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 ++
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment