The following are my comments on the Shelton Weekly article published this Fri 2007/Jan/12 regarding the proposal of Blakeman Construction to the City of Shelton's purchase of property from United Illuminating Co. along Buddington Road. My comments are in red and preceeded by a ++ The article may not be archived for reference in the future, thus I cut/paste it here with my comments. The hyperlink to it's current location is:
http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17696341&BRD=1648&PAG=461&dept_id=11784&rfi=8
Buddington Road Lot purchase to be finalized Tuesday
By: Isabel Senés, Editor
01/12/2007
The city will be closing on the purchase of a 10.86-acre parcel of property along Buddington Road on Tuesday, officially passing on a land swap proposition from Monty Blakeman Construction.
++ There was an informal proposition by Blakeman Construction to the City of Shelton in 2005 asking it to not execute it's right of first refusal. Shelton did execute it's right. There was a formal proposition by Blakeman Construction to the City of Shelton in 2006 asking it to not complete it's closing on the purchase from United Illuminating Co. Shelton will execute a closing.
The city will be funding the $108,001 balance of the purchase from the city's Open Space Trust Account, after placing a 10 percent deposit on the property in December 2005. The original price of the land purchase is $120,001.The deadline for the land purchase is Feb. 1. The city is closing on the property on Jan. 16, said Tom Welch, corporation counsel.
++ Shelton is funding not only the purchase price but also purchase costs (typical closing costs of about $1k). The City had previously indicated it planned to close Jan15, but that is MLK day, thus the change to TueJan16.
Blakeman, who with his son James owns 12 acres of land that abuts the 10-acre parcel on either side, officially presented the city with a proposition last November, outlining the benefits to the city if Blakeman would be allowed to purchase the property.
++ To be picky, the formal proposition was received by the Mayor's office and is stamped as to the date received. It is made by Blakeman Construction, but contains no cover letter (it it did, it wasn't forwarded to the ConsComm). Legal entities have been swapped in the middle of development applications before by Mr. Blakeman, notably Split Rock on Bpt Ave originally by one entity and then allowed by the PZC to change to Huntington Woods LLC and not be considered a new applicant. It may seem petty to be particular, but is is an important principle.
By linking all three properties along Buddington Road, Blakeman would have been able to further develop the land, including the construction of 12 single family homes.
++ The more correct terminology is "make application to review boards for more intensly developing the land". There is no "ability" to develop without approvals.
Blakeman said that his proposal would allow the city to keep the 10.86-acre open space parcel, along with an extra one acre of land, bringing the total open space acquisition for the city to 11.85 acres.
++ That is VIVIDLY incorrect. The land being purchased from UI as City Open Space would be bisected by a road that requires substantial fill to maintain grade and thus degrade the viewshed it would provide in it's current state. Simply saying 11.85 acres is better than 10.86 acres is not telling the whole story. The City is purchasing the property for appx. $11k/acre, a bargain in 2006 for Fairfield County. Conclusion: Proposal item not a benefit.
Additional benefits include the construction of approximately 4,600 lineal feet of recreation trail,
++ I'll pick this paragraph apart 1 by 1. The recreation path is given that term as it is an upgrade from simply a hiking trail. It is meant to be a firm surface multi-use pathway, apx. 6feet wide connecting downtown to Huntington Center. The proposition made no mention to what standard they would construct it, and the trails committee was not even contacted to determine where the next phase of it was expected to be completed. The cost to construct the Rec.Path can be paid for by LOCIP, a state reimbursement program resulting in no direct costs to Shelton taxpayers. The Local Capital Improvement Program is run by the Office of Policy and Management at Hartford, and managed through the Community Development office in Shelton City Hall. Conclusion: Proposal item not a financial benefit.
access through the new United Illuminating parcel,
++ As said previously, if the proposition were approved, the access through the area as it expands the Shelton Lakes Greenway toward the Far Mill River Greenway, would be hindered by another roadway crossing. Conclusion: Proposal item not a benefit.
reconstruction of a curve at the corner of Buddington Road and Kings Highway,
++ the road conditions are outside the purvue of the ConsComm, but it is worthy to ask the City Engineer's office if this is a location on the priority list for correction. A question to the Police Department should be posed as to the traffic incident's reported and attributed to this corner. Conclusion: Proposal item of questionable benefit.
and sewer and water main extenstion to the proposed project area.
++ Sewer and Water Main extensions to the project area cost the general City taxpayer nothing. The infrastructure improvements are paid for by the beneficiaries of them, namely the abutting property owners. The share of cost re-imbursement is established by a formula unique to each type of infrastructure, and using costs unique to each project. Conclusion: Proposal item not a financial benefit to the City (it would be a benefit to abutting property owners if the developer agreed to fund the total cost and not seek reimbursement).
According to Blakeman, the financial benefits to the city from the proposition would total $717,000."This should have been a no-brainer," said Blakeman. "That money for the city could have been spent elsewhere.
++ That total is incorrect as shown above. The City is expending $120k to buy this 10.86 acre parcel in 2006/2007. The City is not planning to install City water or sewers. The City is not planning to improve the road's bend, but if it did there would be reimbursement from the State. The City is planning on constructing a Rec.Path, but by it's own defined standards and location, and with reimbursement of cost from the State. To say that the City is passing up 3/4 of a million dollars in financial benefits is not only incorrect, it borders on fabrication.
Why is the city not accepting the offer if they will still get the real estate?"
++ I think I need to re-iterate, that we will not "still get the real-estate". The parcel will be utilized for access to increase development potential, will allow greater density to be created due to the extra acreage in the underlying application approval required for a PRD type development. All these circumstances would diminish the viewshed and vista provided in the parcel's current form which we are about to close upon in ownership.
According to John Anglace, Board of Alderman president, Blakeman's proposal "isn't off the table.""Our decision on whether or not to sell or swap the land is not contingent on closing on the property," said Anglace, who said there are too many unanswered questions on the proposal, but that the city had to move forward to gain ownership of the property in order to meet the Feb. 1 deadline.
++ The BOA didn't pass a motion to deny the proposition, so this proposition is not "closed". However, in the funding of the acquisition, moneys from the Open Space Trust Account have been used. These funds result from the co-mingling of budget amounts, grants, and fees in lieu of open space land dedications in subdivision approvals. The case could be made that lands purchased with these moneys should be restricted to remain as Open Space. That would need to be decided by review from Counsel.
"My responsibility is to examine the entire issue-economically, environmentally, and for quality of life issues," said Anglace.
++ From an economic standpoint, it doesn't stand up as shown above. From an environmental manner, it will cause increased disturbance to wetlands areas. From a quality of life issue, it will increase traffic, albeit incrementally, to a road that has had increased development on it in recent years (Huntington Pointe, Turkey Hill Estates, English Lane)
Tom Harbinson, chairman of the Conservation Commission, said that the purchase of the land for approximately $10,000 an acre by the city is a "wise and judicial use of city dollars."The purchase of the Buddington Road property by the city for open space was discussed at the Jan. 3 Conservation Commission meeting, and Harbinson said that the commission recommended that the city complete the acquisition of the parcel. "Our real concern is the viewshed or vista of that property, which would be blocked by further development," said Harbinson.
++ The proposition shows resulting lots with yards that with required clearing of vegetation for their construction, would dramatically infringe upon the viewshed in addition to the previously mentioned access way cutting accross it, whether that be a shared driveway or a City road as a permanent cul-de-sac.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Friday, January 05, 2007
HuntHrld 2007Jan5 UI Buddington Road proposal
The Huntington Herald does not retain articles for archive purposes, for benefit of my commentary (shown in ++ and red within it), I cut/paste the article here. The original article can be found at: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17674701&BRD=1346&PAG=461&dept_id=434928&rfi=6
Year-old land swap proposal still on table
ED HARRIS, Editor
January 05, 2007
The Board of Aldermen has appropriated funds to purchase a parcel of land on Buddington Road owned by United Illuminating Co. But it has not turned down a proposed land swap with Blakeman Construction.
++ I don't mean to be picky, but the Board of Aldermen "appropriate" money to the Open Space Trust Account via the budget process. Appropriate comes from the Latin "appropriare" meaning to set apart for specific purpose. The vote of the BOA on Dec14 was to "fund" the purchase from the Open Space Trust Account.
It appears a make-or-break decision on the land swap might come later this month during a Conservation Commission meeting.
++ The Jan3 CC meeting resulted in a consistent opinion to that which we have held regarding this parcel going back to the Open Space Plan of 1992. It is a valuable piece of property as an addition to the City's Open Space inventory.
Aldermanic President JohnAnglace said the aldermen asked the Conservation Commission to be their agent. "They'll explore what [Blakeman] is willing to do for the city," he said.
++ You can personally view a walk thru of the property and understand what we are evaluating. The video online and pictures online include occasional cuts to a map for orientation.
The land in question is the 10.85-acre UI property. The city exercised its right of first refusal a little more than a year ago when the Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to purchase the property as open space.
The city already paid a holding fee of $12,000 to UI Dec. 8 and must close on the deal before February. Corporation Counsel Tom Welch drew up paperwork to close even sooner in an effort to avoid any potential setbacks due to the holidays.
++ Again, to be picky, the parcel is 10.96 acres. The $12,000 was a deposit made on Dec 7 (ck#207822 if you want to be really detailed). The closing is set (as I write this on Jan5) for MonJan15.
The money for the purchase is coming out of the open space trust account. City officials first entertained the land swap proposal from Blakeman Construction LLC, which wanted to purchase the land to develop it, last September. The site lies between two Blakeman-owned parcels, a 3.9-acre plot to the north and a 6.74-acre plot to the south.
++ The informal request from Blakeman Construction was for Shelton to not execute it's right of first refusal. Currently being considered is a formal proposition, that is much the same as what was stated informally in the past. Blakeman Construction is asking that Shelton not complete its purchase of the property from UI.
If the city were to go through with the swap, Blakeman would donate 11.85-acres, from pieces of all three parcels, as open space, free of charge. However, this land would incorporate more wetlands than the acreage the city would acquire without the swap. Blakeman plans to propose a planned residential district with 12 single-family homes on the site.
++ Basically correct, although without drawings in front of me, I couldn't state what any subdivision application would require for open space dedication under the regulations. I don't recall if there were any wetland flags done on the property, that usually requires access permission and a soil scientist - two components that I don't think have been pursued. That should not infer any dilution on the sincerity with which Blakeman Construction is making the proposition.
Neither James Blakeman nor Monty Blakeman returned calls for comment.
The Conservation Commission pushed to purchase the land last year. However, Chairman Tom Harbinson scheduled time last month to revisit the issue, correctly assuming the aldermen would request additional comment.
The commission failed to receive a memo Blakeman handed out to the aldermen during a mid-December meeting, necessitating a second review. The memo outlines six direct benefits Blakeman believes the proposal would provide for the city. According to the memo, it would offer a financial benefit of $717,000.
++ The ConsComm had the Blakeman memo, but had not been requested by the BOA to review it (formally). Thus we deferred to discuss it from our Dec6 meeting. At the Jan3 ConsComm meeting, we felt it would be possibly damaging to allow any process to progress without our comments. Thus, dispite not receiving formal request to do so, we gave our comments in the form of a letter. The financial benefits to the City are questionable, and I'll let the letter speak for itself other than to say the Conservation Commission is consistent in it's actions.
The monetary allocation includes the reimbursement cost to purchase the UI property, extend sewer and water mains to the area and construct a recreation path."He's raised the issue," Anglace said. "It's something we should explore."
The only noticeable difference between Blakeman's recent proposal and one from September 2005 is the improvement of about 4,600 lineal feet of a nearby hiking trail to make it handicapped accessible.
++ The hiking trail mentioned is what will become the main backbone access to enjoyment of the Shelton Lakes Greenway corridor - the Shelton Lakes Recreation Path. The first segment fully constructed is from Meadow Street to the Intermediate School campus. There are other segments in various stages of completion from simple hiking trail, to cleared 12ft wide path corridor. This is a long term project that has involved various grants contributing toward its completion. The proposition proposes improving the segment within the Huntington Woods subdivision from it's current walking trail to a foot-path of 6ft wide crushed stone. No construction standards however are presented.
Members of Shelton's Trails Committee said there already was a wooded hiking trail through the property. They said the Blakemans had offered to assist in converting it from a walking trail to a recreation path. This would entail cutting and filling in portions of the existing trail. The committee has indicated there are other options to complete the trail, should the deal not go through.
++ Blakeman Construction developed the Huntington Woods subdivision. The RecPath location requirement greatly affected the open space dedication within the original application. Additionally, $50k was deposited with the Planning & Zoning Department to be used for Open Space needs in that vicinity, mainly RecPath design and construction. Parts of the RecPath have been improved by Eagle Scout projects, volunteer groups, Parks & Rec staff, and outside contractors. All were funded via a mix of budgets, donations, and grants.
Year-old land swap proposal still on table
ED HARRIS, Editor
January 05, 2007
The Board of Aldermen has appropriated funds to purchase a parcel of land on Buddington Road owned by United Illuminating Co. But it has not turned down a proposed land swap with Blakeman Construction.
++ I don't mean to be picky, but the Board of Aldermen "appropriate" money to the Open Space Trust Account via the budget process. Appropriate comes from the Latin "appropriare" meaning to set apart for specific purpose. The vote of the BOA on Dec14 was to "fund" the purchase from the Open Space Trust Account.
It appears a make-or-break decision on the land swap might come later this month during a Conservation Commission meeting.
++ The Jan3 CC meeting resulted in a consistent opinion to that which we have held regarding this parcel going back to the Open Space Plan of 1992. It is a valuable piece of property as an addition to the City's Open Space inventory.
Aldermanic President JohnAnglace said the aldermen asked the Conservation Commission to be their agent. "They'll explore what [Blakeman] is willing to do for the city," he said.
++ You can personally view a walk thru of the property and understand what we are evaluating. The video online and pictures online include occasional cuts to a map for orientation.
The land in question is the 10.85-acre UI property. The city exercised its right of first refusal a little more than a year ago when the Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to purchase the property as open space.
The city already paid a holding fee of $12,000 to UI Dec. 8 and must close on the deal before February. Corporation Counsel Tom Welch drew up paperwork to close even sooner in an effort to avoid any potential setbacks due to the holidays.
++ Again, to be picky, the parcel is 10.96 acres. The $12,000 was a deposit made on Dec 7 (ck#207822 if you want to be really detailed). The closing is set (as I write this on Jan5) for MonJan15.
The money for the purchase is coming out of the open space trust account. City officials first entertained the land swap proposal from Blakeman Construction LLC, which wanted to purchase the land to develop it, last September. The site lies between two Blakeman-owned parcels, a 3.9-acre plot to the north and a 6.74-acre plot to the south.
++ The informal request from Blakeman Construction was for Shelton to not execute it's right of first refusal. Currently being considered is a formal proposition, that is much the same as what was stated informally in the past. Blakeman Construction is asking that Shelton not complete its purchase of the property from UI.
If the city were to go through with the swap, Blakeman would donate 11.85-acres, from pieces of all three parcels, as open space, free of charge. However, this land would incorporate more wetlands than the acreage the city would acquire without the swap. Blakeman plans to propose a planned residential district with 12 single-family homes on the site.
++ Basically correct, although without drawings in front of me, I couldn't state what any subdivision application would require for open space dedication under the regulations. I don't recall if there were any wetland flags done on the property, that usually requires access permission and a soil scientist - two components that I don't think have been pursued. That should not infer any dilution on the sincerity with which Blakeman Construction is making the proposition.
Neither James Blakeman nor Monty Blakeman returned calls for comment.
The Conservation Commission pushed to purchase the land last year. However, Chairman Tom Harbinson scheduled time last month to revisit the issue, correctly assuming the aldermen would request additional comment.
The commission failed to receive a memo Blakeman handed out to the aldermen during a mid-December meeting, necessitating a second review. The memo outlines six direct benefits Blakeman believes the proposal would provide for the city. According to the memo, it would offer a financial benefit of $717,000.
++ The ConsComm had the Blakeman memo, but had not been requested by the BOA to review it (formally). Thus we deferred to discuss it from our Dec6 meeting. At the Jan3 ConsComm meeting, we felt it would be possibly damaging to allow any process to progress without our comments. Thus, dispite not receiving formal request to do so, we gave our comments in the form of a letter. The financial benefits to the City are questionable, and I'll let the letter speak for itself other than to say the Conservation Commission is consistent in it's actions.
The monetary allocation includes the reimbursement cost to purchase the UI property, extend sewer and water mains to the area and construct a recreation path."He's raised the issue," Anglace said. "It's something we should explore."
The only noticeable difference between Blakeman's recent proposal and one from September 2005 is the improvement of about 4,600 lineal feet of a nearby hiking trail to make it handicapped accessible.
++ The hiking trail mentioned is what will become the main backbone access to enjoyment of the Shelton Lakes Greenway corridor - the Shelton Lakes Recreation Path. The first segment fully constructed is from Meadow Street to the Intermediate School campus. There are other segments in various stages of completion from simple hiking trail, to cleared 12ft wide path corridor. This is a long term project that has involved various grants contributing toward its completion. The proposition proposes improving the segment within the Huntington Woods subdivision from it's current walking trail to a foot-path of 6ft wide crushed stone. No construction standards however are presented.
Members of Shelton's Trails Committee said there already was a wooded hiking trail through the property. They said the Blakemans had offered to assist in converting it from a walking trail to a recreation path. This would entail cutting and filling in portions of the existing trail. The committee has indicated there are other options to complete the trail, should the deal not go through.
++ Blakeman Construction developed the Huntington Woods subdivision. The RecPath location requirement greatly affected the open space dedication within the original application. Additionally, $50k was deposited with the Planning & Zoning Department to be used for Open Space needs in that vicinity, mainly RecPath design and construction. Parts of the RecPath have been improved by Eagle Scout projects, volunteer groups, Parks & Rec staff, and outside contractors. All were funded via a mix of budgets, donations, and grants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
