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
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
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. +++
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. +++
Friday, August 07, 2009
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. +++
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. +++
Thursday, August 06, 2009
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.+++
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.+++
Monday, August 03, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
