Open Space Ordinance - non approval

Due to questions asked by the public at our CC meeting on WedSep19, I offer the following.

Issues regarding the Open Space Trust Account (OSTA) has had numerous blog entries in past years.  A good starting off point on some aspects for that is this link to an entry from 2011March.

Open Space Trust Account funding is defined by Ordinance.  At one time it was calculated as .0075 times the Grand List increase of the previous year.  This resulted in:

        Fiscal Year           Funding

        2000/2001            $ 141,212

        2001/2002            $ 224,872

        2002/2003            $ 153,512

        2003/2004            $ 129,076

        2004/2005            $ 192,643

        2005/2006            $ 0        should have been $ 442,185 by Ordinance

        2006/2007            $ 0        should have been $ 629,625 by Ordinance

Recognizing that the account was not funded to the tune of over a million dollars, partly due to a formula which complicated budget planning or projections, clearly something had to be done regarding refining of the ordinance language.  John Anglace and I reviewed the ordinance and prepared an update to it during July2006 to be a flat $250k/yr.  There were two Public Hearing process held before final adoption by the BOA on ThuAug10 of 2006.  Despite that lengthy process, with opportunity for review and comment, the Mayor at the last minute had concern of a technical nature that a newly enacted ordinance would be interpreted as having an impact upon a budget that had already passed and been put in place.  The Mayor wrote a “non approval” letter (veto) on 2006Aug17.  There was significant debate at the BOA meeting of 2006Sep14 regarding the veto.  The ordinance was finally passed on 2006Sep16 during a BOA meeting.  The ordinance was modified to be a flat annual amount of $250k beginning with FY 07/08. (and $50k for FY 06/07).  Given the change from previous ordinance calculations (+442,185+629,625-300,000) = $771,810 reduction in appropriating funds into the OSTA in comparison to the previous law.

Now, this is not to say that the City boards of PZC, CC, BOA and Mayor’s administration weren’t all working for and in many cases accomplishing Open Space preservations and/or purchases.

Year   Property               Net City Cost.  (8 projects in 6 years 2001-2006)

2001   Shelton Family Farm     $376,000

2003   Indian Well Overlook    $148,000

2003   French’s Hill         $2,654,000

2004   Wiacek                $2,300,000

2005   Above the Overlook       $41,250

2005   Tall Farm             $2,400,000

2006   Aside the Overlook       $45,000

2006   Pagliaro, Buddington    $120,000

TOTALS                       $8,084,250

In addition to these City’s funds, there were $920,750 in grants.

Significantly, the City of Shelton was making bold and important expenditure toward Open Space Acquisitions.   Bonding, Budget Surplus capacity, Grants and the OSTA were all sources for such expenditures.  These 4 sources of expenditure are a stable four legged chair.  Stable, but each with their own set of both benefits and drawbacks.

1.  Bonding for Capital Expenditures allows the cost to be spread out over time, usually the useful life of the asset.  Land will serve the City for many future generations, and this method is the manner in which the longest spread or term of yearly cost impacts.  It also takes time to implement, and thus is not something accomplished with expediency.  At times it involves voter approval which is another time hurdle.  There are also other competitors for use of the City’s bonding capacity such as new schools (Intermediate and Upper Elementary in recent years) or City infrastructure (sewer treatment plant, road improvements).
2. Budget Surplus is thankfully a regular occurrence in Shelton due to the fine work that the administration accomplishes in keeping costs in check, and receipts properly collected.   It is however a tool that is limited in size, and subject to the unpredictable level of surplus in any year.  Also, a surplus is only assuredly predictable as you encounter the end of the fiscal year, thus this tool might not be used 1/2 way through the municipal fiscal year in December even though a person's individual fiscal year might end and as a seller  they would be interested in timing of receipt of payments for their own tax purposes.  There are other competitors for use of any budget surplus.
3. Grants are competitive by their very nature.  A purchase agreement must be in place for a grant to be applicable, it can’t be after the fact.  Ranking toward receiving an award can involve the need for studies or plans that are prepared in advance and are kept current.  The amount available and ability to be a recipient are always in question.
4. OSTA is a limited scope source, receiving money from both subdivision fees (in lieu of Open Space land set-asides) and an annual budget appropriation.  It is a “trust” account in that money in it can only be used for the trustee purpose.  Funding the OSTA via appropriation provides a ready source of liquidity for immediate actions.  The amounts accumulated within the OSTA are seldom enough quantity to execute a purchase on their own.

In starting from a clean slate of the OSTA ordinance modification in 2007, here is what occurred for appropriation.

     Fiscal Year                Funding

     2007/2008                 $ 250,000

     2008/2009                        $0

     2009/2010                  $533,000

     2010/2011                  $312,500

     2011/2012                  $315,000

     2012/2013                        $0

      Total                   $1,410,500

Ordinance of $250k/yr = $1,500,000 in total.  Funding is deficient by $89,500

Alternative view: 2008/09 was underfunded by $250k, and 2012/13 was underfunded by $250k = deficient $500k.  (I don't necessarily agree with this view)

The OSTA tool is not being funded in the manner it was intended, nor as per called out in the Ordinance.  I spoke to the BOA meeting in 2008May about this when it first occurred.  Funding occurs when the Mayor (along with a complying BOA) feels it should happen, rather than when the letter of the law says that it should.  Funding occurs at the level the Mayor (along with a complying BOA) feels he needs to wash through the account as an expenditure toward an existing Open Space purchase, rather than what amount the letter of the law says that it should be appropriated to supply and sustain an existing and ready fund.  

This is not to say the tool of the OSTA isn’t being utilized, but imagine trying to use a flat-head screwdriver to function like a chisel.  When you strike the screwdriver with a hammer, you will damage the screwdriver tool and blunt it.  In this case, the OSTA Ordinance is being made blunt in my opinion, and when you take away that “leg” of the chair as a tool in the Open Space program, it puts more pressure on the other legs and makes the chair less steady. 

The City boards of PZC, CC, BOA and Mayor’s administration continued accomplishing Open Space preservations and/or purchases.

Open Space projects after ordinance revision (6 projects in 6 years 2007-2012):

2007            UI, Buddington            $120,000

2007            Jones Farm PDR          $4,213,982

2007            LongHillAve Pinecrest     $175,000

2009            279 Soundview           $2,100,000

2011            Bures Oak Valley          $190,000

2011            Mohegan Rd                $625,000

    Totals                             $ 7,423,982 

In addition to these City funds, there were $906,000 in grants.

Gratefully the voters supported the leg on the chair that is bonding to accomplish the above.  Thankfully the diligence of the administration has created the leg on the chair that is a Budget Surplus.  Hopefully, the BOA will see that the appropriations into the OSTA are a leg on the chair that also needs supporting. Grants, as the fourth leg of funding, are beyond our control and competitive.

On 2012Aug9, the BOA voted to move $250k from the General Fund Surplus into the Open Space Fund, pursuant to Ordinance.  This would satisfy the ordinance for 2012/13 fiscal year.

On 2012Aug16, the Mayor issued a non-approval letter (some call it a "veto" which it technically is not) on this action.  The letter reads in part: "The Open Space Ordinance does not reflect the provisions made to open space over the past 10-12 years and needs to be revisited."

On 2012Sep13, the BOA formally received the non-approval letter via it being read into the record and minutes.  They took no further action.

A few thoughts on the current state of affairs:

1. Appropriations into an OSTA is entirely different than expenditures for Open Space.  To confuse the two terms is bewildering.  
2. If the BOA or the Mayor believes that the OSTA ordinance needs modification, then it should do so with the public hearings that it entails, not violate it when they wish.

Since 2007, The City spent $7,423,982 toward land preservation.  At a $250k annual investment, that is 29.7 years worth of OSTA appropriation.  If anyone believes that the intent of the ordinance has been met by such a calculation and thus provided for into the future for nearly the next 3 decades, then that defies logic.

I can agree that the OSTA is worth a review as to the funding amount or perhaps maintenance of a certain fund balance or level, but if an ordinance can simply be not followed without any ramification, is it worth my time to dedicate toward another revision of ordinance process along with the public hearings and all the time/effort that entails?

It is without question that this administration can claim success in open space dedication, and land preservation like no other.  It will be an enduring testimony to the community.  14 projects of significance are referenced above.  The pace is historic and I commend it.

However when you look backward over your shoulder instead of looking forward to where you are headed, you tend to walk into things.  We can't rest on our laurels, and need to consider the needs of our future.

The OSTA ordinance is not a mandate to spend money on land preservation, it is a mandate to be prepared.

As any Good Scout should be able to tell you.  The Scout Motto is "Be Prepared".

Farmers Market in Shelton

The Conservation Commission is a strong supporter of agricultural activity in our community.  One of our goals is to enhance both the viability of farms and the preservation of farmland.

Numerous acquisitions of Open Space land complement existing farmlands as buffers from development or as watershed protection, and several working farms have been preserved forever toward agricultural purposes through the purchase of development rights funded both by local City resources and partnerships with regional organizations, both public and private.

Although Open Space preservation is quite an obvious activity and gets much press attention due to it's initial costs, grant applications, and voter referendums; less obvious is our Commission's promotion of agricultural activity.

The Shelton Open Space Plan was revised in 2009.  One of it's top goals is "Preserve Agricultural Resources".  Within that goal (p.50) it is noted that "Although farmers themselves must initiate most of these activities, City officials can be alert to the needs of entrepreneurs and facilitate planning where appropriate" and the first one on the list of activities is "Continue the Farmer's Market".

The Plan is a document that we consistently refer to.  For example, one item calls us to "Pursue the possibility of Community Gardens".  A community garden was started in 2010 on the Klapik Open Space property in the Long Hill section of town.  Despite neighborhood concerns, it proved a success and for the 2011 growing season a 2nd location was tilled on City property at 279 Soundview Avenue near the Wiacek Open Space property.

Our sheltonconservation.org website has a "Farmland in Shelton" webpage that contains hyperlinks to several farms.  The Shelton Trails & Conservation facebook page has several "likes" of local farms that have facebook pages.  The Shelton Economic Development Corporation website has a Shelton Farms webpage noting some of our local farms and what they offer.

At our WedSep7 monthly meeting, there was a request to consider expanding the Farmers Market potential.  The Commission will examine aspects of how that might be accomplished for the benefit of all.  The City of Shelton has a lease with the Farmers Market Association for them to conduct a Farmers Market at the City facility on Canal Street (Farm and Public Market).

It is my understanding that on TueOct4, the Farmers Market Association will hold a meeting to discuss aspects brought up during the public portion of our September Conservation Commission meeting.

Community Garden

A letter to editor was in the 2010Feb18 CtPost. My response is within the ++ symbols to stand out. The link to original is found here.

Letter to the Editor:
Shelton residents are being encouraged to "sign up" for a plot at the Klapik Farm Community Garden when the location, details and the very concept have not been formally approved by the appropriate governing body.

+++
Information is a powerful tool. The City of Shelton website has all agency/body minutes in pdf form. You can google search restrict to the website. Try this search for example. From the results you can glean that there has been much discussion on the concept for much time. Any improvement to property by the City, requires much the same approvals as a private entity. Application to Planning & Zoning, Authorization by Board of Alderman, referrals from agents such as City Engineer, etc.
+++

In an effort to determine if there is even a need for a community garden, the Board of Aldermen created an Ad Hoc Community Garden Committee. The committee had one meeting in January at which time it performed the usual initial business of electing officers, accepting rules of order and establishing a schedule of meetings for the year. However, if you read the meeting minutes carefully, you'll discover that the committee was told that a preferred location was already identified, that a formal review by the Planning and Zoning Commission had already been initiated for the property use change, that the entrance for the garden would be at the end of a residential cul de sac on Longview Road, and, oh yes, that the committee needed to hurry because apparently somebody wants to start planting this spring.

+++
Lets have a timeline

• 1993 - Open Space Plan identifies Greenways as emphasis areas for preserving open space.
• 2002 - The Klapik Farm was purchased, totals apx 58acres, and has significant hedgerows visually blocking the fields from adjacent residential properties. This is part of the Long Hill Greenway (includes several other property purchases that became assembled, notably the Tall Farm across the street from Klapik)
• 2003 - A license agreement begins in May between the City and Lyman Wells (a local farmer) to harvest hay from the fields. The property use will not change and remain agricultural.
• 2006 - The Plan of Conservation & Development has as it's #1 agricultural preservation strategy "continue to support programs that preserve farmland" which this does. See page 3-10 of the plan
• 2009Feb - Open Space Plan is updated from 1993, and recomends pursuit of possible Community Gardens. View details of the plan via this link.
• 2009Aug4 - Some early discussion on the subject that I can document from email, originated from citizenry with the Mayor meeting on this date to examine the concept.
• 2009Fall - Conservation Commission and Parks & Rec Commission were both consulted. Review of potential City owned Open Space parcels were done (Tall Farm, Wiacek Farm, 279 Soundview, Klapik, Nells Rock Road, French's Farm) and the consensus was that Klapik was most suited for public community gardens.
• 2010Jan19 - Mayor sends letter requesting 8-24 referral from PZC and advise from City Engineer.
• 2010Jan22 - City Engineer endorses the project
• 2010Jan27 - Planning & Zoning Commission votes favorably on the refferal (p.27 of minutes)
• 2010Jan25, Feb9, Feb23 - Community Garden AdHoc Committee meets to plan for quickly approaching planting season. Minutes are found here.

One can not imply that this came about as a surprise, or was rushed to judgement
+++

Now, I just happen to live on Longview Road and I know for a fact that we never requested this use for the property. While we think a well-planned community garden is a terrific idea, we became worried about how this might affect our neighborhood. So, several of us went to the second meeting of the Community Garden Committee. We asked the committee members flat out if the Longview Road site and entrance was a "done deal." Every one of them robustly assured us that it was not.

+++
This was in the Plan of Conservation & Development from 2006. It was in the Open Space Plan of 2009. It has been discussed openly on Conservation Commission's meetings. The neighbors were notified as part of the referral review by the Planning & Zoning Commission. No, the residents of Longview Road didn't request this, but the citizens of the City have repeatedly via the planning methods, workshops, and meetings outlined above, over many years. There remain details to work out if this prospective location is to be productive - and in that regard it is not a "done deal".
+++

So, we neighbors expressed our concerns. We handed them a petition of names of people who are opposed to the Longview Road entrance. We asked the committee to please consider making the entrance in a more appropriate area. We were polite, articulate and even helpful despite the fact that we never requested a community garden, and there was no one present who did.

+++
The two areas to access the parcel are from Longview Road's cul-de-sac, which is at the highpoint of the drumlin's topography; or from Long Hill Avenue which is a busy road and would require crossing a wetlands area to access the more advantageous agricultural fields. Longview is the better location for access.
+++

We want peace not war, but we also want our needs to be considered. We don't want another poorly planned, town-sponsored intrusion into a defenseless neighborhood. Let's see what happens.
Randy Ann York

+++
Working together to solve issues will bring greater satisfaction to all.
+++

What follows is my letter to the editor submitted to CtPost on Feb21:
Editor:

I was dismayed to read the Letter of Feb18 regarding the Community Garden in Shelton. As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, let me offer some clarification.

Shelton's Open Space acquisition was following the award winning 1993 Open Space Plan when the 58 acres near Long Hill Avenue was acquired in 2002 as part of a Long Hill Greenway vision that has since preserved an abutting assemblage of over 100 acres. Continuously since 2003 there has been a revocable license with a local farmer to harvest hay from the property, thus maintaining it's agricultural usage in the community.

I served on the Committee that updated Shelton's Plan of Conservation & Development in 2006, which recognized Community Gardens as one strategy to preserve farmland (see p.3-10). The Conservation Commission updated Shelton's Open Plan in 2009 and reiterated such pursuits. The concept of a Community Garden is one other municipalities offer, and should not come as a surprise to residents of Shelton who take interest in their City's activities and its planning documents.

Out of citizenry interest and initiative, the Board of Alderman forrmed an ad-hoc Committee to bring the idea together in late 2009, and the Mayor's office requested advice and referrals on the concept from the City Engineer and the Planning & Zoning Commission in 2010. The Conservation Commission and the Parks & Recreation Commission have discussed this concept openly in their meetings. All of this above documentation is readily available on the City's website.

Yes, there is a planting season quickly approaching and the ad-hoc committee is working diligently to meet mother nature's deadlines, but this is not a rushed or hasty endeavor. This is a community sponsored concern being addressed. As of Feb16, 43 people had already signed up for plots. I encourage everyone to voice concerns, and work together in making it a success.

Thomas Harbinson
Conservation Commission - Chairman.

Mayor asks PZC for 8-24: CtPost Sep10

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.

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_13303786

Lauretti, Democrats at odds over zoning panel rules
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 09/09/2009 11:38:16 PM EDT

SHELTON -- For the third time this year, the Planning and Zoning Commission has been asked to render an opinion on whether the city should sell several properties, and each time the answer has been different.

+++ Every request made for referral comments has it's own paramaters of what is being proposed that the requestor is seeking comment on. This is true of subdivision proposals/applications, and referrals under Ct Gen Statutes Sec 8-24.+++

The first time it debated the question of whether it would recommend selling a portion of the Soundview Avenue property the city bought last year for open space; the commission said yes.
The second time it came up, the commission reversed itself and said no.

+++The Mayor's office made a request for PZC comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave and this was addressed by PZC Mar10. The BOA followed City ordinance # 839 by preparing their packet describing the issue, and requested comment from the Park&Rec and ConsComm (both were unanimous to not sell the land in respect to the proposal defined in the BOA packet's request). The BOA then after receiving those responses moving further to request comment from the PZC on the same proposal CC and PRC had commented on (and the response to this request with its paramaters was unanimous to not sell the land) +++

On Tuesday, it once again looked favorably on the proposal. But some commissioners were angry that the issue even came up again.

+++ The Mayor's office asked the Chairman of the PZC for a referral/comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave, and this was addressed by PZC on Sep8 where the outcome was along party lines rendering a favorable opinion to sell. +++

"I'm fit to be tied," said commission member Chris Jones, who is running for mayor on the Democratic ticket. "This was totally done illegally in my eyes -- the whole vote was illegal."

+++ Though I understand his frustration, he is not correct in stating the vote was illegal. The Mayor can ask any commission at any time for advice on any subject. He is the Chief Elected Official and that is his right. +++

That's because the third request for the 8-24 referral, named for the state statute that requires it in the process to sell city-owned property, came not from the Board of Aldermen, but from Mayor Mark A. Lauretti.

"The chairman was instructed by the mayor to put it back on the agenda, and that is illegal," Jones said. "They didn't follow the ordinance, they are following the mayor."

+++ The Mayor has the right to request a referral and it is not illegal, but it is a different and separate request. I don't know what information was provided with the Mayor's request to the PZC, but from the P&Z Commissioner comments, there seemed to be maps that they didn't have before, so something different was provided them. Yes the Mayor contacted the PZC Chair to request/demand that his request be put on their agenda, and from the comments made by several commissioners, it seems to indicate that the Mayor had talked to them regarding this subject, or that he instructed the Chairman to talk to them regarding this subject. All those actions are not illegal, not inappropriate, and are moot because the Mayor's request and package of documents related to his request is a different subject and paramaters than the package of documents related to the BOA request that was the same as those sent previously to the ParkRec, ConsComm and PZC when they all three rendered unanimous decisions to not sell the City property. +++

Lauretti wants the city to carve out an acre of the 14-acre site to sell. He said that he has the authority to request 8-24 referrals, as well as the aldermen.

+++ The Mayor is correct. Unfortunately, his request is a different one than the process of commenting on the request made from the BOA where the information provided by them to the PRC, CC and PZC was from an identical package with no hint of apples vs oranges. +++

"This is a piece of property that we should sell," Lauretti said. "It has no economic impact on anyone or anything but the bottom line -- this is a business decision."

+++ That is not true, and is an offensive comment to me given the efforts made to follow a process that is defined for a purpose. There is more to the equation and "business decision" that the BOA will have to make than purely economics. The Park & Recreation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any recreational value of the community. The Conservation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any environmental value of the community. The Planning & Zoning Commission has given a referral as outlined by State Statute 8-24 from a overall planning perspective regarding the parcels value to the community's needs. +++

Jones is wrong about the whole issue, Lauretti said. "He doesn't know what he is talking about once again," he said. "He is uninformed and very deceptive."

+++ When it comes toward election time, there is a lot of mis-information to go around on all sides. +++

Jones and commission alternate Joseph Sedlock were the only commissioners who voted against recommending the sale. Sedlock was sitting in for Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who had to attend a wake Tuesday night. The three are the commission's only Democrats.

+++ Issues regarding property acquisition or disposition should not be politicized, but rather be based on the facts. That is why there is a process in place to ensure these subjects are dealt with transparently, rigorously, and promptly. The process is being corrupted. +++

PZC on 279 Soundview Sep8

Last night (Sep8) the PZC had on their agenda some 8-24 referral items regarding disposition of various City parcels, and I'll stick to the item 279 Soundview Ave item VI-C for purposes of my comment. I was curious why this was on the agenda, since I knew the issue had already been dealt with, so I attended the PZC mtg.

As a refresher:
The BOA should be familiar with the process of disposing of City property since they passed the ordinance at their recent mtg of 2009Feb11.

The Mayor asked PZC to render an 8-24 referral on the parcel and the PZC had it on their agenda for Mar10. The PZC had a majority vote say that it was appropriate to be sold. Although the Mayor stated that his office has the prerogative to ask for referrals at any time and for any reason, at the BOA mtg of 2009Mar12, the BOA stated that the Mayor hadn't followed the disposition of land process that is in place and they would correct that going forward. This is referencing the City of Shelton Ordinance #839 process.

Once they sorted this out at the BOA mtg of 2009Apr9, the BOA began following the defined process. At that time they asked the CC and PRC to give their opinions. At the CC mtg of 2009May6, the CC both visited the site and looked at the maps provided us by Asst Corporation Counsel Ray Sous, collectively as part of the request, and had a split vote over a recommendation. We decided to investigate the UConn Farmlink program further as it may apply to this parcel, and informed the BOA of such action. At the CC mtg of 2009Jun3 the CC had further data regarding the program and to summarize: under the conditions presented, recommended not selling with the resulting letter that was sent to the BOA on Jun10.

At the Jul9 BOA mtg, (pg15) the BOA recognized the CC and PRC response (both unanimous not to sell) and voted to take the next step of requesting PZC comment under CGS Sec 8-24 regarding the City disposing of the parcel. At the Aug11 PZC mtg (pg26) the PZC evaluated and responded unanimously not to dispose of the parcel. A letter was written and communicated to the BOA promptly for their consideration at the upcoming Aug13 BOA mtg. The BOA on Aug13 was flummoxed by the unanimous PZC negative response and wanted to take time to read the minutes (which weren't available being that the PZC mtg was held 2 days previous) to understand more fully how the PZC decision was arrived at.

The BOA could have proceeded immediately on Aug13 under the process toward sale by attempting a 2/3 majority vote in order to over-ride the PZC referral opinion on the planning perspective, and gone on further by obtaining an appraisal. They chose to wait and read the minutes when they became available, which brings us to last night.

The PZC Chairman stated during the meeting that the Mayor contacted him to have the issue put back on the agenda, and it seemed obvious that the Mayor had communicated to several members that they should reconsider their previously rendered opinion. It was stated by P&Z Commissioners that they didn't have maps and all the data available to them at their Aug meeting. If that was the case then they should have tabled the issue, but I would be surprised if that statement was correct as the PZC minutes indicate a packet was distributed and the CC had all data including maps available to it back in May when it visited the site. Outside of my passion of this being a CC subject, I was curious and did some research on whether last nights PZC action was even appropriate.

The PZC operates under Roberts Rules of Order. A motion was made at the Aug11 PZC mtg and the action (sending the opinion letter to the BOA) was accomplished.

If there is ever a question about an action during a meeting, a body may take up a "motion to reconsider". That doesn't apply as the decision was made in a previous session that is closed.
Article VI, Sec. 36. Reconsider.1 This motion is peculiar in that the making of the motion has a higher rank than its consideration, and for a certain time prevents anything being done as the result of the vote it is proposed to reconsider. It can be made only on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day, a legal holiday or a recess not being counted as a day. It must be made by one who voted with the prevailing side. Any member may second it. It can be made while any other question is pending, even if another member has the floor, or after it has been voted to adjourn, provided the chair has not declared the assembly adjourned. It may be made after the previous question has been ordered, in which case it and the motion to be reconsidered are undebatable.

If the session in which a motion is made has closed, and the body wanted to change it's mind, the appropriate direction would be to have a "motion to rescind". Rick had already taken action by delivering a letter to the BOA stating the PZC decision on the 8-24 referral. Such action could be "undone" since the BOA took no action after receiving the PZC letter, and thus there was left open a possibility that a "motion to rescind" would be capable - but that wasn't the way the PZC handled it - they simply voted on an 8-24 referral issue and put themselves in the position of again flip-flopping in what is the 3rd time of stating an opinion on the same issue.
Article VI, 37. Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Any vote taken by an assembly, except those mentioned further on, may be rescinded by a majority vote, provided notice of the motion has been given at the previous meeting or in the call for this meeting; or it may be rescinded without notice by a two-thirds vote, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The notice may be given when another question is pending, but cannot interrupt a member while speaking. To rescind is identical with the motion to amend something previously adopted, by striking out the entire by-law, rule, resolution, section, or paragraph, and is subject to all the limitations as to notice and vote that may be placed by the rules on similar amendments. It is a main motion without any privilege, and therefore can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the assembly. It cannot be made if the question can be reached by calling up the motion to reconsider which has been previously made. It may be made by any member; it is debatable, and yields to all privileged and incidental motions; and all of the subsidiary motions may be applied to it. The motion to rescind can be applied to votes on all main motions, including questions of privilege and orders of the day that have been acted upon, and to votes on an appeal, with the following exceptions: votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo; or where it is in the nature of a contract and the other party is informed of the fact; or, where a resignation has been acted upon, or one has been elected to, or expelled from, membership or office, and was present or has been officially notified. In the case of expulsion, the only way to reverse the action afterwards is to restore the person to membership or office, which requires the same preliminary steps and vote as is required for an election.

===========SUMMARY ============
The #1 Public Official told the Chair of the PZC to have items placed on the agenda, and contacted P&Z commissioners to convince them to vote a certain way. The Chair did what the Mayor told him to do (the PZC took an item on it's agenda that had already been decided upon) and the commissioners contacted voted the way they were told (rendering an opposite decision on the same question upon which it had already issued a letter just one month previous). They should have instead "rescinded" their previous opinion and amended it to state a new opinion. End result is the same outcome, and some will say it's semantics, but rules of process are there for a reason.

Letter to Editor - HuntHrld

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

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. +++

BOA asks PZC for 8-24 - CtPost Jul12

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.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_12821834

Possible sale of Shelton properties explored
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 07/12/2009 10:32:51 PM EDT

SHELTON -- Despite unfavorable recommendations from two city boards, the Board of Aldermen has voted to continue the process of selling city-owned land for two properties many say should not be sold.

Five properties were on the board's agenda Thursday night, and for all but one, the sales process will proceed. The aldermen agreed not to sell 450 Howe Ave., the former home of the Naugatuck Valley Health District and at one time City Hall.

Shelton Fire Department Chief Fran Jones has notified the aldermen that the department would like to see the downtown building turned into a new fire headquarters that also could house a police substation.

In order to sell city property, the aldermen must first get opinions from the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. It then votes either not to continue the process, or to send the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an 8-24 referral, named for the state statute that requires the step.

If P&Z recommends favorably, the aldermen then vote to either schedule a public hearing on the sale or not continue the process. If the zoning recommendation is unfavorable, the aldermen can override that with a two-thirds vote.

The board agreed to move forward with possible sale of Access Road, a road that runs parallel to Bridgeport Avenue that developer Monty Blakeman wants to buy and incorporate into his plans to build a shopping center at the site of the former Crabtree auto dealership. It has not yet been determined if the city or the state, which had turned the road over to the city for future expansion of Bridgeport Avenue, has authority to dispose of the road.

The board also agreed to continue investigating the sale of 279 Soundview Ave. and 58 Perry Hill Road, despite both the Conservation and Parks and Recreation commission's opinions that both should be retained by the city.

Initially the motion to continue the process for the Perry Hill Road property failed with a 4-4 vote. Since Mayor Mark A. Lauretti was not present to case the tie-breaking vote, board President John Anglace had the option of voting twice, which he did. His second vote in favor of continuing the process now sends it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
+++ Update Jul17: This may be an invalidated vote. The Chairman of the meeting can vote as an Alderman, or as the Chair, but he can't vote twice. Assistant Corporation Counsel decided this was OK during the mtg, but the Corporation Counsel may ask for reconsideration of this +++

The board also will send to the zoning commission an 8-24 referral for the Soundview Avenue property. Only Aldermen Jack Finn and Stan Kudej voted against it.

Opponents of the sales say that it is a bad time for the city to sell any real estate unless it is an emergency, while proponents maintain the funds the city would realize from the sales would help pay down bonded debt.

Criticism has been directed at the possible sale of one acre of the 14-acre site on Soundview Avenue that includes the only house on the land. Several years ago the city passed on buying the land, which was sold to developer Alvaro DaSilva for $1.4 million. But several months later DaSilva, who at the time was the chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission, sold the property to the city for $2.1 million.
+++ The City didn't "pass" on buying the land. The CC was actively talking to the property owner for years, and she simply decided she wanted to sell at a certain point, and wanted immediate cash payment in full for sales price - which City couldn't do, but a developer could. This was the premise for having an Open Space Trust Account to act in a quick manner. (which capability has been tampered with due to lack of following funding as called for in ordinance). The CC advocated for the parcel to be purchased and did not take a "pass". +++

The Perry Hill property is valuable to the city, some say, because it is part of the old Shelton Intermediate School property. That building is now being remodeled into a fifth- and sixth-grade school and could be needed in the future for expansion, some say.

"All we are doing is continuing to see if it would be worth it to sell," Anglace stressed. "We are not voting to sell anything right now -- all we are doing is continuing to see if we want to take the next step."

BOA asks PZC for 8-24 - Valley Sentinel

The BOA moved forward within the process regarding sale of City property, and asked the Planning & Zoning Commission for 8-24 referrals on several parcels being considered for sale.

I use this blog to comment on news reports and there is a new reporting organization that covers the Valley. Not really a news"paper" since they are purely electronic. They use part of the old "Evening Sentinel" moniker which many who have lived here a long time will remember fondly as a daily afternoon paper. (CtPost bought the Evening Sentinel and then morphed it into their "valley" edition). This blog entry is comments on their report on this subject.

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 Jodie Mozdzer Jul 10, 2009 11:46 am
Shelton Land Sale Process Moves Forward

The Board of Alderman voted Thursday night to move forward with the lengthy process to sell four city-owned properties.The city was looking at five properties, but decided Thursday to rule out 470 Howe Ave. as a candidate for sale. That parcel is the former police department and Naugatuck Valley Health District office, which the fire department has expressed an interest in using for a training facility.

The board voted to send the other properties – 279 Soundview Ave., 58 Perry Hill Road, Access Road and Middle Avenue — to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an official referral.

According to the city’s procedure on selling property, if the Planning and Zoning Commission votes in favor of selling the land, the city will have it appraised and then hold a public hearing. (Read the ordinance on selling properties here. Scroll down to 2-18.)

As part of the official selling procedure, the Board of Alderman already has asked for opinions from the Conservation and Recreation Commissions. Each objected to selling the Soundview Avenue and Perry Hill Road parcels.

+++ You can view the CC emails online in real-time. This one has the pdf attachment that is our response to the BOA request. +++

Before the votes, Board of Alderman President John Anglace made it clear that voting to send the items to Planning and Zoning would not necessarily mean the land will be put up for sale.

“Tonight we have to determine if we want to proceed in each case with the next step,” Anglace said.

Here’s a map of the properties. Click on the balloons to see descriptions and the board’s vote on each one. +++ online article has embedded google map +++

View Shelton Properties: Should the City Sell Them? in a larger map

The Properties
279 Soundview Ave.
This property is about 14 acres of open space with a house and garage. The city is thinking about selling the roughly 1 acre where the house is located. The Conservation and Parks and Recreation commissions have said they want to keep the property.

The Board of Alderman voted 6-2 Thursday night to continue looking at whether it should sell this property. The Soundview Avenue property has been the topic of much discussion since it appeared on the list. The property was sold to a local developer for $1.4 million while the city was trying to purchase it. In 2008, about a year later, the city purchased the property, which is adjacent to existing open space, from the developer for $2.1 million.

The Conservation Commission has said it would like to use the property for the state’s FarmLink program, which helps match up potential farmers with land.

+++ Search my blog with keyword "279" for entries on this subject +++

58 Perry Hill Road
This property has about 1.4 acres of land and a house adjacent to the old intermediate school.
The Board of Alderman Thursday initially rejected a motion to move forward with this property, with a tie vote 4-4. However, Board of Alderman President John Anglace broke the tie vote with a charter-sanctioned second vote in the place of Mayor Mark Lauretti, who was absent from the meeting. Anglace voted a second time in favor of continuing to look at Perry Hill Lane “since it goes to the next step and just provides additional information and doesn’t make any final decisions.”

+++ See the minutes from the CC mtg of 2009May6, p.13 for our comments on this parcel +++

Middle Road
This is a “paper-road” that has been abandoned by the city. The Board of Alderman voted unanimously to proceed with the process of selling this parcel.

+++ No conservation value +++

Access Road
This road is where the former Crabtree car dealership sits, which is the proposed site for a new retail development. The city has been researching whether the road would revert back to state control if it abandons it.

+++ No conservation value +++

Questions over what the city is doing with the road led the Planning and Zoning Commission to reject Monty Blakeman’s proposal for the development at its last meeting. Read the Valley Independent Sentinel coverage of that meeting here.

The Board of Alderman unanimously voted to continue the process of potentially selling this land. Click play on the video to see Blakeman’s attorney Dominick Thomas press the board for answers on this property. +++ Article has embedded youtube video from the evening +++

Anglace has said the properties are under consideration for various reasons. For instance, the Perry Hill Road property has a house on it that the city used to rent out, Anglace said in an interview last week. But the city did not like being a landlord, Anglace said. “We’ve had bad experiences, people who had to be evicted,” Anglace said.

In the case of Access Road, the city has long wanted to help with traffic problems the road creates, Anglace said. And now the road is potentially part of the proposed retail development at the former Crabtree car dealership.

The Howe Avenue property was vacant, and Anglace said the city wanted to see if it could get it back on the tax roles. The Middle Road property was abandoned by the city several years ago and had been requested by an interested buyer.

As for Soundview Ave, Anglace said the house has no conservation value along with the open space so it might be worth seeing how much money the city could get for the property.

+++ I would disagree as the Soundview Ave dwelling could work in concert as residence for a tenant farmer. That is why the CC is researching the Farmlink program with looks to match just such a situation with possible tenant. +++

CT Post on 279 Soundview CC letter to BOA re:tenant farming

The CTPost will have an article in Wednesday's paper regarding the CC letter to the BOA in response to their request for comment on the City considering sale of 279 Soundview Ave property as our comments are required to be requested via City ordinance. I'm able to write my commentary on the article a day previous to it being in the paper as I have a google alerts service set for keyword "Shelton" and anything on the newswire with such come to me via email.

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.

By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 06/30/2009 06:09:27 PM EDT

SHELTON - The proposal to sell a portion of city-owned open space on Soundview Avenue isn't going over well with two city commissions.

The Board of Aldermen asked both the Parks and Recreation and Conservation commissions if the city should sell the house and about an acre of property on the open space at 279 Soundview Avenue, and both said no.
+++ The City Ordinance requires the BOA to request the CC and the Park&Rec Commission to give commentary input for their decision as to disposal of City real property (land). CC looks at the environmental values, P&R looks at the recreational value/potential. I am unaware of the P&R opinion regarding the characters they evaluate.+++

Instead, the city should make the entire site part of a new state program that pairs up farm land with potential farmers, according to conservation officials.

"Shelton has taken great strides in recent years beyond almost all other towns in Connecticut in its efforts to preserve agricultural land," Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson said in a letter to aldermanic president John Anglace.
+++ The CC takes great pride in being as transparent as technologically possible for the public to participate in the government process. Any emails sent to a quorom of the CC appear on the internet in real -time (actually before they are sent onward to the commissioners themselves), and thus you can see the actual email where the letter was sent as a pdf file to the BOA on Jun16 in the afternoon. +++

The city has, for some of the larger pieces it owns, leased out the land to local farmers to hay, which has helped maintain the properties at no cost to the city but provides no assurance as to the maintenance of the land long-term, he said.
+++ While maintaining a field as a hay meadow has numerous benefits beyond agriculture (providing migratory bird habitat is just one), as stated in the letter to the BOA, "Basic hayng of property (as is done by license at the Klapik, Tall, and Wiacek farms) does not stop invasive shrubs such as Autumn Olive from advancing in to the field further each year from the edge, eventually taking over the entire field if not cut back with a brush hog at a significant expense". Note that the City does not "lease" parcels for a term, it issues a 1yr "license" to hay them.+++

"The reality is that the city does not have the resources on its own to actively protect and manage all the farmland under its stewardship," Harbinson said, "and current lease agreements with area farmers offers no incentive for those farmers to perform long-term maintenance on city property." That incentive could be gained through participation in the state FarmLink program, Harbinson suggested.
+++ To be clear, I thank the farmers who continue via yearly renewed license agreements to put the City's open space parcels to agricultural use via harvesting the grass as hay. They should be applauded for continuing their activities in an increasingly difficult environment of spreading suburbia development. However, the City should consider a lease of the lands currently licensed, and at length of term where the leasee (farmer) would then have surety that investment they make in the land (enriching the soil, maintaining fencing, etc) would have the potential of payback in a future year of crop yield or ease of harvest. +++

"This program is designed to marry prospective would-be farmers with available agricultural land to be farmed," he said. The farmer acts as a tenant and steward of the land, Harbinson said, in exchange for the right to farm there.
+++ The program via UConn has been operating since at least 2006. For example, there are currently shown new 2009 listings for 11 farms seeking tenants, and 20 farmers seeking farms. http://www.farmlink.uconn.edu/ +++

"We believe the Soundview Avenue property, with a ready house, arable land and upland area where a barn could be built, would be an ideal candidate for such an incentive program," Harbinson said. "As there is no budget crisis in Shelton necessitating selling off of its assets right away, there can be no harm to investigating this option and not rushing into the hasty sale of this valuable asset."
+++ The issue regarding agricultural use is in the short term a moot point as the BOA at it's 2009/Jun/11 meeting (p.14 of minutes) authorized a license to adjacent property owner and farmer Art Maybeck to farm the larger tillable portion of the parcel. The BOA is asking CC commentary for selling a carved out building lot with the existing farmhouse from the overall parcel addressed as 279 Soundview Avenue. Given the farmhouse in the core of the agricultural land, selling the house as a building lot would impact the ability to utilize the remaining farmland to it's full agricultural potential. +++

The commission will have the property evaluated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to determine its appropriateness for the program, Harbinson said.

Anglace said he would be interested in looking into the program but it shouldn't halt the process of investigating a possible sale.
+++ Chairman Anglace is correct. According to Ordinance #839, which was recently reviewed by the Board of Alderman and adopted on 2009/Feb/11, after receiving the Conservation Commission and Park & Recreation Commission opinion (both negative to sell in this case), the BOA is to determine if they want to proceed, and if they do, THEN the BOA (NOTE: NOT the Mayor) is required to request an 8-24 referral from the PZC on the sale of the property. The Mayor requested and 8-24 referral in advance of this 4-sale process, not the BOA, and certainly not after receiving opinions from the PRC and CC. This step has not yet been processed by the BOA. It may be semantics in some people's eyes, but the BOA should not rely on an 8-24 referral made by the request of the Mayor in order to accelerate or by-pass the proper process. +++

"Let them proceed with [the evaluation]," Anglace said. "But I don't think we should stop the sale process for them to do that." The city needs to find out how much a sale could bring in to the city, he said.
+++ If the PZC 8-24 referral is positive the BOA may proceed further. If it is not favorable, the BOA must override the 8-24 referral with a 2/3 vote to proceed further. Then the BOA must have the property appraised, and as professional services that is likely to not require going out to bid to choose the vendor. At that point the BOA would know the appraised value, but as they only purchased the property less than a year ago, that is pretty easy to estimate regardless of the process. However that does not mean the same as "how much a sale could bring" as that is the market conditions of competitive bidding. To get to that step, their must be a public hearing, then the BOA decide whether to proceed and if so, must advertise to accept bids, which are received by the purchasing agent, opened publicly, referred to the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, who would determine the highest responsible bidder. The BOA reserves the right to reject any and all bids. The BOA approves the price and authorizes the sale. You can find all of this on the municode website that maintains the City's charter and Ordinances. It is Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-18. +++

He also questioned what financial benefits the city would see from the FarmLink program. "They can't expect us to get them the property to use - that's crazy, it doesn't make sense," Anglace said. "Someone is going to have to pay the city or else the taxpayers are subsidizing them."
+++ As with a license agreement (currently a few dollars per year for haying City Open Space parcels), a lease agreement with have a renumeration component, along with other terms demanded or negotiated by the City's fiscal authority - the BOA. +++

The aldermen will discuss at its July 9 meeting whether to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission for its opinion on a potential sale, which is the next step in the process, Anglace said.
+++ I have great confidence in the City's process on the "Procedure to sell City property" +++

HuntHrld on selling 279 Soundview Open Space

The Huntington Herald had an article recently posted online from last weeks paper edition.

You can read my previous blog entries on this sale of property subject here, here, and here, or simply search this blog with the query item of "279" as I will always reference the address and that is unique enough to stand out amongst all the data.

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 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.acorn-online.com/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28028:proposed-city-land-sales-touch-off-debate-and-disagreement&catid=170:local-news&Itemid=1594


Proposed city land sales touch off debate and disagreement
Written by Fred Musante
Monday, May 18, 2009

Weighing the pros and cons of selling a piece of open space property the city recently purchased, members of the Conservation Commission decided yes and no. Unfortunately, their 3-3 tie vote last week had the effect of canceling out the commission’s influence rather than extending it in multiple directions.
+++ This is the first time in my 10yr history of serving on the CC that we have had a split vote +++

But lopping a lot off the 13.7-acre tract of field and woods known as 279 Soundview Avenue, the address of the house and garage that would go with the lot, is only one of five potential property sales city officials are pondering.
+++ The City Ordinance requires the BOA to request the CC and the Park&Rec Commission to give commentary input for their decision as to disposal of City real property (land). CC looks at the environmental values, P&R looks at the recreational value/potential. +++

As with the Soundview Avenue tract, some city officials also disagree about selling two of the other properties — a house and land at 58 Perry Hill Road next to Perry Hill School, presently under renovation, and a quaint old brick structure at 470 Howe Ave. that longtime Shelton residents remember was once the city’s police station.
+++ While there is disagreement regarding selling the Howe Ave property among OTHER agencies in City of Shelton that seek to utilize it, there is no environmental value to the downtown urban property which is mostly structure. The property on Perry Hill Road does have some conservation value and rather than regurgitate our thoughts, you can review our CC minutes from May6 and scroll down to p.14 +++

The other two proposed sales are less controversial. They involve road abandonments — part of Access Road near the corner of Nells Rock Road, and a paper street portion of Middle Avenue that was never constructed — and the transfer or sale to the abutting property owners.

The Soundview Avenue sale had drawn the most heat, more because of the lack of information than for what is known about it.

Open space advocates were disappointed in 2006 when the DaSilva brothers bought the tract of farmland and woods that had long been listed on the city’s Open Space Plan as property Shelton should acquire for recreation and land preservation.

But soon after the DaSilvas bought the property for $1.4 million, they sold it to the city for $2.1 million and a $200,000 tax write-off, roughly a 50% profit at taxpayers’ expense after a few months of ownership.
+++ Rather than repeat my comments on activities regarding the City's purchase of the parcel, please read this blog post from 2008/Mar/4 on the subject. +++

The city made its third $700,000 payment in January and became the legal owner. But in February, Mayor Mark Lauretti asked the Planning & Zoning Commission to give its opinion, known as an 8-24 review, whether part of the property should be sold by the city.
+++ The Mayor can ask for an opinion from any department at any time, however an 8-24 referral references Ct Gen Statutes Sec 8-24 regarding either a planning commission requesting a fiscal authority review of a plan or document (such at the P&Z asking BOA to review the City's Master Plan of Conservation & Development). It can also be used by a fiscal authority asking the planning commission to reveiw a land-use issue (such as the City selling a parcel of land - as should be the case for this subject). The BOA did not (and as of this writing has not yet) requested an 8-24 referral as a body. Likely, since the opinion would be the same, the BOA will accept the opinion already issued at the request of the Mayor. +++

Lauretti refuses to say if he has a buyer in mind, which has only increased speculation that the DaSilvas are buying it back in yet another sweetheart deal. “Buy high, sell low,” said one Conservation Commission member.
+++ Regardless of who the buyer may become, the City has a process whereby it has to offer the property to the highest qualified bidder. The end result may or may not be what the reporter assumes. The property was purchased by the City during a high point in the real-estate market, and currently we are experiencing a low valued real-estate market due to the devastating economic conditions. The comment of buy-high, sell-low applies to the current market condition not any specific seller/buyer. +++

The P&Z voted 4-2 in February to recommend favorably, but the vote was along party lines, with Democrats Leon Sylvester and Chris Jones opposing it. Jones, who has since announced he is running for mayor, observed that the FBI is conducting a corruption investigation in Shelton and said the city shouldn’t sell any property until the investigation is concluded.
+++ The PZC vote was in response to the Mayor's request, not the BOA. The fact that there is an investigation of a private developer in town should not halt City business conducted in an open and transparent manner. +++

None of the Conservation Commission members favored the sale, but three of them were willing to vote for it if the city attached easements preserving old stone walls and agricultural rights. The other three commission members opposed it in principle.

“I reluctantly say sell it,” said Ed McCreery, suggesting the money could be used to buy more open space.

But Chairman Tom Harbinson said the money would more likely be used to pay off debt, not to increase open space. He was opposed to selling any open space once the city owned it. “I have a problem with buying a piece of property and three years later selling it,” he said.
+++ To the Mayor and BOA's credit, they have supported significant Open Space acquisitions over the years, some of which required borrowing. One adjacent purchase was accomplished via eminent domain proceedings, to which the court recently adjusted the valuation, causing the City to provide additional moneys. There is no guarantee that funds from sale of 279 Soundview will go toward purchasing other lands. It is a high likelihood that they will instead pay off the debt incurred on previous Open Space purchases. +++

After the vote failed, some of the commissioners worried that all it meant was that their opinions would not be considered, so Harbinson said he would draft a letter to the aldermen saying they felt the matter important enough to reconsider it next month.
+++ I additionally called the President of the BOA and spoke to him personally about our dilliberation on the subject and requirement to have more time to review the proposal +++

The Conservation Commission voted against selling the property at 58 Perry Hill Road. The members unanimously felt the parcel allows the city to add another entrance to the Perry Hill School parking lot, and some day the city would regret selling it.

As for 470 Howe Ave., the Conservation Commission tabled it after noting the Fire Department would like to take it over as a training and equipment storage facility.
+++ That is incorrect. Please read our minutes on p.14 +++

The Conservation Commission voted to recommend the Access Road and Middle Avenue sales.