Can Trumbull be Progressive with a Regressive Regulation?

Can Trumbull be Progressive with a Regressive Regulation?

In the business breakfast a few days ago, the First Selectman Tim Herbst spoke eloquently about his beautiful town and what it offers to residents and developers. He articulated that Trumbull was a business-friendly town and went on to share his progressive vision to welcome new residents, developers and investors.

As we all know, words have no value unless they are matched with actions that are befitting of the message.

Unfortunately - what took place last night at the Planning & Zoning public hearing put cold water over the hot issue of Trumbull development. The commission passed an amendment to fix an omission about lot mergers they did not think through initially when the POOZ-regulation (Article II) was put together and introduced a few years ago.

Not only the limit of 2900SF building size for an over one acre lot regressive, our Atty. John Fallon, argued quite cogently, to show the amendment was confiscatory since it will take away over 2000SF from the size possible with the POOZ-regulation they amended to cover up the initial omission. It is like carrying forward an Error with a regulation that will hurt the town more in its development [and REVENUE] than the previous Error.

Our proposal for the Main Street development project would achieve the following:

1.      A medical building in the fashion of Dr. Patregnalli Building (7500SF) opposite Townhall that has the same zoning as our lot, but with 40% lesser land (0.75 acre versus 1.05acre).

2.      State-of-the-Art building that looks Residential, but embraces - latest designs/materials/equipment/ technologies (including green technologies)

3.      Luscious landscape for both occupants and neighbors since the larger acreage is well suited for it.

4.      Most importantly – 25-30, well paying, local jobs that will increase the Town Revenue many fold than the restrictive amendment.

The P&Z commission decision last night was not wise in our view - such regressive action does not go with the progressive message we heard from the First Selectman a few days ago!