CtPost article 2 on adopting the OSPlan

Keeping open space an issue in Shelton

http://www.connpost.com/ci_11453621
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/14/2009 11:57:55 PM EST

SHELTON -- The Conservation Commission's 2009 Open Space Plan will go at least another two weeks before adoption, but not because one Planning and Zoning Commission member didn't try to get it passed.

The plan, when approved, will become part of the zoning commission's Plan of Conservation and Development, but its specific recommendations must be incorporated into the zoning regulations to be legally enforceable. It initially appeared before the commission in December, when Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester suggested that the recommendation to require a hike from 10 percent to 15 percent in subdivision open space set-asides merited more discussion.

++ The Open Space Plan would become a supporting document to the Plan of Conservation and Development (the "Master" Plan for our community), just as a Parks & Recreation Plan would be a supporting document. The goals of the Open Space Plan and the strategies to achieve them mimic those already contained in the PoC&D which was adopted by the PZC and BOA in 2006. The strategy in question, increasing the set-aside of public open space as part of the exchange for approval of a subdivision to land, is something the P&Z asked itself to do back in 2006, and it has not done so. The OSPlan would reinforce the request that they consider pursuit of the strategy. ++

At the time, Sylvester said he was willing to pass the plan as presented, but wanted it noted that the set-aside issue needed to be further investigated, mainly because state law caps that percentage at 10.

++ The "further investigated" has been done by the CC and presented at the first public hearing with examples from the other communities who have >10% set-asides in their regulations, and the P&Z Administrator confirmed with Assistant Corporation Counsel Ray Sous that this was within the City's right to pursue and incorporate into subdivision regulations. Pursuit of a strategy, such as modifying the subdivision regulations, requires further work by the PZC, and should be holistic. ++

Several other communities in the state require higher percentages and have not been legally challenged. But Shelton Builders Association attorney Stephen Bellis indicated that if the requirement were adopted in the commission's regulations, he would mount a legal challenge.

Because of Sylvester's concerns, the zoning commission decided to discuss the issue with Conservation Commission members before adopting the plan. Some zoning commissioners, including Sylvester, thought a joint meeting would be held, but instead the zoning staff met with conservation officials last week.

++ A work session was held WedJan7 at 3pm between P&Z Administrator Rick Schultz, P&Z Planning Consultant Tony Panico, PZC Chair Tony Pagoda, and CC Chair Tom Harbinson, Vice Chair Bill Dyer, and Commissioner Jim Tate. It was my understanding that all questions that had been brought forth were answered. ++

On Tuesday, the zoning commission again took up the plan, which included changes from last week's meeting but retained the 15 percent set-aside recommendation.

++ To be clear, the OSPlan has as a goal to conserve/preserve a certain amount of land in Shelton. One of the strategies to achieve the goal is to increase the set-aside percentage in the subdivision regulations. Adopting the OSPlan in itself does not increase the set-aside. It simply reinforces the PoC&D's similar request for such strategies to be pursued. ++

The plan also has a goal of preserving 15 percent of the city's land as locally controlled open space, including that which is controlled by organizations such as the Shelton Land Trust. It doesn't include Indian Well State Park, which is controlled by the General Assembly.

++ The CC had much debate as to the term "open space" and the adjectives in front of the noun phrase, such as: public, permanently protected, perceived, etc. While undeveloped lands contribute to environmental balance in a natural way, some lands are or will be needed for recreation activities both passive and active. It was felt that land which the City of Shelton did not have some influence over should thus not be included in the achievement goal of open space percentage in the community. ++

Of that 15 percent, which equates to 3,060 acres, 2,610 are already preserved, Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said, leaving 450 to acquire through purchase or subdivision set asides.

There is about 3,000 acres of open space left in the city, Schultz said. "It is the opinion of the staff that the 450 acres can only be done through acquisition," he said. "We aren't seeing many subdivisions now."

++ The subdivisions that will more commonly occur in Shelton's future are what would be termed "in-fill" projects. Parcels of 10acres or less where subdivision of the land may not yield a worthwhile open space dedication due to it's disjointed nature or not linking with other open space. This is not to say that the inclusion of a "pocket park" from an open space dedication wouldn't be valued, but it will be more unlikely for such proposals. ++

According to the zoning regulations now in place, developers must dedicate 10 percent of their property to the city for open space. The Conservation Commission wants to see that raised to 15 percent.

++ The Ct Gen Statutes refer to no more than 10% of the raw parcel value can be reqd to be set-aside. That is slightly different than assuming 10% of the raw parcel acreage equals 10% of the raw parcel value. A wetlands or steep slope acreage does not have the same value as a flat meadow where a building lot could be created. ++

"There haven't been any appeals" in towns that have a requirement of more than 10 percent, Schultz said, "but we are bound by state statutes." Last month when the issue came up Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson became angry at Sylvester's comments that the proposal to hike the percentage required more discussion. Harbinson was out of state Tuesday and did not attend the P&Z meeting.

++ I believe that the plan speaks for itself, is a reinforcement of the master plan already adopted by the PZC, and that our work session last week had answered any questions. I have attended the public hearing, and a subsequent meetings of the PZC where I expected it to be adopted. I was unable to attend this PZC mtg.++

Again on Tuesday, Sylvester made a motion to pass the plan as presented, but the commission decided to wait until a joint meeting of the two commissions takes place.

"I believe that the plans are well done," Sylvester said. "The criticism leveled at me -- I don't know where that came from."

++ My criticism is that there is a deriliction of duty being witnessed in regard to being prepared for a meeting where consideration and voting on the OSPlan should have taken place. ++

The 15 percent set-aside requirement also is in the Conservation Commission's former plan, Sylvester said, but still needs more discussion, especially if the actual regulations are ever amended to reflect that change.

++ For the first time, I agree with Mr. Sylvester. When subdivision regulations are amended, there should be more discussion so that they are holistically reviewed and consider more than just what is being requested as a supporting strategy toward OSPlan goals. ++

"If that is to be accepted it should be brought to the floor and before a public hearing," he said. "It needs to have a hearing and be discussed." But the plan as a whole is perfectly acceptable, Sylvester said, which is why he made the motion twice to approve it.

++ I'm confused, the OSPlan had a public hearing. There is no change being proposed to the draft that would cause a new public hearing to be reqd. Certainly if the subdivision regs were to be changed, there would be a public hearing. To be clear, at the last PZC mtg, although there was discussion, no motion to approve the plan was made. ++

"I'm appreciative of this group of volunteers who do a great job," he said. "I compliment them for a job incredibly well done and I don't have an issue with the plan -- I am not their enemy."

++ "I don't have an issue with the plan" - then why not adopt it? This defies logic. ++