CtPost Dec17 Buddington Road, Former UI land, Blakeman proposal

The CtPost had an article regarding the proposal by Blakeman Construction to the City that deserves follow up and comment.

The CtPost does not maintain continuous links with their online articles, so I cut/paste and comment (my comments within text begin with ** and are colored red):
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4850676


Land sale would block new subdivision plan
KATE RAMUNNI, Correspondent
Article Last Updated:12/16/2006 12:54:23 AM EST

SHELTON — The city is forgoing almost $750,000 by purchasing land on Buddington Road, a prominent developer and owner of the adjacent property said. Monty Blakeman, of Blakeman Construction, said he doesn't understand why there is opposition to his proposal to buy the site owned by the United Illuminating Co.

** An immediate background of information is needed. The City is in the process to be purchasing a property of 10.96 acres for $120,001 from United Illuminating. According to regulations regarding the public utility disposing of excess property, the City had a right of last refusal to match any bid proposal it received and accepted for the parcel. The minimum bid acceptable by UI was $120k, Blakeman Construction met that with a bid of $1 more, and Shelton matched the bid's terms. The City is in process to acquire the parcel as City Open Space. There is no opposition to Blakeman Construction attempting to buy the site from UI, that is moot as it is no longer for sale by UI and is under agreement to be sold to the City of Shelton.

The Board of Aldermen on Thursday approved a $120,001 payment to the utility for the 10-acre tract, and the city is scheduled to close on the purchase within the next week.

** Technically, the BOA on ThuDec14 approved unanimously to fund the balance of costs for purchase (apx total is $109,000) from the Open Space Trust Account. They made a 10% deposit on 2005/Dec/7, or $12,000. The closing, by agreeing to match the bid, must be made by mid-February. To ensure no ambiguity, it is scheduled for MonJan15.

Blakeman and his son, James, own property bordering the utility parcel, at the intersection of Buddington Road and Old Kings Highway. James Blakeman owns about 8 acres that front Buddington Road, while the UI property is adjacent to the rear of that land. Monty Blakeman also owns several additional acres behind the UI property.

The Blakemans wanted the city to decline its right-of-first refusal to purchase the land and instead allow the construction company to purchase the property from the utility. In return, the Blakemans would give the city back more than 11 acres of the total piece, including their existing properties, and make a number of improvements that they say will benefit the city and the area.

** The City has no surety of an outcome if it were to step aside and allow a foreign party to acquire the UI parcel. That said, the proposition includes many improvements necessary for the development of the parcel which they seek to accomplish. Thus while the improvements would benefit the City, they would more vastly benefit the developer and thus are being made more as in investor and should not be interpreted as that of a benefactor.

"This is not a case of the city only helping the developer, but also of the developer helping the city," Blakeman said. That help includes extending sewer and water mains down Buddington Road, which he say will save the city, as well as the residents whose homes the line wouldservice, $157,000. In addition, Blakeman said he is prepared to spend $65,000 to fix a dangerous curve at Buddington Road and Old Kings Highway, which has been the site of a number of accidents.

** Though outside of the purvue of my concern, it should be asked from the appropriate department if this "dangerous curve" yielded numerous accidents, was scheduled by the City already for improvement on some sort of priority list, and if it is understood that the improvements being proposed involve taking land from adjacent property owners in order to lessen the radius of the corner.

Further, he would invest $375,000 to construct 4,600 feet of linear trail to expand the city's greenway. The path is now a dirt trail that would be transformed into a 6-foot-wide gravel trail, Blakeman said. It is work that the city had planned to do but never did, he said. "I can give them a timeframe, and the work could be done in a very short period of time," he said.

** The proposal does not make mention of design standards to which any Recreation Path construction would adhere. The developer's engineer has done much pro-bono work for trails in town that is much appreciated, however Blakeman Construction made no contact in reference to this proposal in advance regarding construction standards, or what phase the Trails Committee was projecting to accomplish next.

The city also wouldn't have to spend the $120,001 price tag for the United Illuminating property but would get even more open space at no cost, he said. "It is very clear in my eyes that this is simply an example of anti-development sentiment," he said, referring to the 12-lot subdivision he has planned for the property. "These numbers that are on the table are real taxpayers' money."

** For the City to acquire 11acres as Open Space for $120k in 2006, I believe that the taxpayer's money is being judiciously expended. That decision is pro-conservation, but not anti-development. There is an assumption being made that if the City were to not follow through on all the referrals, unanimous votes, and planning documents dating back to 1992 in regard to this parcel; Mr. Blakeman would: get a wetland approval, get an underlying subdivision approval, get a zone change to a Planned Residential District zone, get approvals to install both sewer and water from the benefiting property owners to which such infrastructure would abut and for which they would have to pay their appropriate share, get approval from the Engineer's office for planned road improvements and the City acquire the property required for such improvements if not by mutual agreement then via eminent domain proceedings. After all that would occur, then an Open Space dedication would be made for a quantity of land that is slightly larger than the current 10.96 acres in question, but would now be bi-sected with a roadway and encroached with building lots and homes, at least 6 of which would be visible and all combine to disrupt the current natural view-shed and vista providing for passive enjoyment of the corridor.

If the city goes ahead and buys the UI land, he and his son will develop the property they own, Blakeman said, albeit a smaller development than planned.

** That is fine, they have owned them both for several years, landbanking it in anticipation of acquiring this UI parcel in between. The parcel on Doe Place is owned by Monty Blakeman and although close to 4 acres, can only accomodate 1 home by regulations. The parcel on Buddington Road can accomodate several parcels, but is limited in development by lack of sewer, water and having high tension power lines crossing the property under which a building can not be constructed according to regulations. It should be noted that while the parcel in question is owned by UI, it contains no UI infrastructure (though a natural gas pipeline is buried within it). All the power lines are on an easement for the property owned by James Blakeman along Buddington Rd.

Last year, the Board of Aldermen declined a similar request from the developer and went ahead with plans to buy the property. It approved a $12,000 down payment for the deal. Blakeman said that he thinks that the closing has been moved up to this month in order to squash any possibility his proposal has to be approved.

** The informal request made last year requesting the City not purchase this parcel was in advance of the City committing to UI that it wanted to match the agreement made between Blakeman Construction and UI. The formal request made in 2006 was a proposition date stamped as being received by the Mayor's office. It was appropriately dealt with by the Board of Aldermen and they referred it to the Conservation Commission as would be customary. The Conservation Commission dealt with it fairly and openly, taking further sitewalks and providing digital video via the internet to all public and decision makers for review in understanding more fully the site. The closing has not been moved to attempt "squashing" any proposal Blakeman has made.

At a special Board of Aldermen meeting Dec. 5, Alderman Jack Finn made a motion to deny a resolution that would have allowed Blakeman to purchase the land, but that motion failed. Instead, board President John Anglace said he wanted to wait until he hears from other city land-use boards on the request before making a decision.

** Alderman Finn's motion was to "reject the proposal" and it failed. There was never a motion made during the meeting to accept the proposal, or more exactly "accept for review" before discussion took place. There was also never a motion made during the meeting to "refer for review to Conservation Commission's opinion". The Special meeting was called by the Mayor who did not attend. The developer himself only found out about the meeting that afternoon.

The Conservation Commission is scheduled to discuss the proposal at its Jan. 3 meeting.
"We aren't in the habit of selling land to benefit developers," Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson said.

** Similar debate ensued on a parcel along Frank Drive in 2005. The result was the same. The Conservation Commission must be persistant in it's pursuit of balance for our community through Open Space acquisition. It also must be consistent in its decisions toward that pursuit. Nothing can be found over the past 15 years that would illustrate any variance in opinion over this parcel in those regards.