we agree with some who claim we must pave over Northern Bolton as the only viable option to funding our schools. And lastly, Mr. Boltonian, in the future please try and take your own advice and refrain from personally attacking those that disagree with you as uniformed, lazy, uninvolved, etc. as you have implied of me because you happen to disagree with my views. You are correct when you say, "Bolton is better than that." Let's try to make it so. Dick Tuthill - July 20, 2006 While I agree with almost everything you said, Phil, I think that if you lecture folks on what or how they write here, you do need to sign your real last name. The accountability thing you know .... That said, Phil is absolutely right about our elected officials. They are all good government types, they work hard and passionately many long hours, and they all are trying to do what they think is right for Bolton. BL - July 20, 2006 I am afraid with development will come crime, public bus routes and we will end up needing a full time police department. Add that to the budget! There has already been numerous break-ins at business on 44. It will only get worse. Development will not keep tax rates in check, spending will just increase. It's not worth it. Phil Boltonian - July 10, 2006 What is most interesting about this Forum is that it is not only a great source of information, it is also a great source for misinformation. It is similar to Wikipedia -- people can post whatever they want and it is taken as true -- without any facts to support the posting. And the postings can be anonymous, so accountability is absent. My sources in town advise me of the following: The postings here on the reasons for the elimination of the town's full time position of Town Engineer/Planner. The BOS had been planning for it for many months (because it was a personnel issue, the discussions were in executive session, the votes were in open session -- I saw them on TV). The position was restructured into two separate positions -- Community Planner and Engineer. Professionals are under contract or consideration for both positions. The road crew foreman was not hired as the Town Engineer. The assumptions made by two Forum submitters (TS and TF) that the BOS did not plan for this is simply wrong and misinformation for the Forum readers. It is unfortunate that they can submit these anonymous harangues without any repercussions. But they are both wrong. I also must comment on TS's conspiracy theories. For him to anonymously accuse our elected officials of not acting on behalf of the town of Bolton's citizens' best interests is really shameful. Thankfully our elected officials are ELECTED by a majority of registered voters to represent all of the townspeople not any one person or faction. TS may not be happy with everything our elceted officials do, but atleast that are taking the time out of their busy schedules to do something for our beautiful town. Next May, TS can posit his concerns to the candidates for election. He/she can attend the Republican or Democratic Town Committee meetings and various election debates to ask questions of the candidates in person. TS can even run for office if he/she has a vision for Bolton that he/she does not think is being advanced! In response to the substance of TS's two postings that we should not develop the Route 44/6 corridor, I disagree. We can no longer rely on property taxes and state money to pay for all of Bolton's services. The reliance on property taxes is unfair and regressive; the reliance on the State is pure folly since the large cities receive a disproportionate amount of funding. Some reasonable, regulated and appropriately designed commercial development along the Route 44/6 corridor is necessary. I agree that we do not want a Berlin Tpke. or "Simsbury/Avon Rt. 44." But I am not aware of any elected official who thinks that we should have that type of development. (And we could help save on gasoline by not having to drive to Manchester or Vernon for groceries). TS may not know this (because he/she probably does not attend the numerous public meetings and leaves it up to our entrusted officials to do their jobs) but the PZC amended the town's regulations in order to be able to regulate the development along the Rt. 44/6 corridor. It took about 3 years to complete the amendments. They were put in place before the sewers were voted upon. More regulations are now being considered. These amended regulations give the PZC much control over commercial development in town. If we do not permit some reasonable, regulated and appropriately designed commercial development along the Route 44/6 corridor, we will continue to have the annual budget debates that have become necessary. (The debates are necessary not because the BOE is doing something wrong with our money, but because the BOE does not have enough money to maintain the schools as it sees fit. This pressure is understandable, and those people who do not want any increase in spending have a right to argue that the BOE should not increase spending. And vice versa.) That is because increases in expenses, inflation and lack of increases in funding are all putting negative pressure on our town's finances and the only source of revenue is property taxes. We obviously cannot sustain the necessary increased taxes and need revenue sources to offset the increased expenses. Reasonable, regulated and appropriately designed commercial development along the Route 44/6 corridor is one solution (as is taking in High School kids from Columbia). All people have the right to post here, but making assumptions without checking the facts -- and positing negative conspiracy theories -- is not positive for our community. It makes us look petty to the rest of the world. Bolton is better than that. While we have a healthy debate on these important issues, let's check the facts before we post on this Forum (anonymously or otherwise) and avoid the negative attacks on our elected officials. TS - July 10, 2006 Bolton's alledged attempts to "plan growth" is becoming even more unbelievable! Our BOS have decided to eliminate the full time position of Town Engineer/Planner and replace that person with a "consultant engineer" to essentially do piece work, and a "part-time" planner. Consultant engineers may be different people at different times and are not solely dedicated to the projects in town. This will result in a lack of continutity, quality, and uniformity in the work they perform. With sewers coming, along with a big EDC inititive to comercially develope Bolton, it is also the absolute worst time to reduce the services of a professional Town Planner from full-time to part-time!! Will our road crew foreman be the consultant engineer, or the part-time planner? What was our BOS thinking when they decided to reduce town enginering and planing services at this time of Bolton's development? Is there simply not enough money for the Town to pay for these needed full-time services because the costs of our school system is so expensive? Or is the plan to bring uncontrolled commercial growth to Bolton already a done deal? If one didn't know better, you might think, somehow, there was a link between the BOS, BOE, and EDC. You know, different groups, all with alledge different missions, but with overlapping membership and truely one agreed to cause. You know, something like:
we can't tax the home owners more, so we must have more comercial development, so we revitalize the EDC and apply for grants to sell the town on growth, and we lobby the town to approve the sewers to make high density and commercial development possible, and then eliminate the town's ability to regulate and control growth by going to a consultant piece work system for Town Engineer and a part-time planner, one of which might double as the road crew foreman. No, never mind, that could never ever happen in Bolton. PS: To all developers, come on down. All bulldozers, commercial developments, and parking lots welcome--as long as they "look nice" from the road. TF - July 10, 2006 Here is yet another reason why comercial growth in Bolton is headed in a dangerous direction. I just learned that Bolton's Certified Town Engineer who is responsible for all land use and building plans in town (as well as all land use planning) is no longer employed by the Town because of "budget issues." His replacement is the foreman of our road crew, someone without the required certifications or educational credentials to properly perform the job of Town Engineer. How can anyone claim that Bolton is serious about "Smart Growth," "Planned Development," or maintaining the "character of the Town" during this push to overly develope Bolton when our road crew foreman will be leading the town's planning and regulatory efforts in this area? And why weren't there enough town funds to keep our previous Town Engineer employed or hire a qualifed replacement? Could the salaries we pay to our school teachers and administrators have something to do with this? Is anyone from our BOE listening? Cheryl - July 4, 2006 I'm new to this type of forum. guess it's like blogging, you get to type your opinions and have others either agree or tear you shreds! I've been in the town of Bolton over 30 years and it seems that the issues haven't changed all that much, how to help relieve the tax burden from the home/land owner? bring in business. but what type would be right for Bolton? right now we are a nice quiet suburb that is getting to be more and more like west of the river! is that the direction we want to go? more like Simsbury, Avon, Farmington? That's not why I moved here, I grew up in Lebanon, a very nice quiet, farming town. Maybe we can talk to the officials in other towns to get information regarding their take on zoning and tax breaks - maybe there are none, but maybe there are. We need not reinvent the wheel, we can can duplicate what works and not sucked up into things that don't work. I would like to see small, rustic looking buildings with modern stores in them, sort of like the Mystic Village shops? parking in the back away from Rte 44. A bakery would be nice, not a Dunkin Donuts, but a real bakery. I'm one of those people that live off rt 44 and right now it can take me 5 minutes to get out of my street onto rt 44 on any given Monday thru Friday, albeit during the morning hours. Ask any of the Bolton Volunteer Fire people how many traffic accidents happen on Rte 44 by South Road. You'll be surprised at the amount. What amount of traffic would be added with the development of rte 44? I'm think lots more! Tom Galeota - June 30, 2006 There are excellent points made by all. In my humble opinion the root of the problem (or solution) is zoning. If a piece of property is zoned "commercial" it is obviously worth more than if it were zoned "residential". So, how do you convince the property owner with that commercial property that you are going to change the zone because you don't want commercial development there any more. It's their legal right to develop it in accordance with the law (zoning map and regulations). Maybe the zone can be changed with just compensation, I don't know. But alas, this is where a town planner comes in handy. Our town engineer is also the town planner and also does 10 other things in town. And it is my understanding that the hours of the town engineer position are being cut and made into a part time position. Growth will happen. The question is with how much control will be placed on it. Our "controls" hours were just reduced. Uh oh! Eileen Stanley - June 30, 2006 Well, what can we do to manage the growth along the Route 44/6 corridor? Rewrite the Planning and Zoning regulations? What would that entail and when could we start? It would be great to hear from a town official and/or lawyer to explain to us what our options are. I once had someone explain to me, very convincingly, why the only kind of development that would help with our tax base is a big "box store," like WalMart, for example. And I think I can safely say that the majority of Bolton residents would not want that kind of development. (I don't suppose a retailer of that size would be attracted to this area, anyway). Apparently we can't expect small businesses, no matter how many, to make a favorable impact on our taxes. What I think would be nice are the kinds of businesses that would enhance our quality of life. And yes, I think a cafe would be great. Just think, a friendly place where you could stop in for some quick refreshment and chat with your neighbors. And I still think a natural foods store would be welcome by many, if we could attract one to the area. I've certainly read about towns that control their development, right down to the design of the buildings and the size of the signage. Does the area have to be a designated historic district? Is that what makes the legal difference? Is there some other designation we could declare to protect the area? Let's hear from someone who knows the legalities of this issue. Dick Tuthill - June 30, 2006
Excellent point. Anonymous said it much better than I did, but this is exactly why I was amused at the direction of this thread. We do not have much control. Anonymous - June 29, 2006 To Mr. Pelletier: Branding someone as against change isn't the point and diverts the argument from the real issue. The real issue is what this drive to overly commercialize Bolton will cost in terms of changing our community, changing our environment, and changing the future for our children. Yes, a Trader Joe's, or Dunkin Donuts, or another Quick Mart built on the site of the former Bolton Cider Mill will bring more crime, traffic, noise and pollution than the former Cider Mill did. The former Cider Mill was not even open year round, and took up only one little corner of that entire parcel, which now is heavily wooded. The former Cider Mill was nothing compared to the full blown development that is being proposed for this entire multi-acre site. Also, did you know that this entire project falls within the Manchester Water Department watershed for both its drinking water well and resevoir system? What would be your reaction if a new commercial development was being built right next to your well with parking lot runnoff full of gasoline and oil flowing onto your land where your well was located? Again, it's quite easy to be in favor of commercial developement when it will not be in your neighborhood or near your drinking water supply. Even if Trader Joe's is a classy grocery store (although I hear extreemly overpriced), people will still get there by car, park outside, and drip oil and gas onto the pavement that will run off into the Manchester Drinking Water System watershed. Don't worry, I'm sure Trader's Joe will also be selling at least 20 or 30 types of bottled water at a couple of dollars a pop to quench your thirst. Is that the type of change--in the name of "progress"--that we really want? I'd much rather look out my window, see and smell the Pine and Oak trees on the Cider Mill property (instead of pavement, exhaust, cars, and a neon Trader's Joe sign) and get a nice glass of clean drinking water out of my own tap. Call me old fashion, but I think I can live quite well without a Trader Joe's in my life. PS: For those who think they can "control" commercial growth in Bolton and only allow "certain types" of non-chain "acceptable" and "nice" commercial development to be built in town--beware. In the eyes of the law (and the Planning and Zoning regulations) commercial development is commercial development. It would be discrimnatory for the Bolton Planning and Zoning Commission to deny permission to any legitimate business to build in Bolton based on if the store was part of a chain, or some other subjective esthetic characteristic. (This only worked on the Rt. 85 storage shed project because the town was the owner of the land and some from the public forced the issue at a town vote.) When it comes to privately owned land, building application denials from the Planing and Zoning Commission cannot be based on arbitrary or capricious "esthetic" considerations--unless you want to spend lots of tax money on lawyer's costs when those who were denied sue the Town in court. The only true way to control commercial growth is to limit it from the beginning by doing such things as restircting the acerage of your commercial zone, protecting scenic ridges, watersheds, and aquifers by having large setbacks and buffer zones. Bolton has not done this and, in fact, seems intent on doing the opposite to raise some quick tax revenue. Let's not allow the drive from more tax revenue (primarily for our schools) change our town forever. I would much rather have my child grow up in a rural country atmosphere than have a McDonald's nearby that he could walk or bike to. Perhaps if the next school teacher's and admistrators salary contracts were held to a 1% raise, we could all still look out of our windows at night and see the stars instead of the glow from the "Golden Arches." Is anyone from our BOE listening? John Pelletier - June 28, 2006 TS obviously doesn't want change but how is a Trader Joe's any worse than a dilapidated old cider mill barn? I don't think the crime rate in town will rise due to a Trader Joe's coming to town. In fact, I think there was more problems with vandalism at the old cider mill before it was torn down, than would ever occur with a Trader Joe's. I think change (developement) is okay as long as certain standards are met. Like I originally stated, business/light industrials that return a positive net revenue is what we should be looking to attract to even out/supplement the tax base. Dick Tuthill - June 22, 2006 This topic is just too juicy to stay away from. Thanks to Dave Loda for pointing it out to me. (I think that he was specifically sent by the EDC knowing full well that I would try to stir the pot:-):-) Let me see ... gotta get the scorecard out to keep track. Whole Paycheck and Trader Joe's are good. Starbucks and Chili's are bad. We want Routes 44 and 6 to look like the center of what ... Glastonbury, or is it Simsbury or Farmington? So we think that by installing sewers that we will go from a situation where beggars can't be choosers (today) to having having to beat the developers off with a stick and we will stand on the barricades to prevent anything from going in along those routes unless it has been vetted by the Taste Police? I guess that I am mildly amused. I do understand the concern, though. I was out in the Midwest last week and every time that I have been to a small to medium sized midwest town recently I am amazed at how californicated it is. One actually shudders at the Terre Haute's and the Evansvilles of the world. The Madison's are few and far between, and even they have large sections with tasteless commercial development. So I do understand. We don't want that here. I also understand the concern of those who live along the 44/6 corridor. But two points do need to be made. If not commercial development there, then where? And lastly, that corridor has been identified as having the highest potential for commercial development for several decades now. Concern about the possibility of commercial development along 44/6 would have been more timely in the 60's and 70's than now. Quite frankly I do not have any answers. But I do think that while we will be able to shape development in indirect ways, we will not be able to control it in the absolute sense. Thus I suspect that the 44/6 corridor will develop in ways that some will find convenient and value-added and others will find alarming. It should be interesting. Robert Johnson - June 22, 2006 At this time, I would not be either against nor for development of the corridors as there are no specific proposals to formulate an opinion on - at least that I know of. However, I do believe any property owner has the right to improve their property per existing law, as they desire and which does not adversely affect their neighbors (foreshadowing...). I, and I am sure a few of my neighbors would likely support and "happily" serve on a citizen development concept committee. And, yes I do understand how heated such a discussion could become. It seems to me a number of people would like to see an increase in business in Town and I understand why. The problem I have with it, it often seems to be based on "as long as it isn't next door to me". That's the crunch - treating you neighbors as if they were yourself. The second part is, how far down the road will the "look" be preserved. My experience in building indicates, if there is a hole in the development plan someone will find it and crack it wide open for a short term benefit that hurts others later... The importance of retaining a country town charm in the face of aggressive urban sprawl as it advances from the West is very important to me. Bolton seems to be holding the strategic if not the tactical and even physical line - under economic pressures this is a dangerous position always pushing for developmental compromise. Compromise is not always good. Many times it reduces something very good to something just marginal. Any changes in look and feel, from the simple stop light (I take daily pleasure in not having to confront one after another, after another as is the case in Vernon or Manchester) or the choice between building a pre-fab commercially constructed building compared to one that looks as if it was built in "1776" can effect a major change on what is already a beautiful town to live in. I'd like to keep it that way - so would my kids. Polly Silva - June 20, 2006 I agree with the goal of smaller local and regional businesses will fit in best with Bolton in both size and spirit. For retail establishments and professional services: Selected carefully, this could benefit the local community in several ways: Has Bolton created a general short- and long-term strategic plan (developed by the community as a whole) that would incorporate the needs and desires of all groups? There are always trade-offs to be made among many desirable goals. A grassroots strategic plan for Bolton would could help guide the route 6/44 planning process. Kurt Jagielow - June 20, 2006 While I wouldn't mind having some small businesses in town that I would be able to walk to, it would be terrible if Bolton had the same chain stores/restaurants that every other town has. If someone wants a coffee, they can go to one of the eight Dunkin Donuts or four Starbucks in Manchester, or to the Dunkin Donuts in Coventry on Rt. 44. One of these stores or any fast food restaurant would be an unsightly blemish in our town. As a small New England town, we should work to keep national chains out and support smaller local and regional businesses. Kevin's Coffee is a good alternative to the corporate chains, and I know the Hosmer Soda Shack is looking for a new location... A Trader Joe's or Whole Foods could be a good plan for the old Cider Mill property. They sell good, fresh foods, and tend to be smaller than supermarkets such as Big Y and Super Stop & Shop. They also support smaller farms and treat their workers well. Laura S - June 20, 2006 In brief....I couldn't have said it better myself, TS!! (6/16/06). I fully support a "Save Our Beautiful Bolton" for the 6 & 44 areas. Where do I sign up? (I come from one of the "quieter streets") Whether we get new business or not, our taxes will continue to go up and up and up, so why not preserve the Bolton we came to love and let well-enough alone? TS - June 16, 2006 I am very concerned about the movement afoot in town to overly commercialize Bolton in the Route 6 and Route 44 area, all to raise some quick (albeit short-sighted) tax revenue. I am also very concerned that many of the individuals pushing for this commercialization do not even live in the Route 6 and Route 44 area. I think it is very disingenuous for these individuals to claim that commercial development will be good for Bolton, when they may be tucked away on one of Bolton's quieter streets in such areas as Birch Mountain, Tinker Pond, Shoddy Mill or off of Hebron Road and will not have to directly deal with the noise, pollution, increase traffic, and crime that commercial development will bring. It is very easy to be in favor of commercial development when it is not going to be "in your backyard." But what about the Bolton families and children who already live directly on Route 6, Route 44, or in nearby neighborhoods? Why should these residents have to bear the brunt of the esthetic and environmental costs of commercializing their neighborhoods because others who do not live near this area think they see a "pot of gold" waiting to be had through increased tax revenue that growth may or may not bring? A short time ago in town, there was much public outcry regarding a proposed rental storage facility to be built next to Tessier's Nursery on Route 85 in a commercially zoned area of town. A group was formed called "Save Our Beautiful Bolton" that even created a web site that criticized the building of this storage facility for a number of reasons. The group claimed that such a facility could be used to illegally house and store toxic chemicals that could leak and possibly pollute the nearby groundwater. There were fears raised that this type of business would bring increased crime. There was even great concern raised that this storage facility, located on one of the "gateways of Bolton" (namely Rt.85) would be an unsightly eyesore and ruin the town's quaint New England image. Eventually, the project was defeated. What was built instead was a beautiful colonial house that is actually a business for a local colonial shed builder. All is well, Our Beautiful Bolton was Saved! Interestingly enough, at the same time some were trying to "save" one part of Bolton (the part closer to those quieter neighborhoods mentioned above) the Route 6 and Route 44 areas were being pillaged. Although rental storage facilities were unthinkable on Rt 85, two were approved with little fanfare in the Route 6 and Route 44 area as well as a gas station and an industrial metal box building. One of the rental storage buildings was built directly across from a vital wetland for the Hop River, the other was placed in historic Bolton Notch right behind an historic colonial house. The metal box storage building is now located directly across from Bolton Lake, and the gas station was opened right next to a high water quality class A tributary to the Hop River. Bolton's Planning and Zoning Board as well as Inland Wetlands Commission has also approved the clear cutting of a large area of trees directly in front of Johnson's Boy Scout Camp next to Route 6 in preparation of even more development. Johnson Road, which used to be a secluded and buffeted area with large growth trees now looks like a bomb has been exploded next to it. Johnson Road is also directly across for a very important wetland area for the Hop River--so much for protecting Northern Bolton's drinking water and esthetic gateways! The hypocritical and lopsided logic of development in Bolton has me gravely worried and concerned about its soundness and the claims by those on the Economic Development Commission that growth will be planned and will not overly commercialize and ruin the town. Actions speak louder than words. What has already happened in the Route 6 and Route 44 area has not been planned or reasoned, and has been especially unfair to those who live in Northern Bolton. I know there are some in town who are chomping at the bit to bring in more business under the belief that the added tax revenue will solve our budget difficulties and bring increased revenue for our ever-growing school costs. But, as we all know, growth only brings more growth, more people, and the need for more services. Manchester is a prime example. Taxes have not decreased in Manchester in spite of the unprecedented commercial growth in Buckland. However, Manchester's quality of life has declined because of the added traffic, pollution, and crime that commercialization has brought. So, to specifically answer the question asked in this forum about what kind of development I wish to see in the Route 6 and Route 44 area of Bolton: I do not want to see a Dunkin Donuts. I would, however, like to see trees replanted in front of Johnson's Boy Scout Camp. Most importantly, I would like to see the Board of Selectman immediately create a Citizen's Review Board exclusively made up of residents that live on Route 6 and Route 44 or in adjacent neighborhoods. This review board would should be given review and approval authority over any further development in Northern Bolton, especially any development planned by the Economic Development Commission. Zoning in the Route 6 and Route 44 corridor should immediately be changed to limit commercial growth, especially within the Hop River and Bolton Lake watersheds. It is clear that those supporting more and more growth are trying to steer Northern Bolton down a path of over commercialization. I fear that in their zealousness, the quality of live and environmental health of our town, families and children, especially those living in Northern Bolton, will suffer. Let's not let the quest by some for added tax revenue (primarily for our schools) ruin our beautiful town forever. Let's all try to remember that we can have quality schools in town without Dunkin Donuts wrappers blowing through our playgrounds. Tom Galeota - June 13, 2006 It appears the Town could use a mint to print money but in the absence of that, a Dunkin Donuts is just one of several business's that would fit. Each would do a market analysis to see if we "fit" them. I don't believe the Town meets Starbucks minimum population criteria, but maybe so. With whatever might be located along this corridor I trust the planning and zoning regulations are up to the task with respect to architectural integrity, sufficient landscape requirements, site lighting, stormwater treatment, etc. You may have noticed there are significant aesthetic differences in the Buckland Hills area between stores in Manchester and those right next to them in South Windsor. This didn't happen by accident. What any development looks like is up to the Town or the developer, depending on how the regulations are written. Leaving it up to the latter usually does not work out well for the Town, works out great for the developer. MELISSA RILEY - June 13, 2006 I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A TRADER JOES. I HAVE HEARD IT IS A FANTASTIC STORE, BUT THERE ARE CURRENTLY NONE WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY. ALSO IF THAT ISN'T GOOD SOME TYPE OF RESTAURANT/DELI WITH QUICK, CONVENIENT, HEALTHY FOODS CLOSE BY 384/44 WOULD BE NICE. I DON'T LIKE DUNKIN DONUTS THEY ARE TOO COMMERCIAL, HIGHLY PRICED AND NOT WHERE I WOULD SIT TO RELAX ON A WORK LUNCH BREAK AND BE FULFILLED. John Pelletier - June 12, 2006 I'm in agreement with Eileen. A Trader Joe's would be a very nice store to have in town. They seem like a first class act. Also, as part of the STEAP grant, will studies been done to see which businesses/light industrials provide the most tax revenue for the town vs. the services they might utilize, i.e. generating the most positive net revenue to the town. To me that's one of the very important parts of the development equation that we should be considering when investigating the development possibilities of route 44/6 cooridor. Eileen Stanley - June 12, 2006 I was very excited a couple of years ago when there was talk about a Trader Joe's market (natural foods) on the old Cider Mill property. I would welcome this kind of development. Also, although I know there seems to be outrage every time the name "Dunkin Donuts" comes up, I'd be happy to see one here (or better yet a Starbucks!).
| Home | Directories | Calendar | Government | Civic Groups | Recreation | Created and Maintained by: Eileen G. Stanley | |||||
