For the past few weeks there has been a lot of discussion regarding the proposed purchase of 101 acres of land up on Park Rd by the City of Waterbury. The land is currently owned by Mr. Norman Drubner, who is hoping to develop the land by putting approximately 500 condominiums on the property.
The local Neighborhood Association has been fighting this development for several months, and the Zoning Commission has a meeting on Wednesday (9/23) to discuss changing the zoning of the property so that only single family houses can be built there.
A few weeks ago Mr. Drubner offered to sell the 101 acre parcel to the city for a cost of $1.75 Million. The Mayor supported the idea, but the sale was contingent on the city dropping to proposed zoning change, and not putting any restrictions on the future use of the land. When the land was appraised, it was given a value of over $4 Million, but this was assuming the proposed development of the land proceeding as Mr. Drubner originally intended.
When the issue came before the Board of Aldermen two weeks ago it got a lot of attention, and became stalled in committee. Since then Mr. Drubner has pulled his sale offer to the city, and announced that he is going to continue working to get his original development plans approved.
With these recent developments I decided to weigh in on the issue, so I sent the following letter to the Waterbury Zoning Commission for their meeting on Wednesday.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Zoning Commission:
I wish to express my support for the zoning change of the 101.6 acres on Park Road from a designation of RM, to a designation of RS-12. As a lifelong resident of the City of Waterbury, I feel that this change will be in the best interests of all involved.
When the city decided to impose a moratorium on high-density developments over 1 year ago, there were several different reasons behind the city’s decision. These arguments included a desire to protect the integrity of our neighborhoods, a need for time to implement the changes recommended by the City’s Plan of Conservation and Development, and the conditions of the housing market providing the city with a glut of condominiums that were remaining available for considerable stretches of time. In the 18 months since the moratorium was imposed, none of these arguments against high-density developments have changed; in fact they have been strengthened.
I find it difficult to believe that any developer would be successful in quickly selling hundreds of new condominiums in this economy, with the large number of options already available to potential customers. I also feel that the surrounding community would not be well served by such a large addition of houses and residents to its infrastructure. While I am aware that there are several condominium developments already in the vicinity of this property, that is not justification enough to add another such development.
Furthermore, the attitude of the developer to the community leaves something to be desired. While it was noble that Mr. Drubner was willing to consider “gifting” the property to the city, his gesture rang hollow. The fact that the asking price could only be considered a gift if the property was appraised on what could be developed in the future, made the offer appear insincere, whatever Mr. Drubner’s intentions may have truly been. This, combined with a determination to have the proposed zoning change dropped, caused many residents to question Mr. Drubner’s motives. If Mr. Drubner truly wanted to work with the residents of the community, he would not be advocating against a zoning change that seems to blend with the needs and desires of the community.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate my support for the proposed zoning change before this commission. By returning this property to a zoning conducive to single family housing, the city is not only reaffirming its commitment to the ideals of the 2005 Plan of Conservation and Development, it is also showing its support to the residents of the city who have fought with such determination against an unnecessary development. When you consider the conditions of the housing market, the desires of the community, and the goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development, the choice seems clear. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
As always, I appreciate your feedback.
