If a news agency refers to this response, I request you include a link to it can be seen in its full context. Below follows a cut/paste of the Letter to the Editor's text, with my commentary on 2011/Dec/22 as Chairman of the Conservation Commission inserted. My only commentary is in this forum, so that retention of virtual content can be ensured. I will not fully comment in facebook, twitter or webpage forums, but may provide reference to this response.
EDITOR:
On October 13, 2011, I attended the full Board of Alderman meeting to ask publicly to the mayor and board members for a second request on a fencing issue. I am frustrated, but not surprised, by the response time. After all we have been in and out of meetings with Mayor Lauretti for a year and a half. What upsets us the most are the misleading words used by the city in their contracts which release the city from any contractual obligations. As to not bore the taxpayers of Shelton, we say one thing to the residents, except for keeping your taxes low, dealing with Mayor Lauretti and board members has been very ill-mannered. Mayor Lauretti and Board of Alderman, when you do not pay attention to the little issues you will start to fall into deception with the bigger issues.
On October 13, 2011, I attended the full Board of Alderman meeting to ask publicly to the mayor and board members for a second request on a fencing issue. I am frustrated, but not surprised, by the response time. After all we have been in and out of meetings with Mayor Lauretti for a year and a half. What upsets us the most are the misleading words used by the city in their contracts which release the city from any contractual obligations. As to not bore the taxpayers of Shelton, we say one thing to the residents, except for keeping your taxes low, dealing with Mayor Lauretti and board members has been very ill-mannered. Mayor Lauretti and Board of Alderman, when you do not pay attention to the little issues you will start to fall into deception with the bigger issues.
*** What Ms. Wilson is referring to is property on Long Hill Avenue in the south end of Shelton which the City purchased many years ago. There were two separate parcels of land owned by two brothers, the Klapiks, thus the property is casually referred to internally as "Klapik Open Space" but it is technically Open Space properties 105.02 (19.2 acres) and 105.03 (22.8 acres). Each parcel had a building lot carved out of it that fronted Long Hill Avenue. The purchase agreement defines the aspects of defining the property line between the public property (Open Space) and the private parcel (residential lot with building). The language of the purchase agreement was agreed to by the attorneys for both the buyer (City of Shelton) and the seller (both of the brothers). Since that time of a closing on the purchase: one existing house has been demolished and a new one rebuilt in its place, a barn structure on the City property that was blight and falling down was demolished and removed, and trees have been planted along the perimeter of the public/private boundary line to give visual delineation and a sense of privacy. The original brothers who negotiated the sale of their property are no longer the owners of these referenced remaining private parcels, it is the subsequent generation or other family members. I am unsure if they were party to and knowledgeable about all considerations that went into the decisions by the two brothers regarding their agreement to sell their fields as Open Space to the City of Shelton, but the purchase contract states specifically that if the open space is used "actively", the City would put in fencing. The character of the open space has remained unchanged from the Klapik brother's use since purchase: a meadow mowed once during the growing season. I am not a legal reference, so I do not know the definition of "actively" using the property, but it has not been turned into sport fields or hiking trails, and continues as a simple meadow of open space land. Different in both time and selling party from that process was another acquisition of Open Space (casually referred to as the "Carroll Property") that abutted both the above purchase and Long Hill School property. The seller was a family relation to the Klapiks and this parcel is technically referred to as 105.01 (16.4 acres). There was no reference to any fencing aspects in that separate purchase contract. There were even more purchases from other property owners that further expanded a connected greenway corridor of adjacent Open Space parcels (Behuniak parcel, Tall Farm, Development dedications on Old Coram Rd), but these three parcels that Ms Wilson references combined to a total of 58.4 acres. You can find a complete listing of our City Open Space via this link. ***
I received a letter from the Shelton Historical Society which states "A community that forgets its past loses its soul". "They want to preserve the city’s history in order to create lasting and meaningful connections between the community’s past, present, and future generations. Please support us.” Well Mayor Lauretti and Board of Aldermen, except for a few, you have lost your souls to greed in your wants to the city, not acting like a community. You should all bond with that saying, like you have bonded over the last 20 years for being the “master minds” of the open space buying era. Using your wily ways you used to get the 58 acres you received from our family over these years. Final say contracts rule. We are not fans of lack of the integrity, dodging or manipulating that we have witnessed over the years.
*** Since the Conservation Commission is part of the process by which the City acquires Open Space, I feel I must respond vigorously to these particular comments due to inaccuracies. 1) The City did not use "wily ways" for property acquisitions. There was an open dialogue between the brothers for many years that the City was interested in their property being preserved from development. This eventually reached some formal discussions, they were represented by counsel, an agreement was arrived at and executed. If a subsequent generation family member has issue with that agreement - that is unfortunate. 2) The City has not "bonded over the last 20yrs" for all the acquisitions. Some acquisitions are for back taxes unpaid and have no outlay of funds. Some came as dedications from zoning regulations during subdivision of land for development. Some came from purchase with Open Space Trust Account funds (the OSTA funds grow partly via fees paid by developers in lieu of land dedications for certain subdivision where City retaining ownership of a land parcel is not desired. This is determined by PZC in their approval process). Some funds come from the grants awarded to the City from various entities, over 13 grants totaling $1.6 million since 2000 alone. And finally: yes, some funds come from bonding, which action is required to be approved by the voters in a referendum. This was 1997 for $6.6million with 89.5% approval, 2003 $2 million 72.3% approval, 2004 $3 million 78.3% approval, and 2006 $4.3 million 75.2% approval. Note however that my understanding is that all such bonding has been paid back due to the borrowing being short term notes. 3) The Mayor and Board of Alderman have not been the "masterminds" of such Open Space buying. The City has a master plan called the "Plan of Conservation and Development" which was prepared by the Plan Update Advisory Committee, recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission for endorsement by the Board of Alderman, and subsequently adopted in 2006 by PZC as the City's POCD. This is required to be done every 10yrs. This POCD refers to supporting documents, one being the "Open Space Plan", which was updated in 2009 from the existing plan that had been in place since 1993, and again endorsed/adopted by both the Board of Alderman and Planning & Zoning Commission. Every step along the way of these document preparations is public meetings, hearings, and votes. You can learn more directly about the Open Space Plan details via this link to the Conservation Commission's website. ***
Hearsay is that my elderly mother should get down on her knees and apologize to the political leaders of Shelton. These leaders feel my family does not deserve fencing. What has she ever done for us? She has had integrity, honor, and believes the truth always prevails.
*** The City residents are grateful to the Klapik family for having cared for the fields and kept the land undeveloped for so many years. The City purchasing the property as Open Space helped ensure that would continue. The City has continued to simply mow the fields during the growing season and maintain the property in it's meadow character. The agreements entered into were reviewed by attorneys for both sides, and accepted. If a subsequent generation of family member, or any subsequent property owner is not satisfied with the agreement and the terms, that is unfortunate. There is a difference between a "right" spelled in an agreement or otherwise by law, and something one feels they "deserve". The City leadership, officers and representatives have a responsibility to administer affairs fairly that follow rules, regulations or agreements, not simply what someone "feels" they should have granted. ***
Let our story warn anyone who has land the city is interested in purchasing. Please do your research. When you attend the open meetings you see the frustration on issues brought up by taxpayers but the city’s response time is stagnant. I am sure we are not the only ones wronged. However, we speak openly so their misleading words will not continue to wrong others. You can not fight city hall but public awareness to the taxpayers of Shelton of how the Mayor and Board operate we bequeath to you.
*** The City has made many acquisitions of Open Space over many years. Some of those have been accomplished with willing partners (purchase), and some have not (back taxes foreclosure, eminent domain acquisition). Some willing partners look upon their actions with regret (I should have received more compensation), and some look upon their actions gratefully (I'm glad I sold it a couple of years ago rather in the current depressed market). In this case, it appears that these aren't so much second thoughts, but rather misunderstandings by a later generation or associated family member(s) as to what was agreed upon in years past by those that actually transacted their sale of their property. ***
*** The City has made many acquisitions of Open Space over many years. Some of those have been accomplished with willing partners (purchase), and some have not (back taxes foreclosure, eminent domain acquisition). Some willing partners look upon their actions with regret (I should have received more compensation), and some look upon their actions gratefully (I'm glad I sold it a couple of years ago rather in the current depressed market). In this case, it appears that these aren't so much second thoughts, but rather misunderstandings by a later generation or associated family member(s) as to what was agreed upon in years past by those that actually transacted their sale of their property. ***
December 15, 2011 and still waiting for a response.
-Joyce Wilson
*** The Conservation Commission is a purely advisory body in the City of Shelton. We provide commentary to the Board of Alderman or Planning & Zoning Commission on aspects such as property acquisition, maintenance or use; as well as subdivision applications and their impact on the environment. I currently serve as Chairman, and have been on the Commission since 1998. ***
1 comment:
Actually there were three parties involved in the Klapik land sale. John A. Klapik and Harry Klapik are the brothers you are referring to and then there was John G. Klapik, who was a cousin of the brothers (John A. and Harry).
Post a Comment