Shelton Weekly 2007/jan/12 - UI Buddington Road Blakeman proposal

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.