CtPost: Fence removal gives access to Derby Dam

An article appeared today regarding the FERC order to remove fence that McCallum Enterprises had installed which barred public from the recreational area and portage capability that is outlined and required as part of the license to take power away from the public resource of the Housatonic River.

The article covers areas I've already discussed (search this blog for FERC as a query item). The article does mention a separate subject matter (zoning) which involves an active court case, and I have stated that I will not be discussing legal items until they are resolved via the court process.

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.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_11942638
Fence removal gives access to Derby Dam
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER

SHELTON -- The fence the owners of the Shelton Canal Company put up to keep residents out of the company's property has been taken down after a federal agency ordered it removed.

The public is once again able to fish at the Derby Dam, which has been closed off since late last summer when McCallum Enterprises put up the chain link fence.

Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said the cease and desist order the Planning and Zoning Commission issued to take down the fence has been lifted, but it wasn't that order that prompted McCallum to act -- it was the order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which also ordered the fence taken down. "They took the fence down so I lifted the cease and desist order because they complied with FERC," Schultz said.

McCallum managing partner Joseph Szarmach long maintained that his company was not bound by the conditions the commission set forth in its 1986 approval of the dam but only answerable to FERC.

That angered Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who was chairman of the zoning commission at the time and was instrumental in assuring that a portion of the riverfront site would remain accessible to residents. Sylvester was vocal in urging the commission to take the steps to keep the site open to the public, which led to its issuing the cease and desist order.

McCallum appealed the order to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which was set to act on the appeal Tuesday night. Then FERC issued its ruling denying McCallum a rehearing on its already denied request to relocate the public access, after which the fence was removed.

ZBA did not address the appeal at its meeting Tuesday because McCallum withdrew that appeal, ZBA chairman Gerald Glover said. "It's been withdrawn," he said before Tuesday's meeting.

Szarmach has not responded to requests for comment. McCallum had applied to FERC to modify the public access area at the canal. In its request, the company said the existing space set aside for public recreation presented a liability threat to the company, but FERC said there wasn't evidence to support that claim and denied the request to relocate the public area.

Szarmach has been critical of city officials and the Planning and Zoning Commission, which recently voted to rezone his property from R-4 to R-1, squashing the company's plans to fill in the unused canal and sell it for development. Under the new zoning designation, the land is much less valuable than it would have been under the multi-family zone. Szarmach had plans to build as many as 43 townhouses on the spot.

A sign on the outside gate of the property still advertises it as being for sale. Szarmach has said he is selling it to raise the funds to pay for a state Department of Environmental Protection-mandated fish ladder he must install at the dam at an estimated cost of $2 million.

Szarmach also had hoped the city would buy the land for open space, but Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has indicated the city is not interested.

Commentary on cases in court

One purpose for this blog is to communicate with reporters efficiently. There are a couple of matters involving Shelton subjects upon which I typically blog about, that are in court. An interesting article appears in the NYTimes about jurors doing research or commenting about court cases in which they are serving.

I am not a juror on any case at the moment (though I have performed that public service duty on a civil case in Milford where I was elected the jury foreman). The article focuses on the aspect of impartiality and only considering the facts vetted and presented via the court process. The article did make me reflect upon this blog and the communications it makes.

As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I have been called in the past to give testimony on our practices, and I am currently scheduled to give depositions in 2 separate cases brought against the City and/or agents of the City. I want to clearly state in advance how this blog will function as it relates to such proceedings.

1. Wiacek farm being acquired by the City of Shelton as Open Space via eminent domain. I was called to give testimony in this case some time ago (I think it was 2007). The case had two parts, both of which have been decided: Was the City in the right to use eminent domain proceedings to acquire the land (court ruled yes), and was the valuation paid to the property owners appropriate (court recently ruled no, and ordered an adjustment). Since the case was in the hands of the court for decision, I have felt I could make comments on news articles reporting on the results. The BOA may appeal the valuation ruling, but I have no involvement or affect upon that so I continue to offer comments on articles related to this.

2. Wiacek farm, process of how staff enforced or enacted eminent domain proceedings. I've been asked to give deposition in this case and will not be commenting on any news articles directly related to the case while it is in trial. (though I will enter raw news accounts in the blog for posterity and possible later reference)

3. Canal area zone change, process of how the Planning & Zoning Commission enacted a zone change for the area near Canal Street and Riverview Park. I've been asked to give deposition in this case and will not be commenting on any news articles directly related to the case while it is in trial. (though I will enter them in the blog for posterity and possible later reference).

I have received feedback over the years from all the reporters who cover Shelton, stating that this blog method of providing more in-depth information is a valuable tool for them to reference. I hope the reporters understand my decision regarding blogging about these specific subjects while being contested in court. The blog will continue, except for these 2 cases until they are resolved.

279 Soundview - CTPost on flawed process attempt to sell

The Mayor's office requested the BOA consider the appropriateness of the City selling a piece of land which is part of a larger acreage recently acquired at 279 Soundview Ave. The lot is likely the one containing the farmhouse that came with the larger acreage acquisition of the full original parcel.

I don't know what is being proposed because the Conservation Commission has not been consulted yet. I do not know the acreage, street frontage, any impact on access to a remaining public parcel, or who is making the request to the City that they would like to acquire the land.

The Mayor's office is NOT supposed to initiate requests to the Planning & Zoning for them to consider selling City real property (land). Such request must be received by the BOA and then the BOA must determine that the BOA has an interest in selling the property.

Look at my previous blog post on the subject to understand more on the subject.

I have an RSS feed that alerts me to Saturday's CtPost article appearing online today (Friday). 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.

http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_11907251
Process to sell city property flawed
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer
Updated: 03/13/2009 08:02:39 PM EDT

SHELTON -- The Planning and Zoning Commission's favorable recommendation for the city to sell a portion of the property on Soundview Avenue it just bought may not hold much weight.
That's because the process to sell city-owned property wasn't followed, according to the president of the Board of Aldermen.

On Tuesday the commission voted 3-2 to report favorably on the proposal to sell about an acre of the 14-acre property -- the portion of the site that has on it a single-family home -- in order to recoup part of the $2.1 million price tag.

++ The PZC should only be concerned with this from the perspective of a planning for city purposes perspective. They are a land use agency, not a fiscal authority ++

Mayor Mark A. Lauretti's office asked the commission for the ruling, which violated the process to sell city-owned property. The request was supposed to come from the Board of Aldermen and was supposed to go to the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission before being forwarded to Planning and Zoning.

++ If the BOA had their Reg monthly mtg last night. Their next Reg monthly mtg will occur after the CC has it's Reg monthly mtg. If the BOA do not receive this request, then act on it to forward to the CC for comment during a special mtg during the interm, the CC can not act on it during it's Apr1 mtg, and it would have to wait for our May mtg. Something that should have been taken care of at last nights BOA mtg was fouled up proceedurally ++

Former Alderman Chris Panek, who heads up the Citizen's United Party, brought up the issue at the Board of Aldermen's monthly meeting Thursday. "It was a blatant violation of the process," he said. "The vote should be null and void."

++ I must give credit to Chris who caught that a request to the PZC must come from the BOA, not the Mayor's office. I missed that when I talked to the Mayor's Adm Asst this week to ask what was going on. ++

He also expressed concern about the fact that the zoning agenda didn't specify which property on Soundview Avenue was being discussed -- it only listed the road name. "The agenda didn't say which number it was," he said.

++ The PZC should list, consistently the development name, street address, and application number. A search engine such as google can be restricted to the city website by entering site:cityofshelton.org as part of a query in the search box. If the balance of the query is an application number, you can deftly find all content in minutes or agendas that refer to that matter. Not having minutes in the full on the City website, works toward hiding information from the public, which can be done either purposely or unknowingly ++

Conservation Commission Tom Harbinson shared Panek's concern. "Not listing the full street address is suspicious," he said. "The process was not appropriately followed."

++ Just for the reasons stated above. ++

Board of Aldermen president John Anglace agreed. "Your comments are absolutely on the mark," he told Panek. The request for the 8-24 referral -- which refers to the state statute that requires land use boards give such recommendations to the legislative body -- came from Lauretti's administrative assistant and not from the board, he said.

"We have to get in synch," he said. "We will not go any further with this until we ask for the recommendations from the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. As far as I am concerned, the zoning recommendation is null and void," he said.

++ I will be curious to see the accompanying request. ++

Harbinson said that communication between city board and agencies needs improvement.
"Communication from City Hall is very poor," he said. "I am disappointed with the communications that comes from City Hall."

++ There are many good workers in City Hall, but there is a poor process put in place in which they are reqd to work under. The worst of those processes is communication. There is no sharing process or central application system by which progress of proposals can be monitored. This is one such case. A simple pdf scan of the request could be emailed to the BOA. They review it at their leisure, then discuss it and act on it if need be at the BOA mtg. The same materials can possibly then be emailed to the CC and PRC members who review it at their leisure, comment on it during their meetings and make recomendation back to the BOA. The BOA can then email fwd those two responses to the PZC for their consideration. The whole process can take one month, and be transparently and clearly be known to the public. ++

Wiacek - bus lot CtPost article 2

I was at the BOA monthly mtg last night where residents of Summerfield spoke again with concern over actions by the City on a parcel near their neighborhood. Some background.

Wiacek is a property that was acquired by the City via eminent domain process. Please read my earlier blog comments here and here. The City had long valued the property for municipal purposes. The City targeted the property for acquisition and attempted negotiation with the owners. The City could not come to agreement and pursued eminent domain proceedings. The City paid a value to the court based on proffessional appraisals of the property taken. The court determined the City was in the right to take the eminent domain course of action. The court determined that extra value was needed as compensation to the previous owners based on comparison of competing appraisals and the court's knowledge and understanding. I only re-iterate this because public comments were again bringing up these issues.

The parcel was highlited as part of a presentation from the CC to the BOA on 2004/Jan/7. The CC spoke of potential for multiple municipal uses for the parcel.

An article last month discussed this issue. Please read my blog entry on that article as it contains links to online video of speakers at the BOA mtg, and links to mtgs where decisions were made regarding the parcel's purchase.

The CtPost article this morning covers last nights speakers on the bus parking issues. 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.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_11900741

Neighbors oppose Shelton bus lot idea
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer

SHELTON -- For the second month in a row, residents of the Summerfield Gardens condominiums turned out for the Board of Aldermen's monthly meeting Thursday, and vowed to be there every month until they get assurances from the board that the school bus parking lot won't be moved next to their homes.

"I want you all to go down to where the buses are parked now on Riverdale Avenue and see what it looks like," Summerfield Garden Association president Diane Alterio told the board, "and then drive in our neighborhood and along Independence Drive. "I'm sure all of you sitting up there live in very nice homes," she said, "and if this were happening in your neighborhood, tell me you wouldn't be standing here in my place."

"This" is the prospect of the school bus lot moving to city-owned property off Meadow Street, the site of the former Wiacek Farm. Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has said that, if needed, the school buses could be parked there, though there are no immediate plans for that. Lauretti did not attend Thursday's aldermen meeting.

++ Speaking from my experience as CC chair and managing co-ordination of trails construction on City Open Space, any project (private or public) must go thru a process to be approved. If there is sub-surface disturbance there must be a call made to CBYD (call before you dig) which alerts all utilities and requires they locate and mark their infrastructure. If there is any depositing of materials, or disturbance to an area of wetlands or setback area to the wetlands, an application must be made to the IWC. If there is any change of use, an application must occur with the PZC. My understanding is that a CBYD call was made for this location. ++

The city took the 40-acre Wiacek Farm property by eminent domain several years ago, paying $2.5 million for the property. But a Superior Court judge has determined the fair market value was almost $1 million more than that, raising the price to about $3.5 million.

"Are you willing to pay $3.5 million for that and move the buses there?" Alterio asked. "I want to know if you are willing to do that." "We will be here every month until you assure us you will vote no to relocating the buses," she said.

++ Any activity from the City should have applications to agencies seeking approvals. The CBYD markings indicate that some activity is planned on taking place. I have not seen nor heard of any applications however. ++

Resident Pat Fazio said the property should be made into a city park since it was purchased for open space. The Wiacek family's farming tradition should be showcased, she said, and displays could highlight the wildlife that inhabits the spot. It could be a popular destination for school trips and scouting projects, she said.

++ Please refer to the CC presentation regarding possible municipal needs that could be satisfied in use of the property ++

279 Soundview Ave, CtPost on PZC 8-24 referral

The PZC had on their 2009/mar/10 agenda an item that caught my attention. Near the end of their meeting, under Other Business: "8-24 Referral: disposition of City property (Soundview Avenue)"

For those not used to certain references, "8-24" refers to the Ct Gen Statutes regarding municipal governing authorities (in our case the Board of Alderman) receiving advice from the planning authority (in our case the Planning & Zoning Commission) or vice versa (ie: when the BOA gave a favorable 8-24 referral to PZC when the Plan of Conservation & Development was approved. The PoC&D is the "master plan" to guide many of the City's decisions)

Knowing the various properties under City ownership, I was personally guessing that the likely location being referenced was 279 Soundview Ave, though the street address was not mentioned and thus not giving opportunity for notice to nearby residents to the property in question.

Such location would be a property recently purchased for Open Space. There was a house on the original parcel, which was subdivided by the previous owner before the City purchased it. If you want to see my comments on that parcel, search this blog using the query "soundview". It is likely that this is the property in question - a subdivided lot with the existing house within the acreage purchased.

I must emphasize that I'm guessing. I have not seen any proposal, application, or request come to the CC regarding this issue on the PZC agenda. I am upset with the lack of communication in City Hall causing me to just happenstance upon this item as you can see from an conversation thread of the CC on our public google group.

The City does have a process whereby real property (land) can be considered for sale. It is addressed under ordinance #782 It was recently modified on Feb11 after a public hearing on the changes on Jan27. You can put this query into a google search box to quickly find more:

site:cityofshelton.org 782 8-24

Simply look at the 2009/feb/11 BOA minutes on p.12 to see the rules.

1. A request must be received by the BOA.
2. The BOA must determine that the BOA has an interest in selling the property.
3. The request for opinion must come to the CC and PRC from the BOA.
4. The BOA must consider those inputs of opinion.
5. The BOA must determine whether to proceed, and if so then seek an 8-24 referral from PZC

The process has several steps from there which are not germain to this discussion, so I will not bother continuing with them. I do know after talking with the Mayor's office (see last msg on Mar11 of the conversation thread), that the request originated with them. I'll admit that I didn't catch that as being as incorrect process and then give question to the Mayor's office as to why this didn't go via the BOA. It was not until the BOA mtg last night where a speaker pointed out that the request must originate via the BOA process that I realized this was an invalid process being followed (thank-you Chris Panek). To his credit, BOA President John Anglace readily admited this action seemed to be done in error and stated publicly that corrective action would take place and any PZC decision already made would be null/void.

The CtPost had an article 2days ago, before last nights BOA mtg. Still, there is value in creating a record (CtPost doesn't retain archive of articles publicly), 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.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_11889397
Sale of Shelton city-owned land debated
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer
Updated: 03/11/2009 09:50:29 PM EDT

SHELTON -- With the purchase of open space off Soundview Avenue just completed, city officials are considering selling a small parcel of the property.

++ The Mayor is considering this. The BOA have not considered this according to process they established last month on Feb11. ++

On Tuesday the Planning and Zoning Commission took up a request from the Board of Aldermen to report either favorably or unfavorably on the proposal to sell about an acre of the 14-acre piece that has a single-family home on it.

++ This is reported incorrectly. As I've discovered yesterday, the Mayor's office made the request to PZC, not the BOA. This is an incorrect, inproper, inappropriate , or an illegal request process - depending on your point of view. Bottom line: IT IS WRONG. ++

The commission reported favorably on the proposal, but just barely -- by a vote of 3-2.

++ The action by the PZC is null/void. The President of the BOA stated that they would correct the mistake of process ++

"You have a vacant house that serves no purpose for the city that is going to need maintenance and is off the tax rolls," said Commissioner Ruth Parkins. "Its sale can generate revenue to offset the purchase price and put it back on the tax rolls." In the current economic times, it's imperative the city look for ways to generate revenues, she said. "The city needs every way it can to increase revenue and decrease expenses," she said. "Every little bit helps.

++ I understand Commissioner Parkins concerns, just like any taxpayer would. However, the role as Commissioner is to give comment and decision for the request (disregarding for the moment that the request was improper) based solely on a perspective of planning as the Planning & Zoning Commission. The BOA is the sole fiscal authority, and that is not the PZC job ++

The dissenting votes came from the commission's two Democratic members, Chris Jones and Leon J. Sylvester.

"It just doesn't smell right," Jones said. "I didn't like the whole deal from the get go."

++ You can see my thoughts on this type of commentary in my blog entry of 2008/Mar/4 ++

The land had long been in the city's sites for open space, but when the former owners decided to sell, they were looking for a quick sale -- too fast for the city to be able to get the funding in place, city officials said. Instead a development group that included former Inland Wetlands Commission chairman Al DaSilva bought the property for $1.4 million.

But less than a year later the new owners sold the property to the city -- for $2.2 million, a profit of $800,000.

++ This is an incorrect conclusion. The parcel was purchased in raw land form as a single lot. Inland Wetland Commission applications were filed, pursued and approved. Planning & Zoning subdivision applications were filed, pursued and approved. Survey of the wetland soils by soil scientist, survey of the land area and design services of a landscape architect and/or civil engineer were employed. There was investment of resources by the new owner to transform the raw land parcel into an approved subdivision of unimproved building lots. To simply say saleA minus saleB = profit is not the full story. ++

Sylvester said he doesn't think selling the house in today's real estate market makes sense. It could be used for a better purpose, he said. "I think from a value point of view, we paid top dollar for that piece and to sell off a piece of the road frontage diminishes the value of the property, especially in this market," he said. "I don't see why they want to sell off the house and a good portion of the road frontage -- it doesn't make sense to me."

++ This type of commentary from a PZ Commissioner who has served for several decades, at times as Chairman of the PZC, simply blows me away. The value, cost or market conditions should have absolutely no bearing on the PZC decision. I don't question Commissioner Sylvestor's knowledge on the subject of real-estate market values, as his wife Barbara has been a real-estate agent for some time, but that should not enter into his decisions or comments. Shame on the PZC Chairman for not putting a stop to it. ++

While the city isn't in the business of being a landlord, it does have properties it rents, Sylvester said, which could be done with this house. "The house is in fine shape so why not do something creative with it," he said, such as renting it to a city employee who may not be making a large salary and needs affordable housing. "To me it's a no-brainer," he said. "I believe in the future this will be a very valuable part of the property."

++ Off the top of my head, the City has real property at various locations: Old Police Station downtown was recently used by the Valley Health Dept, Old house near Echo Hose firehouse was recently used by the Judge of Probate, house on Rte108/Nell's Rock Rd was acquired as part of BHC purchase and is used for City storage purposes, house on Perry Hill near the new Upper Elementary School has been rented as a dwelling unit by a tenant, structure on Huntington Wellfield property was leased to Cablevision for housing communication infrastructure. I agree that the City shouldn't be in the business of being a landlord, but at times it has properties that can be put to better utilization, at times generating revenue for the City. ++

The Parks and Recreation Commission and the Conservation Commission also will be asked to weigh in on the proposal, and the aldermen will hold a public hearing on it before making a decision.

++ As stated above, the BOA President has stated that the actions taken thus far will be negated and the ordinance and process will now be correctly followed ++

Wiacek property - court valuation, NHRegister article

The dueling papers in town reported on the same subject today, court decision toward valuation. I commented on the CtPost article first, but the NHRegister has some more detail. Read the whole article, then come back to this link for a google spreadsheet document that explains comparisons more appropriately.

I encourage readers to go to the NHRegister 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.

http://nhregister.com/articles/2009/03/05/news/valley/b1-shlandruling.txt
Shelton told to pay $1M more for farm
Thursday, March 5, 2009 6:14 AM EST
By Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, Naugatuck Valley Bureau Chief

SHELTON — A Superior Court judge has ruled that the city should have paid $856,000 more than it did when it took 36 acres of the Wiacek Farm parcel by eminent domain four years ago.

Judge Bruce Levin, in a decision dated Feb. 23, concluded that the fair market value of the property taken by the city in April 2005 was about $3.36 million, or $856,000 more than the $2.5 million the city paid for it.Levin further ruled that the city owes $208,293 in interest on the difference, which brings the total judgment of damages to $1.06 million, according to the ruling, on file in Superior Court in Milford.Both the city and Wiacek Farms LLC had presented appraisals of the property.

+++ This works out to $178,215 per unimproved building lot within the acreage taken by the City under eminent domain proceedings, which is a portion of the overall parcel referred to as the Wiacek Farm +++

Assistant Corporation Counsel Ramon Sous said Wednesday he had no comment on the ruling, as he has yet to discuss it with the Board of Aldermen, which he plans to do next week. Sous said he hasn’t determined yet if the city will appeal.

The Board of Aldermen voted in late 2004 to acquire the property for open space and recreation, court documents show. The land is in the area of Meadow Street and Constitution Boulevard, neighboring Shelton High School. It had been a dairy farm, and was in the Wiacek family for about 85 years.

+++ Go to the next blog entry on this subject with the CtPost article to see all the hyperlinks for the CC presentation and the BOA votes on acquiring the property. You don't have to rely on "court" documents. +++

In March 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Wiacek family’s application to put a 24-lot single-family residential subdivision there. Shortly afterward, the owners began site development for the project, which also called for three roads, court documents show.

+++ On 2004/Jan/7, the CC made presentation that the parcel be purchased. The BOA authorized the Mayor to negotiate to do so. Such negotiations were unsuccessful. The BOA decided to enter eminent domain proceedings on 2004/Sep/30. They were berated for doing so by some speakers during the public session of their 2004/Oct/14 BOA mtg. +++

In January 2005, the city commenced its eminent domain action to take 36 acres of the overall 46-acre farm for $2.5 million, based on an appraisal obtained by the city.

+++ Don't know the meaning of "commenced" but the process of eminent domain started clearly months before that +++

The Wiacek family’s attorney, Jonathan Bowman, submitted paperwork to the court claiming the property was valued at nearly $3.7 million, and that the family should receive the difference, or $1.2 million, plus interest on that difference.

Walter Wiacek and Shawn Splan, who are cousins and own the property, asserted that the city has paid more for similar property, and the family had hoped for more money than allowed for in Levin’s ruling.

“I can’t say I’m totally disappointed, but I am a little disappointed with the ruling,” Wiacek said. “We had planned a high end subdivision there. The only time the city got interested in the land was when we decided to develop it.”

+++ That statement regarding the City's interest is absolutely not true +++

Wiacek noted that since the city bought the land, it is supposed to be used for open space. There have been recent discussions about potentially parking school buses there, a possibility that has earned the ire of residents at nearby Summerfield Gardens condominiums, who spoke against the idea at a recent Board of Aldermen meeting.

+++ The CC presentation did not advocate that the entire parcel be purchased solely for Open Space associated purposes, but recognized the possibility for other municipal purposes not normally associated with open space (school education area for example). The BOA motion for eminent domain was "Said taking is for City Open Space and recreational purposes consistent with such open space" +++

Wiacek Farms LLC also has a separate case still pending in Superior Court in Milford, filed in 2006 against the city, Mayor Mark Lauretti, Board of Aldermen President John Anglace, Zoning Enforcement Officer Thomas Dingle, and City Engineer Robert Kulacz.

That case seeks more than $15,000 in damages, and claims the defendants caused work to stop at the property, even though the owners had approval for the subdivision, interfering with their business expectations

+++ On the pending case's claim, I don't have anything further to offer at this time +++

Wiacek - court valuation, CtPost article

The CtPost today reported on the court's final decision regarding valuation for an Open Space acquisition known as the Wiacek Farm by the City of Shelton.

One of the roles of myself and others on the CC is to advocate for land purchases we think are appropriate. The CC comments are purely advisory, and the only tool we have is the power of persuasion based on following consistent goals or directions (the Open Space Plan), and being persistent. (When I took over Chairmanship of the CC in 2004Nov, I quoted Calvin Coolidge as my guide to be persistant, and consistent).

The CC has no fiscal decision role in Shelton government. Though we may make suggestions and serve a supportive role regarding fiscal course of action (ie: giving presentations to explain a referendum question), finances are the realm of the BOA as the City's final fiscal authority.

While this CtPost news article deals mostly with fiscal issues, the public opinion of process as to how the City arrived at this parcel's state of affairs is important to me, and thus I clarify the article with my comments within the article below. Too that end, I published a google document spreadsheet that outlines all the values and ratios that I think should be the more appropriate comparisons, as I more fully describe below.

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.

http://www.connpost.com/valley/ci_11836579
Shelton to pay more for Wiacek property
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 03/04/2009 10:05:12 PM EST

SHELTON -- A Superior Court judge has determined that the Wiacek property the city took by eminent domain five years ago is worth almost a million dollars more than the city claimed.

+++ First, if you want to research the facts, you can see other comments I've made on this blog over the past several years where this was ever mentioned - use the search box at the top of this blog with "wiacek" for term. If you want to see any emails where the CC possibly discussed the subject try this discussion search link to our google group that publishes all our emails live to the public to satisfy FOI rules. If you want to see any City of Shelton agencies discussion over the parcel, visit this sample of a site restricted search to find it mentioned in the minutes of the IWC, PZC, BOA, or CC at the very least. Regarding the opening line: The CC made a presentation on 2004/Jan/7 advocating it be acquired. The BOA passed a motion to pursue eminent domain at their 2004/Sep/30 mtg. The "taking" due to eminent domain would have occured upon filing the paperwork which would likely have been within days of the BOA decision. +++

Last week, Judge Bruce Levin in Milford Superior Court ordered the city to pay about a million dollars more than the city's appraisal of the property, about 40 acres off Meadow Street next to Shelton High School.

The land was in the Wiacek family for about 85 years, according to attorney and Wiacek family member Shawn Splan. Splan and his cousin Walter Wiacek had just gotten land use board approvals for 24 lots on the property in 2004 when the city began the proceedings to take the property.

+++ The CC encouraged the City to consider buying this parcel (along with two other parcels during the same presentation). The BOA authorized the Mayor to negotiate with the owners (for all 3 parcels in the presentation) toward purchasing them. One of the Wiacek parcel owners stated among several public mingling at the end of the meeting that the only way the City would get the property is via eminent domain. The City still attempted to negotiate and the Mayor has stated he even had phone calls with the owners during his family vacation time. The owners pursued a development application for the parcel. The process was delayed in part due to errors from the owner's hired soil scientist expert who had mistakes while wetland flagging on the parcel. All regulatory agencies gave the application fair and standard treatment thru to approval. The approval of subdivision layout and subsequent qty of building lots allowed both parties to evaluate a realistic appraisal of value. +++

At the time the city's appraisal for the land came to about $2.5 million. The $2.5 million sale price works out to roughly $62,500 an acre.

+++ The City did indeed have an outside appraisal value the acreage it desired to acquire at apx. $2.5mil, with an acreage stated in the 2004/Sep/30 BOA motion being 39.7 acres. This was later corrected in the minutes of the 2004/Oct/14 minutes to be 35.99 acres as reflective of the legal description for the land area in the taking, and that is $69,463 per acre. However, that is not an appropriate metric upon which to compare with other areas. The subdivision approval map was the basis upon which the description for land taking was made, and it covered 20 of the 24 building lots which at that juncture were in an unimproved state. This works out to $125k per unimproved building lot. An unimproved building lot is one where subdivision approval exists, but there still is required from a developer the improvements such as roads, underground utilities and such, for building construction to take place. These improvements include City depts requiring bonds to ensure the proper construction standards are met before the City takes ownership and responsibility of areas such as a new City street. After certification by the City engineer, bonds can be released. Nobody should make the leap of thought comparing this to a personal dwelling sitting on an acre and being worth a hell of a lot more than $125k per lot or per acre. The comparison is not apples to oranges. At the time when the City took the property, the appraisal considered the status that the property was in. Some in the public tried to claim it should be valued at $8.2million (BOA 2004/oct/14 p.6: Gene Hope, p.18: Irving Steiner), something now determined by the courts to be far from reality. +++

The Wiacek family's appraisal came in about a million dollars higher. Last week a judge ordered the Wiacek family be reimbursed 85 percent of the difference, along with interest.

+++ Appraisals are done by proffessionals who certify their justifications by doing market comparisons. They can vary. If the Wiacek's appraisal came in at apx. $1mill more (I'm relying on the news report as I don't have access to real documents or exact numbers), and the judge approved of 85% of that valuation, that is $850k more than the $2.5mill of the City's appraisal for an apx. judge ordered valuation of $3.35 million. This is equiv to apx. $167.5k per unimproved building lot. +++

Splan said the city could have avoided the cost of going to court had it treated his family fairly, such as how it treated developer and former Inland Wetlands Commission chairman Al DaSilva.

+++ That statement is in direct opposition to the comment made in the presence of several people after the public presentation to the BOA where it was stated that the only way the City would get his property is by eminent domain. +++

The city paid $2.1 million, or about $150,000 an acre, for DaSilva's 14 acres off Soundview Avenue, which abuts the Wiacek property.

+++ The city purchase price was $2,124,500 for property at 279 Soundview Avenue, purchasing it from Huntington Development Group LLC, an entity where it is common knowledge that at least one of the members is Alvaro DaSilva, the former Chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission, having stepped down just shortly before this transaction agreement. That was after a "gift value" of $100k was discounted from the agreed contract value between the City and the seller. Thus the City had agreed to "value" the property at $2,224,500. The appraisal from the City for the 14 acres was $1.8mill, the appraisal from the owner was $2.2mill. I'm not part of the negotiation process, but the negotiated price and what was agreed to by the BOA and shown in their minutes was the $2.1 net purchase price (which was agreed to be spread out over several payments). At 11 lots approved for this parcel - that is $190,909 per lot. +++

Splan said five years ago it was a very different real estate market than it is today. "We always would have rather had the land and the opportunity to develop it during the golden age of real estate," he said. "We could have lived with it if they had paid us the same as they paid Al DaSilva -- when we went to market the property, the economic times were a lot better than they were in 2007" when DaSilva's purchase was done.

+++ Timing does need consideration. The difference is $23,409 per lot, a 14% increase from the time of the 2004 Wiacek acquisition (the court valuation is based on the time of the taking, even though they decided upon it in 2009) and the time of the 2008 Soundview purchase - a span of about 4 years. +++

Board of Aldermen President John Anglace said he hadn't yet seen the ruling but was not surprised by the outcome. "That's the process," he said. "That's what you do -- you see what the fair market value is for the property."

The board took criticism at the time of the action from some residents who said the city would end up having to pay far more than the $2.5 million -- some said that price would be as much as $8 million. "There is a big difference between this and what they said," Anglace said. "I said it wouldn't be anywhere near that."

The property is valuable to the city because of its proximity to Shelton High School, Anglace said. "It's part of the education complex up there."

+++ Anyone can see the CC presentation advocating reasons for acquiring the parcel. The BOA also made representations during the funding that it was for recreational uses and purposes associated with them. +++

The city will be able to pay whatever difference the court requires it to, Anglace said. The city has not done anything with the property yet, but Mayor Mark A. Lauretti said if needed, the land could be used as a school bus lot in the future, which angered residents of the nearby Summerfield Condominiums. Those residents spoke at the last Board of Aldermen meeting against the prospect.

"That's a pretty expensive parking lot," Walter Wiacek said.

+++ To think that the only use of the entire acreage of the property would be for parking school busses is simply short sighted. I have made a separate blog comment on the recent article regarding use of the property as a bus parking area. +++

The Wiacek family has another lawsuit against the city that is ongoing over the way the eminent domain process was carried out, Splan said.

+++ The first case was whether the City had the right to use eminent domain - court said yes. Next up was the valuation the City used and put in escrow, was it appropriate - court said no, pay more (which caused this article). Still to be decided, a case against public officials brought by the Wiacek's regarding actions taken during the approvals and permit to construct process. That will likely be decided during the summer. +++

Wildlife in Shelton

Another wild animal was sighted in Shelton, and it seems that the Bobcat has been identified. The Conservation Commission discussed this last week when we were alerted to it by Conservation Agent Teresa Gallagher, and the CtPost picked up on the story which has more information.

With reports of "mountain lions" (mis-reports) and other wild animals gaining close proximity to residential areas, I starte tracking this with a custom google map which I embed below. Red markers are confirmed sightings, blue markers are simply reports, and Purple Pins are whimsical.


View Larger Map