HuntHrld 2007apr4 article on Aspen Ridge

As background, I have talked in an ealier posted entry regarding the subject development in reference to an article that appeared in the CtPost.
http://sheltoncc.blogspot.com/2006/09/ct-post-2006sep13-article-on-aspen.html

An article in the Huntington Herald from Wednesday April 4 was brought to my attention as I had not read it (it was not in their online publication, only paper). As is my custom of commenting to/on the media and their reporting - I post it here with my comments in red.

++++++
By KATE RAMUNNI

Over the objection of the City Engineer, the Planning and Zoning Commission last week signed off on the detailed development plans for a controversial Bridgeport Avenue condominium development.

++ Here are the minutes of the PZC as posted on the City's website:
http://cityofshelton.org/gengov/meetings/pdf/plnzoning/pdf2007/March2707m.pdf

The commission approved Lava Real Estate’s development plans to build a dozen condominiums on 2.5 acres along the Far Mill River behind Blockbuster Video. Earlier it approved changing the zoning on the property from Light Industrial to a Planned Development District.

++ The process toward approval of the proposal was multi-part. First was a zoning component to apply a "Special Development Area" or SDA overlay. Next was to apply for a "Planned Development District" or PDD within the SDA (yes applicants typically do them concurrently with the assumption that the SDA will be approved, and the P&Z has historically received them concurrently). Unlike an "R1" type zoning to which standard rules apply, a PDD is unique unto itself (ie: the PDD for Shelton Square has qualifications just for that development which would be different from the PDD for RD Scinto's office complex). Some will say that is spot zoning, and I'm not here to debate that. The PDD has brought both success and distress to Shelton. The underyling zone of the subject land is "Light Industrial Park" or LIP.

In a letter to the commission, City Engineer Bob Kulacz said he supports the Conservation Commission’s contention that the condominiums will be built too close to the river. Kulacz also cited traffic problems as the basis for his objections. “I do not endorse this application for approval,” he told the zoning commission.

++ You can read directly the CC's comments on the application from our 2006May3 meeting.

The location of the development is a transitional district between residences and developer Bob Scinto’s corporate office park, Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said. Before the commission approved changing the zoning to a Planned Development District, the property was zoned for light industrial use, Schultz said, which he said could have resulted in a more intensive development than the condominiums.

++ I do not subscribe to swallowing wholesale the claim by the applicants attorney that if this was not approved, the alternative was a more intensive development of an industrial nature (which is regurgitated in the above quote) Yes, an LIP zone would allow development under those LIP regulations, but it would be demanding to meet traffic requirements, etc. I don't want to digress down this rabbit trail, but summarily - it is important to define that "could have resulted" infers probability - which in this case from my admitadely limited experience of 10 years would be next to nill.

During the commission’s public hearing on the application, several residents spoke out against the plans, including members of the Shelton Land Trust and the Conservation Commission.
One resident, Gil Pastore, brought a bag of garbage he said he collected in his backyard which also is along the river to illustrate the trash that flows down the river from developments along it.

++ At one point I thought that video was online. Mr. Pastore has lived in Pine Rock Park along the Far Mill River for many years. He has documented with video and physical trash bags brought to various public meetings, the intensity of the impact personally witnessed from the way the community as a whole has treated the Far Mill River. He was understandably concerned about the approval of this applications.

The Land Trust was especially passionate about its opposition to the project because it owns property next to the site. It has filed an appeal to the approval that is pending in Superior Court.
++ The Shelton Land Conservation Trust is a non-profit entity that holds land in trust for public benefit. It owns property abutting the development both upstream and downstream. Three members of the Conservation Commission also happen to be members of the Shelton Land Trust Board, and recused themselves from asking questions or voting as a member of the Conservation Commission during it's meetings. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a lifetime membership to the Land Trust, but have never served on any of it's boards or committees. I have purposely kept myself un-apprised of the LandTrust's efforts during the review process, so I can't offer commentary on what they are doing in court.

Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester said he was uncomfortable voting for an application that the City Engineer opposes. ‘This is the second time we have been here lately where the City Engineer doesn’t endorse a development,” he said. “I have great respect in the City Engineer’s background, ability and education and I am uncomfortable when the City Engineer says he doesn’t endorse [the application].”

++ While Mr. Sylvester may have been "uncomfortable" about voting in opposition to the City Engineer's opinion, he doesn't say what made him uncomfortable, and in the end voted for it anyway. Read my earlier blog post referenced at the top of this post to understand what I think about saying one thing and voting another.

But Zoning Consultant Tony Panico said he wasn’t sure that what Kulacz is objection to are issues he should be addressing. “[The commission] has to conclude if these concerns are really the purview of the City Engineer,’ he said.

++ The City Engineer signs off on the development infrastructure being appropriate for the community. If he feels that the FEMA 100yr flood map lines are of a concern - it is his obligation to bring them to everyone's attention. He is unable to give an endorsement of the plan. He has a proffessional certification to uphold as a licensed engineer. I see nothing of substance in the PZC minutes that counter his comments regarding his concerns.

“I think it may be more of a personal opinion,” commission chairman Allen J. Cribbins said.
Panico said that as far as he is concerned, Kulacz’s objections are not valid. “I don’t understand how he came to these conclusions,” Panico said. “What he is saying isn’t based on valid information.”

++ Wouldn't a simple phone call or letter of clarification or an email or some COMMUNICATION between departments solve the "I don't understand..." question of Mr. Panico?

Attorney Dominick Thomas, who represents Lava Real Estate, said that the location of the units to the river isn’t something with which the City Engineer should be concerned. “That is not within his purview whatsoever,” he said.

++ The Inland Wetlands Commission does review the development for activities in regulated areas, and approved it by a slim margin, but the infrastructure such as appropriate turn-around or access for emergency vehicles, etc - is under the City Engineer's office. It is his proffessional review that minimizes the City's liability against infrastructure failures such as water or sewer lines and roads not constructed or being appropriately designed to a standard. His comments have authority and are within his purview.

Regardless of that, the development is bad for the city, commission alternate Karen Tomko-McGovern said. “I sat through the whole [application] procedure hoping the Open Space Committee or the Conservation Commission would come forward a lot sooner,” she said.
“This particular property could have brought the community together as a park,” she said. “It would have made a beautiful park with a gazebo and walkways and somewhere to sit at lunchtime." “I was against it then and I’m against it now,” she said.

++ Karen was a representative from the Planning & Zoning Commission to the Open Space Committee. She seldom attended however, and the article implies that she has forgotton how it operates. First, the Open Space Committee was disolved and it's duties rolled into the Conservation Commission's when the Open Space Trust Account Ordinance was passed in 2006. Next, the Conservation Commission deals with property acquisition issues in executive session (non-public) so as to not jeapordize a negotiating position of the City. Until all options are completed, I can not reveal the Conservation Commission's thoughts, but they were very publicly transmitted to the Board of Alderman after a request by three of the Aldermen for review of the parcel toward possible acquisition.

During the zone change application process, Sylvester and Commissioner Daniel Orazietti both suggested that the city purchase the property as open space. Sylvester said he was especially interested in obtaining property along the river. The city has not been proactive in protecting such pieces, he said.

++ Oh, contrare. The City has been very active in attempting to protect parcels along the Far Mill River Greenway. I would refer anyone to City Open Space Maps that document that. Traditionally, the effort toward protection has been with raw, or undeveloped land parcels. In recent years, that has been turned on it's head. Development is occuring in "tear-down" fashion with oversized lots which have a home being knocked down, and then subdivided. The Ramia family (Mr Ramia works at Shelton High School as Headmaster) apparently had no fondness for their house and chose to work an agreement with the adjacent property owner (which also had a house) to combine into a parcel suitable for development application. Mr. Sylvester has served this community for many years as both Superintendent of Schools and on Planning & Zoning, and I don't disagree with every comment or decision he has made over all that time, but I am extremely disappointed by the public posturing and comments made to the news media regarding the Conservation Commission's work regarding this parcel while having full knowledge that any aquisition activity would be held in executive session.

But, Cribbins said, this property is surrounded by open space. “The rest of the property around it – 70 acres – is owned by the city,” he said.

++ True, there is property nearby on the FarMill River owned by the City, further upstream there is a pull-off area for parking, the "Gristmill Trail" and opportunity for passive enjoyment of this space such as fishing. The Shelton Land Trust as a private entity has worked with the City of Shelton to facilitate it's Open Space Plan of protecting Greenway Corridors, such as this area at Far Mill River. Dedication of property, preserved as Open Space would help further those goals.

The commission voted 4-1 to approve the detailed development plans, with McGovern, who was sitting in for Orazietti, voting against it.

++ I thank Karen for voting in line with her comments.