Serving 2 masters

When I was asked to run for elected office in the Planning & Zoning Alternate position, it was assumed by many that I could serve in both an elected and appointed position. See my Nov1 blog entry regarding elected and appointed service, and why I ran for office.

Since then I have been elected and thank the public for entrusting me to serve in that office, however it has been brought to my attention that the City of Shelton Charter Sections regarding Planning & Zoning members have additional verbage that makes it an exclusive office of service. (See the cut/paste at end of this message of the Charter from municode website).

It is with that new revelation in mind, which has been confirmed by the City Attorney, that I decided to resign from the Planning & Zoning Commission effective immediately. My decision was based on where I could best serve the administration of City affairs and my overall community.

Wed 2009/Dec/2 will be the completion of my 11th continuous year of service on the Conservation Commission. During that time the entire Commission has worked to acquire significant City of Shelton Open Space, helped Shelton purchase development rights to agricultural lands, obtained substantial grant monies for Shelton's land acquisitions and enhancements upon them, expanded trails networks and their accessibility, improved our Commission's communication and technology methods to be the most transparent in the State of Ct, and updated the award winning Open Space Plan for the City of Shelton.

Today I was made aware of a decision that was rendered by the City Attorney in the past, that reveals the position of Planning & Zoning Commission Alternate (not a Member unless seated and replacing a Member) would be quite restrictive as to involvement with everyday affairs of the Commission. While an Alternate could participate during a hearing (as anyone from the public can), an Alternate can not participate in any deliberation nor any vote unless seated as the replacement of a Member.


After discussion with trusted friends and weighing the pros and cons, I decided that the years of history, knowledge and leadership at the CC, along with the relationships compiled for furthering the CC's goals and objectives, held more fruitful value than sitting in meetings where I would be prohibited from contributing on a regular business.

I'm sorry this Charter nuance was not recognized clearly by anyone earlier. Regretfully, that oversite error is mine alone.

City Charter component, unrealized until Tue2009/Nov/24. My emphasis added.

5.1.4. Planning and Zoning Commission: (a) The City shall have a Planning and Zoning Commission elected as provided by Section 2.4.1(f) of this Charter, no more than four (4) members of which shall be from the same political party. The members shall hold no other elected or appointed office within the City. The Commission shall have such duties as are provided by the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut relating to planning and zoning, and, subject to the approval of the Mayor, shall appoint and may remove zoning and planning officers and such professional and other personnel as may be necessary or convenient to the operation of the commission. (b) There shall be two (2) alternate members elected to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the election in November 1995 and biannually thereafter for a term of two (2) years no more than one (1) of whom shall be from the same political party. The Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall, when a regular member is unable to attend a meeting or is otherwise unable to participate, select an alternate in place of such member firstly from the same political party as the member and if an alternate from the same political party is not available, then the Chairman shall select the second alternate. If two (2) members are unable to attend or participate, both alternates shall be seated, provided that the minority representation requirements of the General Statutes are not thereby violated, in which event the Commission shall proceed on the matter without the participation of any alternate

Resignation from PZC Alternate

Wednesday December 2, 2009

Ruth Parkins - PZC Chairperson
Rick Schultz - PZ Dept Administrator
Planning & Zoning Commissioners.

I'm disappointed that after review of the City Charter by the City Attorney, I have become aware of a conflict in my serving both as an appointed Member of the Conservation Commission, and as an elected Alternate of the Planning & Zoning Commission. In personal review of the Shelton Charter Section 5.5.c, I had the expectation that I could serve in both positions. An opinion given to me today from City Counsel of Charter Section 5.1.4 negates that understanding.

After consulting with trusted friends and colleagues, I have decided that given the choice of my 11year history of service and subsequent knowledge from activity with the Conservation Commission, versus an Alternate position on the Planning & Zoning Commission where my input is limited to contributing only when replacing a Member, that I could best serve the administration of the City's affairs and my community while serving as a Conservation Commissioner where my current term expires in August 2012.

Regretfully, I resign from my recently elected position as Planning & Zoning Alternate.

This electronic message will be my sole notice of resignation to all interested parties. There will be no hard-copy.

Thank-you for your attention and understanding, and best wishes to the Commission in your days ahead.

Sincerely - Thomas Harbinson.

cc:
Mark Lauretti - Mayor
Margaret Weber - City Clerk
Dave Gioiello - Democratic Town Committee Chair
Tom Welch - City Attorney
sheltoncc.blogspot.com

Elected vs Appointed

One purpose of this Conservation Commission blog is to say my comments once, not repetatively again and again to reporters or the public - not being rude, just efficient with time. My running for elected office in 2009Nov has elicited a number of questions, from a number of people such as public or press, which I will answer here in a FAQ manner. I am using this blog, as it is the most read outlet I have that the public regularly reference.

I thought you were already in office? I was appointed to the Conservation Commission in 1998 by Mayor Lauretti according to Section 5.2.3 of the City Charter. The appointment is a 3 year term. My last term ended in 2009Aug, just 2 months ago, at which time Mayor Lauretti re-appointed me to the Commission. I am thus a Conservation Commissioner until August of 2012. This is different and separate than the elected office I seek on the Planning & Zoning Commission.

What is the elected office you are running for? Planning & Zoning Commissioner, as one of the two alternate positions. The PZC is made up of 6 members and 2 alternates. The alternate commissioner serves a very distinct purpose from a standard commissioner. From the City of Shelton Charter Section 5.1.4.b, "The Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall, when a regular member is unable to attend a meeting or is otherwise unable to participate, select an alternate in place of such member firstly from the same political party as the member and if an alternate from the same political party is not available, then the Chairman shall select the second alternate. If two (2) members are unable to attend or participate, both alternates shall be seated, provided that the minority representation requirements of the General Statutes are not thereby violated, in which event the Commission shall proceed on the matter without the participation of any alternate"

Can you serve on both Commissions? Structurally, yes. According to the Shelton Charter Section 5.5.c, "Members shall hold no more than one other elected office and/or two other appointed offices with the City"

Is it a conflict to serve on both Commissions? Philosophically, and generally no. The PZC is a regulatory body making decisions based upon reference to plans, regulations, statutes, etc. The CC is an advisory body making recomendations and comments that are also based upon reference to plans and guides, but has more latitude and breadth in what it may comment upon in it's role as the environmental conscience of the community. There are times where the PZC is asking for comment from the CC on issues such as a subdivision application, and I can reinforce the intent or direction of those comments when they reach the PZC - that isn't a conflict. There are however times when the CC is conducting a project (say a trails construction or activity) where a referral request is made to the planning agency (PZC) to affirm that it is appropriate. These are commonly referred to to as "8-24 referrals" in noting the Ct Gen Statutes section that outlines how it should be done. In cases where such a request is made, I may have to abstain from voting, but should not have to recuse myself from participating in discussion. That said, it is unlikely that such a conflict may occur anyway, because I would be in the "alternate" position and only voting when another commissioner was unable to fulfill their duty.

I didn't know you were running: My "campaign" for office is non-existent, due mainly to two factors. Firstly, I'm running for one of 2 alternate positions, of which no more than one can be from a single party. The Democrats and Republicans usually put forth one candidate for each office and thus they are de-facto elected. Shelton has a third alternative in the form of the Citizen's United Party, but they didn't nominate anyone for the PZC alternate position. Secondly, in 2008 and 2009 a company I have ownership in received a grant contribution from the State of Ct. toward a solar array. As such, the company is explicitly defined as a "state contractor" and is restricted in the political donations it's principals can make to candidates. This goes beyond any Ct state office candidate such as Governor or Atty General, and includes a prohibition against donating to Town Committees. In summary, I can't donate to general campaign funds of the Town Committee for helping with the cost of flyers or mailers, and due to the nature of the office and number of candidates on the slate - I don't need to campaign anyway. I'm fine with that as I instead can continue concentrating on continuing the work as Conservation Commissioner and prepare for that additional work as Planning & Zoning Commissioner.

What skills do you bring to the office? I am controller of a family construction business. As such, I have skills of management and knowledge of the construction industry. My business is not in development, primarily in NYC, and doesn't interact with any local contractors or developers. I am also a 5th generation farm owner and have a balanced perspective for the environment and the value of balance it brings to a developed community. In addition to having served on the Conservation Commission since 1998, I was appointed by the Planning & Zoning Commission to serve on the 2006 Plan Update Advisory Committee which updated the City's master plan known as the Plan of Conservation & Development. I am a director of the Shelton Economic Development Corporation, and a Life member of the non-profit Shelton Land Conservation Trust.

I hope this answers the questions regarding what offices I will be serving in, how I attained those offices, and what I intend to bring to them.

Dog Park - CtPost

I encourage readers to go to the ConnPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

Plans move forward for Shelton dog park
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 10/18/2009 07:31:29 PM EDT

SHELTON -- Plans for a new dog park are moving forward with approvals from one commission that will now hand it off to the Board of Aldermen.

The Parks and Recreation Commission Thursday approved both the location and design for the park. If approved by the aldermen, it will be constructed on Nells Rock Road and will include areas for both large and small dogs.

+++ The BOA should approve any use of City Property. The PZC will also need to review, and given access improvements onto Nells Rock Rd - I assume also the Engineering Dept. +++

"We looked at a lot of dog parks in a lot of towns and found that people do utilize them," said commission chairman John Papa, who also served on the Dog Park Committee.

+++ The Conservation Commission's Agent visited Ridgefield Dog Park, and Milford Dog Park. (see links for respective blog reports) +++

It's going to cost about $20,000 for the fencing, benches and parking area that will accommodate about 20 cars, he said. And that money is LOCIP-eligible, which is why the aldermen must approve the project, he said.

+++ The BOA must approve every trail project, even those don't involve costs of funding when simply done by volunteers. The BOA must approve a use of City real-property such as this, in addition to the fiscal approval +++

"This is a great opportunity for people who love their dogs to have a park to bring them to that won't cost a heck of a lot of money to do," Papa said.

The plans must first go to the aldermen's Finance Committee, which must approve it and send it to the full board, Papa said. "We're hoping to get it done in November or December," he said. "Before we did this we presented it to the mayor and he is in support of it."

Once approvals are in place, volunteers will begin clearing the area of dead trees and brush, Papa said.

+++ Because of impervious surfaces, grading issues, access onto City road, possible structure demo, etc: This will require review from Engineering Dept. Also the PZC will need to give a referral regarding the change of use from passive recreation to active recreation and the amenities, parking, etc. +++

The park will have two areas: one for small dogs and a larger area for larger dogs. There will be several benches placed along the perimeters, and "pooper scooper" bags will be provided, Papa said.

+++ See previous entry for Ridgefield as to the ideal way to run such a park from what we have seen locally. +++

The Conservation Commission, which manages the city-owned open space behind the park spot, had several concerns about the plans, but Papa said they are relatively minor and can be worked out.

Those concerns include the use and maintenance of buildings located on the property, the layout of the parking spaces and the screening of the park from the roadways.

"Dog parks that we have seen in other communities show that the facilities need to be very well maintained, for if they are not at the highest level they become an eyesore and a liability to the city and are not used by residents," Conservation Commission Tom Harbinson wrote to the Parks and Recreation Commission. "We feel that the city has not shown that the city can maintain a facility like this at this time." It ultimately will be the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the dog park, Papa said.

+++ Unless a space is "adopted" by an advocacy group such as trails volunteers to do maintenance and guided hikes, or a baseball league organization to maintain some facilities and order to them - it is on the shoulders of the already overburdened Park & Rec Dept. The Riverwalk Park in downtown is an example where broken lightposts are replaced with something out of character because they are handy. Vandalism is allowed to remain for far too long on signs, benches, and other amenities with no apparent effort toward swift removal. Take a look at the "park" next to Rte8 with basketball courts that are unusable +++

"I don't see any problems with what (the Conservation Commission) is concerned about," Papa said. Having the park in close proximity to the Recreation Path is a plus, he said.

+++ The sketch provided to the CC for commentary upon didn't even show the RecPath, which has been a long term goal for over 15years. There was no reference to the structures that exist in dilapidated condition and how they might be utilized or demolished. The screening of the urban elements of fences and such from the passive natural open space character was not looked at nor considered. In short, the plan I looked at during the review by CC was deficient +++

"This is not going to interfere with their trails, they are far enough away that the park won't infringe on their areas," he said. "People use both the park and the trails, and we thought this would be a happy park for both those who use the park and the trails."

+++ I'm an advocate of multi-use of the trails. I too believe that dog owners and trail users are compatible. We currently allow dogs (on leash) on all our Shelton trails, as opposed to Derby or Trumbull who do not. The question I have is why were the trails and RecPath location not even referenced or shown so that the integration with other site uses could happen in harmony. +++

Eklund Garden used for unique purposes

Eklund Garden is located off Oak Valley Road near Nells Rock Road. It is a City-owned parcel of Preserved Open Space that is within the Shelton Lakes Greenway corridor. A portion of the parcel has gardens that were intended to illustrate the value of native species plantings for landscaping. Too often, invasive or foreign plants take over our landscapes, when there are native plants that can provide aesthetic needs.

Not to long into the concept of the Eklund Garden of native species, it was decided that it might also be a good study habitat regarding the destruction of the overabundant deer population. The entire perimeter was barriered with deer fence and entry/exit gates to create a study area unharmed by the hungry deer.

In addition, the garden is being visited by an autistic woman as the gardening (weeding) activity is very therapeutic.

The Valley Independent Sentinel had an article on this use.

http://valley.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/shelton_garden_model_for_autism_farm/

Animal Shelter Site - CtPost

The CtPost had an article today (actually it will appear in ThuOct1 deadwood version) that relates to site evaluation by the Conservation Commission for an Animal Control Facility. There isn't much to comment on within the article, but I present it hear for posterity as the CtPost occassionaly deletes links.

I encourage readers to go to the ConnPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_13453974
Site chosen for Shelton animal shelter
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 09/30/2009 05:05:52 PM EDT

SHELTON -- After years of wrangling, city officials appear to have settled on a spot for the city's new animal shelter - and it's only yards away from the existing one.

A building on Riverdale Avenue, known as the Pink Elephant, would be demolished to make way for the new shelter under the current proposal the Animal Shelter Building Committee is considering.

"We haven't decided upon it as much as the mayor has asked us to look at it," committee chairman, Tony Minopoli, said. "We are in the process of trying to verify if it will work."

For the past several years the committee has been designing the new shelter and looking for somewhere to put it. Originally they investigated the site next to the Pink Elephant building and had extensive environmental tests done there to make sure it is usable.

But then Mayor Mark A. Lauretti, who originally established the committee because he said the current shelter is woefully outdated, asked the committee to look into a city-owned site on Nells Rock Road where a proposed dog park is being considered.

But that suggestion drew criticism from both neighbors and members of the Conservation Commission, which maintains the open space there along the Shelton Greenway.

"No matter where around the city you suggest a site, there are people that will say I'm against it," said Board of Aldermen president John Anglace. The committee must get the board's approval on a site before going forward with construction of a new shelter. "It's the most difficult things to do -- to find a reasonable location for a new animal shelter," Anglace said. "[The Pink Elephant site] seems to make the most sense."

The committee is investigating constructing a 5,000 square-foot metal building on whatever site is chosen that will include 30 dog runs and an area for cat adoptions, Minopoli said. It also will have an adoption area where those interested in adopting can get to know their prospective pet.

"The basic tenants of the plan remain unchanged," he said. A metal building will be more economical, he said, and improvements in the building technology mean that it will be much more visually pleasing than such buildings have been in the past.

"The things you can do to the outside of these buildings are tremendous," he said. "We have designed it to make look like a New England-style barn with cupolas - it's going to be a very attractive building and the maintenance cost should be low."

More environmental testing will likely have to be done, Minopoli said, and the items in the building, which has been used for storage, will have to be relocated. "We likely would do more testing to be absolutely sure that there are no environmental problems," he said, and would have to investigate other utility issues before moving forward with the site.

"Nothing is firm yet but these are our thoughts and the direction we would like to see this project go," Anglace said. "I think it is a good direction to get this project moving."

Mayor asks PZC for 8-24: CtPost Sep10

I encourage readers to go to the CTPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_13303786

Lauretti, Democrats at odds over zoning panel rules
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 09/09/2009 11:38:16 PM EDT

SHELTON -- For the third time this year, the Planning and Zoning Commission has been asked to render an opinion on whether the city should sell several properties, and each time the answer has been different.

+++ Every request made for referral comments has it's own paramaters of what is being proposed that the requestor is seeking comment on. This is true of subdivision proposals/applications, and referrals under Ct Gen Statutes Sec 8-24.+++

The first time it debated the question of whether it would recommend selling a portion of the Soundview Avenue property the city bought last year for open space; the commission said yes.
The second time it came up, the commission reversed itself and said no.

+++The Mayor's office made a request for PZC comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave and this was addressed by PZC Mar10. The BOA followed City ordinance # 839 by preparing their packet describing the issue, and requested comment from the Park&Rec and ConsComm (both were unanimous to not sell the land in respect to the proposal defined in the BOA packet's request). The BOA then after receiving those responses moving further to request comment from the PZC on the same proposal CC and PRC had commented on (and the response to this request with its paramaters was unanimous to not sell the land) +++

On Tuesday, it once again looked favorably on the proposal. But some commissioners were angry that the issue even came up again.

+++ The Mayor's office asked the Chairman of the PZC for a referral/comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave, and this was addressed by PZC on Sep8 where the outcome was along party lines rendering a favorable opinion to sell. +++

"I'm fit to be tied," said commission member Chris Jones, who is running for mayor on the Democratic ticket. "This was totally done illegally in my eyes -- the whole vote was illegal."

+++ Though I understand his frustration, he is not correct in stating the vote was illegal. The Mayor can ask any commission at any time for advice on any subject. He is the Chief Elected Official and that is his right. +++

That's because the third request for the 8-24 referral, named for the state statute that requires it in the process to sell city-owned property, came not from the Board of Aldermen, but from Mayor Mark A. Lauretti.

"The chairman was instructed by the mayor to put it back on the agenda, and that is illegal," Jones said. "They didn't follow the ordinance, they are following the mayor."

+++ The Mayor has the right to request a referral and it is not illegal, but it is a different and separate request. I don't know what information was provided with the Mayor's request to the PZC, but from the P&Z Commissioner comments, there seemed to be maps that they didn't have before, so something different was provided them. Yes the Mayor contacted the PZC Chair to request/demand that his request be put on their agenda, and from the comments made by several commissioners, it seems to indicate that the Mayor had talked to them regarding this subject, or that he instructed the Chairman to talk to them regarding this subject. All those actions are not illegal, not inappropriate, and are moot because the Mayor's request and package of documents related to his request is a different subject and paramaters than the package of documents related to the BOA request that was the same as those sent previously to the ParkRec, ConsComm and PZC when they all three rendered unanimous decisions to not sell the City property. +++

Lauretti wants the city to carve out an acre of the 14-acre site to sell. He said that he has the authority to request 8-24 referrals, as well as the aldermen.

+++ The Mayor is correct. Unfortunately, his request is a different one than the process of commenting on the request made from the BOA where the information provided by them to the PRC, CC and PZC was from an identical package with no hint of apples vs oranges. +++

"This is a piece of property that we should sell," Lauretti said. "It has no economic impact on anyone or anything but the bottom line -- this is a business decision."

+++ That is not true, and is an offensive comment to me given the efforts made to follow a process that is defined for a purpose. There is more to the equation and "business decision" that the BOA will have to make than purely economics. The Park & Recreation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any recreational value of the community. The Conservation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any environmental value of the community. The Planning & Zoning Commission has given a referral as outlined by State Statute 8-24 from a overall planning perspective regarding the parcels value to the community's needs. +++

Jones is wrong about the whole issue, Lauretti said. "He doesn't know what he is talking about once again," he said. "He is uninformed and very deceptive."

+++ When it comes toward election time, there is a lot of mis-information to go around on all sides. +++

Jones and commission alternate Joseph Sedlock were the only commissioners who voted against recommending the sale. Sedlock was sitting in for Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who had to attend a wake Tuesday night. The three are the commission's only Democrats.

+++ Issues regarding property acquisition or disposition should not be politicized, but rather be based on the facts. That is why there is a process in place to ensure these subjects are dealt with transparently, rigorously, and promptly. The process is being corrupted. +++

PZC on 279 Soundview Sep8

Last night (Sep8) the PZC had on their agenda some 8-24 referral items regarding disposition of various City parcels, and I'll stick to the item 279 Soundview Ave item VI-C for purposes of my comment. I was curious why this was on the agenda, since I knew the issue had already been dealt with, so I attended the PZC mtg.

As a refresher:
The BOA should be familiar with the process of disposing of City property since they passed the ordinance at their recent mtg of 2009Feb11.

The Mayor asked PZC to render an 8-24 referral on the parcel and the PZC had it on their agenda for Mar10. The PZC had a majority vote say that it was appropriate to be sold. Although the Mayor stated that his office has the prerogative to ask for referrals at any time and for any reason, at the BOA mtg of 2009Mar12, the BOA stated that the Mayor hadn't followed the disposition of land process that is in place and they would correct that going forward. This is referencing the City of Shelton Ordinance #839 process.

Once they sorted this out at the BOA mtg of 2009Apr9, the BOA began following the defined process. At that time they asked the CC and PRC to give their opinions. At the CC mtg of 2009May6, the CC both visited the site and looked at the maps provided us by Asst Corporation Counsel Ray Sous, collectively as part of the request, and had a split vote over a recommendation. We decided to investigate the UConn Farmlink program further as it may apply to this parcel, and informed the BOA of such action. At the CC mtg of 2009Jun3 the CC had further data regarding the program and to summarize: under the conditions presented, recommended not selling with the resulting letter that was sent to the BOA on Jun10.

At the Jul9 BOA mtg, (pg15) the BOA recognized the CC and PRC response (both unanimous not to sell) and voted to take the next step of requesting PZC comment under CGS Sec 8-24 regarding the City disposing of the parcel. At the Aug11 PZC mtg (pg26) the PZC evaluated and responded unanimously not to dispose of the parcel. A letter was written and communicated to the BOA promptly for their consideration at the upcoming Aug13 BOA mtg. The BOA on Aug13 was flummoxed by the unanimous PZC negative response and wanted to take time to read the minutes (which weren't available being that the PZC mtg was held 2 days previous) to understand more fully how the PZC decision was arrived at.

The BOA could have proceeded immediately on Aug13 under the process toward sale by attempting a 2/3 majority vote in order to over-ride the PZC referral opinion on the planning perspective, and gone on further by obtaining an appraisal. They chose to wait and read the minutes when they became available, which brings us to last night.

The PZC Chairman stated during the meeting that the Mayor contacted him to have the issue put back on the agenda, and it seemed obvious that the Mayor had communicated to several members that they should reconsider their previously rendered opinion. It was stated by P&Z Commissioners that they didn't have maps and all the data available to them at their Aug meeting. If that was the case then they should have tabled the issue, but I would be surprised if that statement was correct as the PZC minutes indicate a packet was distributed and the CC had all data including maps available to it back in May when it visited the site. Outside of my passion of this being a CC subject, I was curious and did some research on whether last nights PZC action was even appropriate.

The PZC operates under Roberts Rules of Order. A motion was made at the Aug11 PZC mtg and the action (sending the opinion letter to the BOA) was accomplished.

If there is ever a question about an action during a meeting, a body may take up a "motion to reconsider". That doesn't apply as the decision was made in a previous session that is closed.
Article VI, Sec. 36. Reconsider.1 This motion is peculiar in that the making of the motion has a higher rank than its consideration, and for a certain time prevents anything being done as the result of the vote it is proposed to reconsider. It can be made only on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day, a legal holiday or a recess not being counted as a day. It must be made by one who voted with the prevailing side. Any member may second it. It can be made while any other question is pending, even if another member has the floor, or after it has been voted to adjourn, provided the chair has not declared the assembly adjourned. It may be made after the previous question has been ordered, in which case it and the motion to be reconsidered are undebatable.

If the session in which a motion is made has closed, and the body wanted to change it's mind, the appropriate direction would be to have a "motion to rescind". Rick had already taken action by delivering a letter to the BOA stating the PZC decision on the 8-24 referral. Such action could be "undone" since the BOA took no action after receiving the PZC letter, and thus there was left open a possibility that a "motion to rescind" would be capable - but that wasn't the way the PZC handled it - they simply voted on an 8-24 referral issue and put themselves in the position of again flip-flopping in what is the 3rd time of stating an opinion on the same issue.
Article VI, 37. Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Any vote taken by an assembly, except those mentioned further on, may be rescinded by a majority vote, provided notice of the motion has been given at the previous meeting or in the call for this meeting; or it may be rescinded without notice by a two-thirds vote, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The notice may be given when another question is pending, but cannot interrupt a member while speaking. To rescind is identical with the motion to amend something previously adopted, by striking out the entire by-law, rule, resolution, section, or paragraph, and is subject to all the limitations as to notice and vote that may be placed by the rules on similar amendments. It is a main motion without any privilege, and therefore can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the assembly. It cannot be made if the question can be reached by calling up the motion to reconsider which has been previously made. It may be made by any member; it is debatable, and yields to all privileged and incidental motions; and all of the subsidiary motions may be applied to it. The motion to rescind can be applied to votes on all main motions, including questions of privilege and orders of the day that have been acted upon, and to votes on an appeal, with the following exceptions: votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo; or where it is in the nature of a contract and the other party is informed of the fact; or, where a resignation has been acted upon, or one has been elected to, or expelled from, membership or office, and was present or has been officially notified. In the case of expulsion, the only way to reverse the action afterwards is to restore the person to membership or office, which requires the same preliminary steps and vote as is required for an election.

===========SUMMARY ============
The #1 Public Official told the Chair of the PZC to have items placed on the agenda, and contacted P&Z commissioners to convince them to vote a certain way. The Chair did what the Mayor told him to do (the PZC took an item on it's agenda that had already been decided upon) and the commissioners contacted voted the way they were told (rendering an opposite decision on the same question upon which it had already issued a letter just one month previous). They should have instead "rescinded" their previous opinion and amended it to state a new opinion. End result is the same outcome, and some will say it's semantics, but rules of process are there for a reason.

Letter to Editor - HuntHrld

On WedAug12 there were opinion letters to the editor in the Huntington Herald from BOA President John Anglace, and Citizens United Chairman Chris Panek. The following is my response submitted for their publishing:

** On FriAug14 I was asked to revise my letter to be >500 word limit of the Huntington Herald. The revision caused a slightly different version to be submitted and hopefully printed next week. I offer the trimmed version at the end of this entry. **

Editor,

As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I hope to offer some clarity on the issue of Shelton selling real-property (real-estate) which was commented on in recent letters to the editor by John Anglace and Chris Panek.

The City acquires real-property for basically two government purposes. Either to provide for City needs toward infrastructure (schools, firehouse, roads, etc) or preserving community quality of life (open space, woodland forests, agricultural soil lands, fields for recreation, etc). At times the City can suffice without buying the land as a whole ("in-fee") by stretching taxpayer dollars to buy only partial ownerhips for "rights" such as an easement to utilize the property (ie: sewer or water line), or protect the property (purchase of development rights on farm and forest lands).

No matter the reason for acquisition of either easment or full ownership rights, a fair amount of thought goes into the decision process before action is taken. Likewise, if such ownership of land is sought to be disposed of or sold, there is a thoughtful process in place to make such decision. In Shelton, that is spelled out in Ordinance #832, which was recently reviewed and unanimously adopted on 2009/Feb/11.

Through its own volition or via a request received, the Board of Alderman (the City's fiscal authority) may wish to consider selling City owned real-property. If the property is signficant (having fair market value over $10k) and the BOA decides it has an interest in selling, they move into this defined process. The BOA requests commentary from the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission who respectively offer input on the environmental and recreational value of the property to the City and a recomendation. The BOA considers this information provided to determine if they wish to proceed, and if so, they request comment from the Planning & Zoning Commission as a formal "8-24" referral to receive their recomendation from a planning perspective.

The process continues further, but it is to that point that we have reached. The City (Mayor's office) received a request(s) and/or decided to sell five parcels of City land, and began asking for input from City agencies. The PZC responded to the Mayor's request, however the BOA halted that endeavor by bringing attention to and beginning the ordinance defined process with requesting of input from the PRC and CC. As this applies for 2 of the 5 parcels discussed in the letter to the editors (279 Soundview Avenue, 58 Perry Hill Road), the PRC and CC both returned unanimous negative comments toward a sale. The BOA then determined that they still wished to proceed and requested a referral from the PZC. Subsequent to publishing of the letters to the editor, the PZC on TueAug11 also returned a unanimous unfavorable referral toward a sale for both parcels. At this juncture, if the BOA wishes to proceed they must over-ride the PZC unfavorable referral by a 2/3 vote (super majority) to have the property appraised for valuation, and schedule a public hearing. On ThuAug13 the BOA decided to instead defer that decision until it had seen the minutes of the PZC meeting so that they could more fully understand how they arrived at their unanimous unfavorable opinion toward a sale.

I have served on the Conservation Commission for over 10 years, during which time the public has strongly supported open space acquisition, enjoying the passive recreation uses upon them and the ambience they provide to our education campuses and community at large. While I hope that unfavorable opinion from the CC, PRC, and PZC regarding selling property (some of which was just purchased last year) would collectively persuade the BOA that disposal at this time is ill-advised, I am confident that an educated public will make their desires known to the Aldermen if they continue to pursue the disposal process to the next step of obtaining an appraisal and scheduling a public hearing. Too further that education beyond what can be written in a letter to the editor, I invite readers to review further info on such issues via the blog I have maintained since 2006. http://www.sheltoncc.blogspot.com/

Tom Harbinson - ChairmanShelton Conservation Commission
submitted Aug14 10:20am

** Trimmed version below as requested by the newspaper to meet 500 word count limit ***
As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I offer some clarity regarding Shelton selling real-estate which was commented on via recent letters to the editor by John Anglace and Chris Panek.

Shelton acquires property for basically two government purposes: provide for infrastructure needs (schools, firehouse, roads, etc) or preserving quality of life (open space, forests, agricultural lands, recreation fields, etc). The City might suffice without buying the land as a whole ("in-fee") by stretching taxpayer dollars to buy only partial ownerships ("rights") such as an easement to utilize the property (ie: sewer or water line), or protect the property (purchase of development rights on farm lands).

No matter the reason for acquisition of either easement or full ownership, a fair amount of thought goes into the decision process before action is taken. Likewise, if such ownership is sought to be disposed of or sold, there is a thoughtful process in place to make such decision that is spelled out in Ordinance #832, which was recently revised and adopted on 2009/Feb/11.

The Mayor's office received a request(s) and/or decided to sell five parcels of City land, and began asking for input from City agencies. The PZC responded to the Mayor's request, however the BOA halted that endeavor, brought attention to and started the ordinance defined process by requesting input from the PRC and CC. As this applies for 2 of the 5 parcels discussed in the editorials (279 Soundview Avenue, 58 Perry Hill Road), the PRC and CC both returned unanimous negative comments toward a sale. The BOA then determined that they still wished to proceed and requested a referral from the PZC. Subsequent to publishing of the letters in the paper, the PZC on TueAug11 also returned a unanimous unfavorable referral toward a sale for both parcels. On ThuAug13 the BOA decided to defer anymore decision until it had seen the minutes of the PZC meeting so that they could more fully understand how they arrived at their unanimous unfavorable opinion toward a sale.

I’ve served on the CC for over 10 years, during which time the public has strongly supported open space acquisition, enjoying the passive recreation uses upon them and the ambience they provide to our education campuses and community at large. While I hope that unfavorable opinions from the CC, PRC, and PZC regarding selling property (some of which was just purchased last year) would collectively persuade the BOA that disposal at this time is ill-advised, I am confident that an educated public will make their desires known to the BOA if they continue to pursue the disposal process to the next step of scheduling a public hearing. In order to further that education beyond what can be written in a letter to the editor (and even this letter was revised under request to fit within the newspaper’s word count limit), I invite readers to review further info on such issues via the blog I have maintained since 2006. www.sheltoncc.blogspot.com

Animal Shelter - Huntington Herald

The Huntington Herald has an article regarding the CC not being supportive of locating a proposed animal shelter at the City Open Space located at corner of Nells Rock Rd and Shelton Avenue.

I encourage readers to go to the HuntHrld article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

Commission pans proposed animal shelter location
Written by Fred Musante Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:33

The Conservation Commission thinks the mayor was barking up the wrong tree when he suggested putting the city’s new animal shelter on open space property at Shelton Avenue and Nells Rock Road.

With the Animal Shelter Building Committee’s blessing, the Conservation Commission voted unanimously last week to oppose that location as an inappropriate use of open space and contrary to the development of the Shelton Greenway.
+++ Readers can go to the source and directly read our minutes from the WedAug5 CC mtg. City agency minutes are SUPPOSED TO be made public within 7 days. The Conservation Commission accomplishes this as we use google groups message board service to publicly email among members and satisfy FOI regs. This allows public to also see attachments immediately in real-time that may be sent such as field photos, drawings, letters, or scanned documents. +++

The move is the latest in a series of disagreements over the use of open space property that pits Mayor Mark Lauretti against the Conservation Commission and other city agencies.
+++ I don't know if that statement is entirely fair. The CC is purely advisory, and at times we have given opinion that is contrary to that offered by the Mayor, or the P&Z Commission, or the Board of Alderman. To say that the CC is "pitted" against the Mayor implies we are advisaries. The many accomplishments regarding open space preservation and use for passive recreation could not be accomplished without various agencies working together toward a common goal. +++

Another one is the increasingly politicized proposed sale of several other pieces of city property, which is back on the agenda for the Board of Aldermen’s meeting scheduled for Thursday, 7 p.m. in City Hall.

They include pieces of open space land at 279 Soundview Avenue and 58 Perry Hill Road that both the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission advised against selling, and a building at 470 Howe Avenue that the aldermen voted last month not to sell but may be reconsidering this week.
+++ This touches on an issue that is both complicated and length in history. Rather than re-iterate what I've said on the subject, search this blog with the keyword "279" to find further content. +++

In an interview, Lauretti said frustration over the slow pace for building a new animal shelter led him last month to direct the building committee to look at the corner of Nells Rock Road and Shelton Avenue.
+++ The Animal Control Shelter Building Committee has stated that they were directed to examine the parcel on Riverdale Ave, near the sewer treatment plant and the "pink elephant" (the pink elephant is the local term for the pink metal building on Riverdale Ave that provides storage for the City of Shelton). The Building Committee did Phase 1 environmental tests, and when those were satisfactory, pursued Phase 2 environmental tests, which also have come back satisfactory. Understandably, these items take time, however 2yrs does seem lengthy.+++

He said that is a central location, easy for city residents to get to, and seemed to him to be a site with fewer “hassles” for developing the animal shelter.
+++ On p.4 of our Aug5 CC mtg minutes, I specifically asked Animal Control officer Sheryl Taylor if being centrally located is essential in accomplishing her role. The Riverdale location is not in the geographic center of town, but it is quickly accessible to the arterial roads that access the entire town efficiently, and is more closely located to the population disbursement of Shelton. A central geographic location is not a criteria for site selection of the animal shelter. The Riverdale location is the first choice of the Building Committee, they have cleared the industrial site via environmental testings, had design work prepared for the site and are ready to move forward but were redirected by the Mayor to instead look at Nells Rock.+++

But hassles have a way of sprouting. Nearby residents in every direction from that corner said they also oppose putting the animal shelter there and promised that more of their neighbors would join them if the proposal advances further.
+++ The City Open Space on Nells Rock Rd is in a residential zone. Clearly, the animal shelter is not a residential use and has cause resident's concern for the conflict between uses of residential and industrial. +++

“If I have a concern, who do I address them to?” asked Mary Jane Martucci of Aspectuck Village. Marilyn Gannon of Falmouth Drive said she doubted her neighbors would want to listen to dogs at the shelter barking all day.

Building Committee Chairman Tony Minopoli and Vice Chairman Gerry Craig said they didn’t choose the Nells Rock corner. “We were basically going at the mayor’s request,” Craig said.

But they share the mayor’s frustration at the city’s inability to find a location, and Minopoli predicted that sooner or later state officials would put pressure on the city to get the project moving. “Speaking for the committee, we don’t care where the property is,” said Minopoli.
+++ I believe the Building Committee has said they found a location, and examined it, and it is their choice. I think a better phrasing would be "the City's inability to ACCEPT a location". +++

Lauretti said he didn’t care either. “It makes no difference to me,” he said.
+++ It would seem constructing the shelter downtown at the Riverdale location first examined by the Building Committee under direction of the Mayor, duly examined for environmental issues at first a Phase 1 and then more detailed Phase 2 level, and for which there is a building design, is the correct direction: Move forward in progress toward completion at Riverdale Avenue. +++

The current animal shelter at 20 Riverdale Avenue is too small and outdated. The building committee members said they propose a new 5,000-square-foot facility, about four times the size of the present shelter, and include an “adoption room” where people thinking of adopting a dog can meet it in a socially favorable environment.

A piece of land on Riverdale Avenue is available for the facility, and minor brownfield pollution there is not seen as an insurmountable obstacle.
+++ The Phase 1 and Phase 2 environmental studies show minor contaminates that would be expected on a former industrial site location. Similar to the Riverwalk and Farmer's Market areas, those issues of contamination, even when significant (which it is not in this case), can be resolved. +++

But Lauretti wouldn’t give the parcel his okay because of concerns it might be needed in the future for an expansion of the city sewage treatment plant.
+++ There is some confusion on timeline in the article. I do not believe that the parcel adjacent to the sewer treatment plant is the parcel studied for environmental issues. Why would the Mayor direct the building committee to examine a location and conduct environmental issues on a site he knew might rather need be reserved for sewage treatment plant expansion? I think the article is mixing apples and oranges in discussing different parcels on Riverdale Ave. +++

School bus drivers currently park their cars on the parcel. The school bus parking lot across the street can’t be used for the animal shelter because it is in the Housatonic River flood plain zone.
Minopoli said the new shelter would look like a New England barn. But the appearance wasn’t what drew the Conservation Commission’s opposition.
+++ To clarify: A) Expanding/rebuilding on the current shelter site is no good because that is needed as reserve to sewer treatment plant expansion. B) Building on bus parking lot location is inappropriate due to flood plain level above the adjacent river. C) The desired site, where Phase 1 and 2 studies have taken place to give it a clear signal to move forward, is where school bus drivers currently park their personal vehicles when arriving for work. The puzzle seems to be not where to locate an animal shelter, but where workers should park their cars to come to work. +++

The land, acquired from the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company, was financed by a bond sale approved by city voters in a referendum. Members of the Conservation Commission said deed restrictions require that the land must be used for “passive” non-sports type recreation, such as hiking, bird watching and fishing.
+++ The land on Nells Rock (and separate parcels elsewhere in town) was Class 3 watershed land purchase as open space from a water utility company. The Ct General Statutes require that 85% of the total acreage in the purchase agreement MUST be used for passive recreation - a term defined in the Ct Gen Statutes. A large amount of acreage from the purchase was used to construct the Shelton Intermediate School, and significantly impacted the City's ability to be flexible in how the remaining acreage on the balance of parcels could be utilized. This was understood and planned for when the purchase concept was promoted to the public in anticipation of a bonding referendum (bonded $6,672,500) to help fund the total purchase cost. The residents agreed with that direction to purchase the land for open space on 1997Jun3 by voting 89.5% in favor of it. (607 residents voted "no" out of a population of 38,101 according to the 2000 census) +++

The corner parcel is also located in the middle of the Shelton Greenway, an open space corridor devoted to those passive recreation activities.
+++ The Shelton Lakes Greenway is the more accurate term, as there are several greenways in Shelton as shown on our Open Space Plan. These assemblages of parcels create a corridor of acreage which facilitates greater passive recreation use, but also wildlife migration and larger protected animal habitats. +++

The Conservation Commission is also on record opposing a dog park there, at odds with the Parks and Recreation Commission, which supports it.
+++ The CC is not unanimous in their opinion regarding a dog park, which is a separate issue from the Animal Control Shelter. +++

Nells Rock Animal Shelter - CtPost

The Connecticut Post has an article regarding our CC meeting on Wed night where the Animal Control Facility Building Committee attended our meeting in reponse to the letter we sent them.

I encourage readers to go to the Ct Post article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

Shelton animal shelter site selection continues to drag on
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 08/07/2009 12:05:53 AM EDT

SHELTON -- Both the Conservation Commission and the Animal Shelter Building Committee Wednesday agreed that the suggestion to put the new shelter on open space on Nells Rock Road is one they're not advocating.

The commission met with members of the committee Wednesday night during the commission's regular monthly meeting to discuss the best location for the shelter.

For three years the committee has been working on plans for the new shelter but still lacks a commitment from the city as to where it will go.

Initially, Mayor Mark A. Lauretti, who requested the creation of the committee in 2006, instructed members to focus on a spot on Riverdale Avenue near where the current shelter is located and next to the building known as the "Pink Elephant." The committee then conducted two phases of environmental testing on the industrial-zoned property, both of which came back as clean, committee chairman Tony Minopoli said.
+++ The Building Committee was directed by the Mayor to focus on the Riverdale Ave location. They conducted Phase 1 environmental tests and they were good. They then conducted the more detailed Phase 2 environmental tests and they were good. They have interviewed several building companies and designs for the construction that could take place there. All of this was over 2-3 years of work by the Building Committee +++

But Lauretti shifted gears and decided to use that site to park the city's school buses, which had previously been housed at a leased site on River Road. The mayor then suggested the site on Nells Rock Road at Shelton Avenue by the Shelton Greenway.
+++ Shelton's school bus services is contracted to a private firm. To reduce their cost and save the City money, the Mayor agreed to provide the contractor a location of City property to park the vehicles (previously they leased private property). The location the Mayor selected was near the sewer treatment plant. The drivers park their cars in the morning across the road from the busses in the parcel where the Building Committee seeks to locate the shelter. Consequently, the Mayor has now said for them to look elsewhere, and given direction to look at the forested property purchased from the water utility where the Recreation Path and trails are located as part of the Shelton Lakes Greenway of Open Space properties. +++

It's also the site of the proposed new dog park, which a subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Department is charged with creating. That, too, is a bad idea, members of the Conservation Commission said, and putting both the dog park and the animal shelter there is even worse.
+++ The dog park is viewed as an ancillary passive recreation use by the CC, however they are not unanimously in support of the dog park concept at that location +++

"We didn't ask for, seek or request" the Nells Rock Road site, Minopoli said. "We were directed to go look at the property."

Lauretti couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.

Plans call for a new, 5,200-square-foot steel building to replace the aging, 1,200-square-foot facility that has been used for decades. The building is designed to look like a barn in keeping with the city's farming history, Minopoli said, and will include separate "adoption rooms" and space for cats.

Of all the city-owned open space, the Nells Rock Road spot is near the fewest residences, except for a site by the former landfill on River Road, Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson said. Even so, there were neighbors who came out Wednesday to voice opposition to the suggestion.
+++ Being removed from residences may not be a criteria for site selection, as Officer Taylor has noted that all dogs are brought in at night from their outdoor run areas. Noise would emenate from the shelter only during daytime when the dogs are outside. That said, it is obviously not a residential type use and most of the City Open Space is in an R1 zone (residential) and may need a rezoning application to accomodate the use as a shelter +++

"That is a pristine, quiet area," said Falmouth Drive resident Marilyn Gannon, who also is the city's Americans with Disabilities Act director. "There is a lot of wildlife there," she said, noting the bobcat that winters on her back deck. "If you put the animal shelter there, when the wildlife go by the dogs will start barking and no one will get any peace."

"The mere suggestion is so far from any kind of logical discussion," Nells Rock Road resident Jeff Forte said. "It is too close to a residential area, there will be noise issues and there are far better uses for the site."

Where the shelter is now -- downtown on Riverdale Avenue -- is ideal because there are no homes nearby, Minopoli said. "We are requesting that they give us a piece of land," he said, referring to the mayor and the Board of Aldermen, which has final say in the site selection. "We are ready to go and have been at this for three years."
+++ It would seem that the Riverdale site is adequate in size and location, has been tested as environmentally suitable, and is desired by the building committee. It was also where they were directed by the Mayor to focus upon, which they have done now for 2+yrs. It does seem more appropriate a location than tearing into a forested area of land purchased from the water utility that currently affords passive recreation enjoyment of the Open Space property via trails and the Recreation Path, all within the Shelton Lakes Greenway - a corridor of natural landscaped property which the City has made substantial investment in as a community's direction toward appreciation and enjoyment of Open Space. +++

Nells Rock Animal Shelter - Valley Sentinel

The Valley Independent Sentinel has an article regarding our CC meeting last night where the Animal Control Facility (Shelter) Building Committee attended our meeting in response to letter we sent them.

I encourage readers to go to the Valley Independent Sentinel article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
by Aly Shea Aug 6, 2009 7:26 am Shelton
Members of Conservation Commission do not think a parcel of land at the corner of Shelton Avenue and Nells Rock Road is a good spot for a new animal shelter. They unanimously voted against the site during their meeting Wednesday.

The rejection was supported by members of the town’s Animal Shelter Building Committee. It has spent the past few years lobbying the city to grant the new animal shelter a parcel of land next to the current Shelton Animal Shelter on Riverdale Avenue.

“We were directed to that site [at Nells Rock Road and Shelton Avenue],” Committee Chairman Tony Minopoli said. “We never requested it.” Minopoli that Mayor Mark Lauretti recommend the site to the committee.

Minopoli also said that there has been no opposition from the public about putting a new, more than 5,000 square-foot animal shelter facility downtown, in the same area as the current one.
The only questions, which are environmental, have been addressed through both Phase I and Phase II environmental testing. The testing came back clean, he said.
+++ The Building Committee was directed by the Mayor to look at a piece of property adjacent to the current shelter. In their review process, one resident brought up concerns about potential environmental conditions given the history of the area's use for industry over the years and likelihood of some contaminations. The Building Committee conducted a Phase 1 study, and then went even into further detail with a more thorough Phase 2 study - both of which showed the site as suitable. The Building Committee has developed a building design for that site and proceeded quite some way on that process.+++

The current animal shelter is about 1,200 square feet, and Shelton Animal Control Officer Sheryl Taylor said it is nowhere near enough space for all the animals that the shelter takes in as Shelton’s population grows. “We need a shelter that’s suitable for the times,” Taylor said.

Even with tight quarters, Taylor stressed that she has had no complaints about noise from residents who live near the existing animal shelter. Taylor emphasized the lack of noise complaints after Nells Rock area resident Marilynn Gannon cited the quiet of the neighborhood as a reason for opposing the proposal.
+++ Officer Taylor did make note that all dogs are brought in from the outdoor runs at night, so there should be no noise at night. Residents living near the current facility thus likely have few noise issues when they return to home for the evenings. A facility located within the Shelton Lakes Greenway where passive recreation on trails and peaceful enjoyment of fishing on the reservoirs now occurs, may be disrupted during daytime hours when the dogs are outside in their runs. +++

Gannon and several other area residents voiced their opposition to a separate proposal to put a dog park on parcel of land, again citing noise concerns. Members of the Animal Shelter Building Committee stressed that they are in no way involved with the dog park proposal, and they seemed to be preaching to the choir.
+++ To be clear: Animal Shelter Building Committee = Replacement of City infrastructure in building and runs for dogs and other animals. Dog Park Committee = finding an area that can be fenced so people can bring their dogs to run off-leash and socialize with other dogs. +++

The Conservation Commission members said they had gone on the record as being unanimously opposed to the dog park once, and their feelings on the issue had not changed.
+++ Correction: The CC is not unanimously in support of the dog park concept. Some members are against the concept, some members are in support of it. It is incorrect to say the CC is unanimously opposed to the park concept. Many do feel that if there is a supportive organization who would maintain and construct the fencing area for the dog park, that would be more appropriate than the City undertaking the creation and maintenance. Other communities have a "friends of the bark park" type of concept.+++

Animal Shelter and Bark Park

The CtPost had an article regarding the Animal Shelter and Dog Park being located on a parcel at corner of Nells Rock and Rte 108. The interaction between this City infrastructure use of Shelton Open Space in the Shelton Lakes Greenway, which is currently being used for passive recreation of trails, was a discussion in our google groups emails and at our Conservation Commission meetings.

I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 08/03/2009 12:18:02 AM EDT

SHELTON -- Members of the Conservation Commission want to begin a discussion with members of the Animal Shelter Building Committee amid talk that the shelter could be relocated to city-owned open space near the Shelton Greenway.

Commission chairman Tom Harbinson has invited committee members to attend the commission's meeting Wednesday at 7 p.m. in City Hall. "The Conservation Commission has strong concerns regarding any proposed relocation of the animal shelter to the Shelton Lakes Greenway along Shelton Avenue," Harbinson said in a letter to committee member Gerry Craig.

The commission wants to discuss the selection process the committee used and what other possible city-owned open space parcels would be appropriate, he said.

Already plans are in the works to locate a dog park at the site at the corner of Shelton Avenue and Nells Rock Road. It's not those plans the commission has concerns about, Harbinson said, but a separate proposal to also locate the shelter there.

"The commission has heard innuendo/rumors that the city is considering combining the off-leash dog area with construction of an animal control facility building," Harbinson said. "This raises several issues as they are differing uses and concepts." Those issues include how it would affect those who use the trail, he said.

"A perpetual presence of corralled animals being held by the animal control officer at a facility might infringe on the passive and peaceful enjoyment of the trails network in a greenway corridor," Harbinson said. "An intermittent public use of a set-back fenced area for dogs to socialize off-leash is a different subject and though the two interact with dogs, they are not the same.
+++ The CC has had a representative on the Bark Park committee of Parks and Recreation Commission and has been part of the planning and review process for that proposed use of Open Space since the inception of the concept as requested by two children to the Mayor in a letter. John Papa (Chair of PRC) and myself (Chair of CC) were asked by the Mayor to review the Bark Park concept, which PRC took over as the more appropriate lead agency. The CC has had no involvement to date with the Animal Control Facility. +++

"If the Conservation Commission knew the parameters of needs for an animal control facility, we might be able to suggest a location that could be further examined and help act to advance the process rather than react to a proposal," he said.

Mayor Mark A. Lauretti, who formed the committee several years ago because he felt the current facility is inadequate, said he thinks the Shelton Avenue site could work.
+++ To be particular, The Plan of Conservation and Development called for the upgrading of the animal control facility, not the Mayor. A building committee was formed quite some time ago, 2yrs sounds about right. The consideration of the current Riverdale Avenue site has been complicated by need to retain future expansion capability for the sewer treatment facility. The Conservation Commission's concern is to help support the City's operations from an environmental perspective, and knowing where currently vacant City is owned land would further that endeavor. To do so, the CC has offered to be part of the process given it's technical knowledge of parcels under City ownership and their characteristics, possibly saving the City time and effort in preface of a selection process, rather than after design has begun. +++

"I don't think it's a bad location," he said. "It's open space and it is accessible to the public, and part of the reason that we bought these places is to accommodate city services." Lauretti said he doesn't understand why the commission would object to the shelter but not the dog park. "I don't know what the difference is between the two of them," he said.
+++ Nells Rock and Rte108 is a desirous location for a multitude of uses. I've heard of an Ambulance or Emergency preparedness location, Park and Rec facility, Nature Center, Firehouse, etc. There is no debating that it is not a bad location of centrally located geography, but that is not our concern, rather: What are the paramaters of the Animal Control Facility, and where might they best be accomodated? How many parking spaces, what size structure, hours of operation, sound or light pollution. Once these are defined, the use would dictate where the options for locating are.
Yes, one of the reasons land is sometimes purchased by the City is to provide location for future City services infrastructure. That was not the case at this Rte108 location however. This was former water utility land (Bridgeport Hydraulic Company) that being a class3 watershed, the utility was allowed to dispose of under State Statutes that require it be used for passive recreation, a term defined in Ct General Statutes. There are restrictions as to what can be done with the land at that particular location.
The difference between a shelter and dog park is the use. The former is a City infrastructure item and the latter is an ancillary passive recreation use. The laymans way of describing passive recreation, is a use that requires no structures. Thus, sports fields that require dugouts or goal posts are active recreation due to the structures. Passive uses can be hiking, fishing, bird watching, kite flying, swimming, ice-skating, etc. Surprisingly, golf is listed specifically as a passive recreation activity (no structures are required for it, only a certain amount of land and a hole in the ground) +++

The Board of Aldermen still has to approve any selected site, and the budget for the new shelter hasn't yet been set, Lauretti said, but he wants to see the project move forward.
+++ My understanding of typical process for City building projects is that the Bldg Committee should select sites based on a defined criteria for the use, recomending one from the resulting list as their proposed site to the BOA. The BOA should request an 8-24 referral from the Planning & Zoning Commission as the appropriateness of the location from a planning perspective, at which point the CC might render commentary for the record. The BOA would approve a budget for the Bldg Committee to work within and applications for construction would commence thru the PZ Dept and Building Dept. After 2yrs, according to the Mayor's comments in this article, the Bldg Committee has yet to complete step 1 - selecting a site. +++

"I would like to see construction start in the spring or summer of next year," he said.
Animal Shelter committee members declined to comment on the issue.

Meetings set The Shelton Conservation Commission meets the first Wednesday of each month at 7 p.m. in Shelton City Hall.

BOA asks PZC for 8-24 - CtPost Jul12

encourage readers to go to the CTPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_12821834

Possible sale of Shelton properties explored
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 07/12/2009 10:32:51 PM EDT

SHELTON -- Despite unfavorable recommendations from two city boards, the Board of Aldermen has voted to continue the process of selling city-owned land for two properties many say should not be sold.

Five properties were on the board's agenda Thursday night, and for all but one, the sales process will proceed. The aldermen agreed not to sell 450 Howe Ave., the former home of the Naugatuck Valley Health District and at one time City Hall.

Shelton Fire Department Chief Fran Jones has notified the aldermen that the department would like to see the downtown building turned into a new fire headquarters that also could house a police substation.

In order to sell city property, the aldermen must first get opinions from the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. It then votes either not to continue the process, or to send the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an 8-24 referral, named for the state statute that requires the step.

If P&Z recommends favorably, the aldermen then vote to either schedule a public hearing on the sale or not continue the process. If the zoning recommendation is unfavorable, the aldermen can override that with a two-thirds vote.

The board agreed to move forward with possible sale of Access Road, a road that runs parallel to Bridgeport Avenue that developer Monty Blakeman wants to buy and incorporate into his plans to build a shopping center at the site of the former Crabtree auto dealership. It has not yet been determined if the city or the state, which had turned the road over to the city for future expansion of Bridgeport Avenue, has authority to dispose of the road.

The board also agreed to continue investigating the sale of 279 Soundview Ave. and 58 Perry Hill Road, despite both the Conservation and Parks and Recreation commission's opinions that both should be retained by the city.

Initially the motion to continue the process for the Perry Hill Road property failed with a 4-4 vote. Since Mayor Mark A. Lauretti was not present to case the tie-breaking vote, board President John Anglace had the option of voting twice, which he did. His second vote in favor of continuing the process now sends it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
+++ Update Jul17: This may be an invalidated vote. The Chairman of the meeting can vote as an Alderman, or as the Chair, but he can't vote twice. Assistant Corporation Counsel decided this was OK during the mtg, but the Corporation Counsel may ask for reconsideration of this +++

The board also will send to the zoning commission an 8-24 referral for the Soundview Avenue property. Only Aldermen Jack Finn and Stan Kudej voted against it.

Opponents of the sales say that it is a bad time for the city to sell any real estate unless it is an emergency, while proponents maintain the funds the city would realize from the sales would help pay down bonded debt.

Criticism has been directed at the possible sale of one acre of the 14-acre site on Soundview Avenue that includes the only house on the land. Several years ago the city passed on buying the land, which was sold to developer Alvaro DaSilva for $1.4 million. But several months later DaSilva, who at the time was the chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission, sold the property to the city for $2.1 million.
+++ The City didn't "pass" on buying the land. The CC was actively talking to the property owner for years, and she simply decided she wanted to sell at a certain point, and wanted immediate cash payment in full for sales price - which City couldn't do, but a developer could. This was the premise for having an Open Space Trust Account to act in a quick manner. (which capability has been tampered with due to lack of following funding as called for in ordinance). The CC advocated for the parcel to be purchased and did not take a "pass". +++

The Perry Hill property is valuable to the city, some say, because it is part of the old Shelton Intermediate School property. That building is now being remodeled into a fifth- and sixth-grade school and could be needed in the future for expansion, some say.

"All we are doing is continuing to see if it would be worth it to sell," Anglace stressed. "We are not voting to sell anything right now -- all we are doing is continuing to see if we want to take the next step."

BOA asks PZC for 8-24 - Valley Sentinel

The BOA moved forward within the process regarding sale of City property, and asked the Planning & Zoning Commission for 8-24 referrals on several parcels being considered for sale.

I use this blog to comment on news reports and there is a new reporting organization that covers the Valley. Not really a news"paper" since they are purely electronic. They use part of the old "Evening Sentinel" moniker which many who have lived here a long time will remember fondly as a daily afternoon paper. (CtPost bought the Evening Sentinel and then morphed it into their "valley" edition). This blog entry is comments on their report on this subject.

I encourage readers to go to the Valley Independent Sentinel article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

by Jodie Mozdzer Jul 10, 2009 11:46 am
Shelton Land Sale Process Moves Forward

The Board of Alderman voted Thursday night to move forward with the lengthy process to sell four city-owned properties.The city was looking at five properties, but decided Thursday to rule out 470 Howe Ave. as a candidate for sale. That parcel is the former police department and Naugatuck Valley Health District office, which the fire department has expressed an interest in using for a training facility.

The board voted to send the other properties – 279 Soundview Ave., 58 Perry Hill Road, Access Road and Middle Avenue — to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an official referral.

According to the city’s procedure on selling property, if the Planning and Zoning Commission votes in favor of selling the land, the city will have it appraised and then hold a public hearing. (Read the ordinance on selling properties here. Scroll down to 2-18.)

As part of the official selling procedure, the Board of Alderman already has asked for opinions from the Conservation and Recreation Commissions. Each objected to selling the Soundview Avenue and Perry Hill Road parcels.

+++ You can view the CC emails online in real-time. This one has the pdf attachment that is our response to the BOA request. +++

Before the votes, Board of Alderman President John Anglace made it clear that voting to send the items to Planning and Zoning would not necessarily mean the land will be put up for sale.

“Tonight we have to determine if we want to proceed in each case with the next step,” Anglace said.

Here’s a map of the properties. Click on the balloons to see descriptions and the board’s vote on each one. +++ online article has embedded google map +++

View Shelton Properties: Should the City Sell Them? in a larger map

The Properties
279 Soundview Ave.
This property is about 14 acres of open space with a house and garage. The city is thinking about selling the roughly 1 acre where the house is located. The Conservation and Parks and Recreation commissions have said they want to keep the property.

The Board of Alderman voted 6-2 Thursday night to continue looking at whether it should sell this property. The Soundview Avenue property has been the topic of much discussion since it appeared on the list. The property was sold to a local developer for $1.4 million while the city was trying to purchase it. In 2008, about a year later, the city purchased the property, which is adjacent to existing open space, from the developer for $2.1 million.

The Conservation Commission has said it would like to use the property for the state’s FarmLink program, which helps match up potential farmers with land.

+++ Search my blog with keyword "279" for entries on this subject +++

58 Perry Hill Road
This property has about 1.4 acres of land and a house adjacent to the old intermediate school.
The Board of Alderman Thursday initially rejected a motion to move forward with this property, with a tie vote 4-4. However, Board of Alderman President John Anglace broke the tie vote with a charter-sanctioned second vote in the place of Mayor Mark Lauretti, who was absent from the meeting. Anglace voted a second time in favor of continuing to look at Perry Hill Lane “since it goes to the next step and just provides additional information and doesn’t make any final decisions.”

+++ See the minutes from the CC mtg of 2009May6, p.13 for our comments on this parcel +++

Middle Road
This is a “paper-road” that has been abandoned by the city. The Board of Alderman voted unanimously to proceed with the process of selling this parcel.

+++ No conservation value +++

Access Road
This road is where the former Crabtree car dealership sits, which is the proposed site for a new retail development. The city has been researching whether the road would revert back to state control if it abandons it.

+++ No conservation value +++

Questions over what the city is doing with the road led the Planning and Zoning Commission to reject Monty Blakeman’s proposal for the development at its last meeting. Read the Valley Independent Sentinel coverage of that meeting here.

The Board of Alderman unanimously voted to continue the process of potentially selling this land. Click play on the video to see Blakeman’s attorney Dominick Thomas press the board for answers on this property. +++ Article has embedded youtube video from the evening +++

Anglace has said the properties are under consideration for various reasons. For instance, the Perry Hill Road property has a house on it that the city used to rent out, Anglace said in an interview last week. But the city did not like being a landlord, Anglace said. “We’ve had bad experiences, people who had to be evicted,” Anglace said.

In the case of Access Road, the city has long wanted to help with traffic problems the road creates, Anglace said. And now the road is potentially part of the proposed retail development at the former Crabtree car dealership.

The Howe Avenue property was vacant, and Anglace said the city wanted to see if it could get it back on the tax roles. The Middle Road property was abandoned by the city several years ago and had been requested by an interested buyer.

As for Soundview Ave, Anglace said the house has no conservation value along with the open space so it might be worth seeing how much money the city could get for the property.

+++ I would disagree as the Soundview Ave dwelling could work in concert as residence for a tenant farmer. That is why the CC is researching the Farmlink program with looks to match just such a situation with possible tenant. +++

Procedure to sell City property

The ordinance #839 as adopted 2009/Feb/11 is listed below cut/pasted from the municode website where it appears as Part II, Chapter 2, Article I, Sec. 2-18.

Sec. 2-18. Procedure to sell city property.
(a) Definition. From time to time the city may be asked or may decide to sell real property owned by the city and hereby determines that a procedure shall be provided regarding the sale of said real property. Said procedure pertains only to property which the board of aldermen consider "significant". "Significant" shall be defined as the sale of real property which has a fair market value in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
(b) Initial determination by the board. If a request is received the board of aldermen asking the city to sell city-owned real property and the board of aldermen determines that the board has an interest in selling said property or if the board of aldermen decides to sell city-owned real property, the board shall follow the following procedure.
(c) Procedure.
(1) The board of aldermen shall request from the conservation commission and parks and recreation commission their opinion regarding said sale. The board of aldermen specifically wants said commission's opinion regarding the property's open space, conservation or recreational value to the city.
(2) The board of aldermen will consider the information provided by the conservation commission and parks and recreation commission and determine if the board wishes to proceed.
(3) If the board of aldermen determines to proceed, the board of aldermen will then seek an 8-24 referral from the planning and zoning commission.
a. If the 8-24 is favorable to sell, the board of aldermen may proceed with this process.
b. If the 8-24 is unfavorable, the board of aldermen must override the unfavorable by a two-thirds ( 2/3) vote in order to proceed.
(4) If the board of aldermen wishes to proceed with the sale process, they shall have the property appraised. Any appraisal received shall not be disclosed until after the sale has been completed.
(5) The board of aldermen shall hold a public hearing in accordance with P.A. 07-218, when applicable.
(6) If the board of aldermen wish to proceed with the sale process, the board of aldermen can then proceed to advertise that it is accepting bids with a cutoff date to receive sealed bids subject to any deed restrictions and/or conditions the board deems appropriate. Each bid must be accompanied with a check equal to ten (10) percent of the amount bid.
(7) The purchasing agent would publicly open the bids and refer them to the finance committee off the board of A&T who would determine the highest, responsible bidder. The board of aldermen reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
(8) The board of aldermen approves the price and authorizes the sale.
Specifically excluded from this process is the sale of real property located within the redevelopment plan or a municipal development plan as designated by the board of aldermen. The board of aldermen shall determine the process of the sale of real property located within a redevelopment plan or a municipal redevelopment plan on a case by case basis taking into consideration any grant and statutory requirements.
(Ord. No. 782, 7-8-04; Ord. No. 832, 10-11-07; Ord. No. 839, 2-11-09)

CT Post on 279 Soundview CC letter to BOA re:tenant farming

The CTPost will have an article in Wednesday's paper regarding the CC letter to the BOA in response to their request for comment on the City considering sale of 279 Soundview Ave property as our comments are required to be requested via City ordinance. I'm able to write my commentary on the article a day previous to it being in the paper as I have a google alerts service set for keyword "Shelton" and anything on the newswire with such come to me via email.

I encourage readers to go to the CTPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 06/30/2009 06:09:27 PM EDT

SHELTON - The proposal to sell a portion of city-owned open space on Soundview Avenue isn't going over well with two city commissions.

The Board of Aldermen asked both the Parks and Recreation and Conservation commissions if the city should sell the house and about an acre of property on the open space at 279 Soundview Avenue, and both said no.
+++ The City Ordinance requires the BOA to request the CC and the Park&Rec Commission to give commentary input for their decision as to disposal of City real property (land). CC looks at the environmental values, P&R looks at the recreational value/potential. I am unaware of the P&R opinion regarding the characters they evaluate.+++

Instead, the city should make the entire site part of a new state program that pairs up farm land with potential farmers, according to conservation officials.

"Shelton has taken great strides in recent years beyond almost all other towns in Connecticut in its efforts to preserve agricultural land," Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson said in a letter to aldermanic president John Anglace.
+++ The CC takes great pride in being as transparent as technologically possible for the public to participate in the government process. Any emails sent to a quorom of the CC appear on the internet in real -time (actually before they are sent onward to the commissioners themselves), and thus you can see the actual email where the letter was sent as a pdf file to the BOA on Jun16 in the afternoon. +++

The city has, for some of the larger pieces it owns, leased out the land to local farmers to hay, which has helped maintain the properties at no cost to the city but provides no assurance as to the maintenance of the land long-term, he said.
+++ While maintaining a field as a hay meadow has numerous benefits beyond agriculture (providing migratory bird habitat is just one), as stated in the letter to the BOA, "Basic hayng of property (as is done by license at the Klapik, Tall, and Wiacek farms) does not stop invasive shrubs such as Autumn Olive from advancing in to the field further each year from the edge, eventually taking over the entire field if not cut back with a brush hog at a significant expense". Note that the City does not "lease" parcels for a term, it issues a 1yr "license" to hay them.+++

"The reality is that the city does not have the resources on its own to actively protect and manage all the farmland under its stewardship," Harbinson said, "and current lease agreements with area farmers offers no incentive for those farmers to perform long-term maintenance on city property." That incentive could be gained through participation in the state FarmLink program, Harbinson suggested.
+++ To be clear, I thank the farmers who continue via yearly renewed license agreements to put the City's open space parcels to agricultural use via harvesting the grass as hay. They should be applauded for continuing their activities in an increasingly difficult environment of spreading suburbia development. However, the City should consider a lease of the lands currently licensed, and at length of term where the leasee (farmer) would then have surety that investment they make in the land (enriching the soil, maintaining fencing, etc) would have the potential of payback in a future year of crop yield or ease of harvest. +++

"This program is designed to marry prospective would-be farmers with available agricultural land to be farmed," he said. The farmer acts as a tenant and steward of the land, Harbinson said, in exchange for the right to farm there.
+++ The program via UConn has been operating since at least 2006. For example, there are currently shown new 2009 listings for 11 farms seeking tenants, and 20 farmers seeking farms. http://www.farmlink.uconn.edu/ +++

"We believe the Soundview Avenue property, with a ready house, arable land and upland area where a barn could be built, would be an ideal candidate for such an incentive program," Harbinson said. "As there is no budget crisis in Shelton necessitating selling off of its assets right away, there can be no harm to investigating this option and not rushing into the hasty sale of this valuable asset."
+++ The issue regarding agricultural use is in the short term a moot point as the BOA at it's 2009/Jun/11 meeting (p.14 of minutes) authorized a license to adjacent property owner and farmer Art Maybeck to farm the larger tillable portion of the parcel. The BOA is asking CC commentary for selling a carved out building lot with the existing farmhouse from the overall parcel addressed as 279 Soundview Avenue. Given the farmhouse in the core of the agricultural land, selling the house as a building lot would impact the ability to utilize the remaining farmland to it's full agricultural potential. +++

The commission will have the property evaluated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to determine its appropriateness for the program, Harbinson said.

Anglace said he would be interested in looking into the program but it shouldn't halt the process of investigating a possible sale.
+++ Chairman Anglace is correct. According to Ordinance #839, which was recently reviewed by the Board of Alderman and adopted on 2009/Feb/11, after receiving the Conservation Commission and Park & Recreation Commission opinion (both negative to sell in this case), the BOA is to determine if they want to proceed, and if they do, THEN the BOA (NOTE: NOT the Mayor) is required to request an 8-24 referral from the PZC on the sale of the property. The Mayor requested and 8-24 referral in advance of this 4-sale process, not the BOA, and certainly not after receiving opinions from the PRC and CC. This step has not yet been processed by the BOA. It may be semantics in some people's eyes, but the BOA should not rely on an 8-24 referral made by the request of the Mayor in order to accelerate or by-pass the proper process. +++

"Let them proceed with [the evaluation]," Anglace said. "But I don't think we should stop the sale process for them to do that." The city needs to find out how much a sale could bring in to the city, he said.
+++ If the PZC 8-24 referral is positive the BOA may proceed further. If it is not favorable, the BOA must override the 8-24 referral with a 2/3 vote to proceed further. Then the BOA must have the property appraised, and as professional services that is likely to not require going out to bid to choose the vendor. At that point the BOA would know the appraised value, but as they only purchased the property less than a year ago, that is pretty easy to estimate regardless of the process. However that does not mean the same as "how much a sale could bring" as that is the market conditions of competitive bidding. To get to that step, their must be a public hearing, then the BOA decide whether to proceed and if so, must advertise to accept bids, which are received by the purchasing agent, opened publicly, referred to the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, who would determine the highest responsible bidder. The BOA reserves the right to reject any and all bids. The BOA approves the price and authorizes the sale. You can find all of this on the municode website that maintains the City's charter and Ordinances. It is Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-18. +++

He also questioned what financial benefits the city would see from the FarmLink program. "They can't expect us to get them the property to use - that's crazy, it doesn't make sense," Anglace said. "Someone is going to have to pay the city or else the taxpayers are subsidizing them."
+++ As with a license agreement (currently a few dollars per year for haying City Open Space parcels), a lease agreement with have a renumeration component, along with other terms demanded or negotiated by the City's fiscal authority - the BOA. +++

The aldermen will discuss at its July 9 meeting whether to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission for its opinion on a potential sale, which is the next step in the process, Anglace said.
+++ I have great confidence in the City's process on the "Procedure to sell City property" +++