*update 2009/feb/10: The PZC adopted the OSPlan at their regular February meeting.
The Planning & Zoning Commission and the Conservation Commission had a joint meeting last week as previously reported in the news, and subsequently blogged about by me. What I didn't know, is that a portion of the meeting was recorded on video and uploaded to youtube.
The person behind the camera is Irving Steiner, who has been a concerned citizen around City Hall for several years now on various issues, but primarily those that deal with development and thus he founded a group known as WE-R1.
I have not agreed with everything espoused by that organization or Mr. Steiner, but having good debate and opposing views is healthy for democracy, and so is transparancy.
I believe the public should have the ability to know what goes on among elected officials, and I actively look to further that (witness this blog for example). To that end, I offer this post which illuminates the type of raw data which has been reported on in recent newspaper accounts, and upon which I then blogged my comments. This post includes embeded video recorded by Mr. Steiner, which can also be viewed here.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
CtPost Canal Fence etal
The City is engaged on several separate issues in the City that in part involve the area of land owned by the McCallum Enterprises or the Shelton Canal Co.
1. The City's Plan of Conservation & Development was recently updated. It has tasks laid before the Planning & Zoning Commission to accomplish such as updating subdivision regulations, maps, etc. In light of that PoC&D, the PZC has been examining areas that should be re-zoned to better reflect either current existing or future desired uses. One way this is being done is to change the zone to R1 in the downtown area where otherwise there could be significant impact on the viewshed of the Housatonic River Greenway. McCallum's property is within that zone change area.
2. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission grants via license for the right of McCallum to take hydroelectric power away from the Housatonic River. In return for granting the license to take power from a public asset (the river is public), FERC requires a fee (based on the amount of power taken) and several other items called out in the license - notably providing public access to the river, and a fish ladder to allow their migration up river. McCallum has expressed concern that in light of significant residential development proposals in close proximity to their public access area, and the coming change in character from an industrial to residential setting, that they had concern of liability and safety due to increased use of the public access area of their private property, and sought to reduce the size of such area. They applied to FERC to modify the license and installed a new fence to delineate the area. This is in conflict with FERC's ruling that does not allow this. Although FERC over-rules state or local agencies, this is also in conflict with the City's PZC approval of use back when the Shelton hydro-electric plant was constructed in the mid 1980's. The City has issued the cease and desist order against McCallum to take down the fence. No local permit was sought to construct the fence (and in this case FERC has no ruling or change to McCallum's license that would allow them to overide seeking such a permit).
3. The fish ladder component of the FERC license has not been installed since being required under the license issued in the mid 1980's, but the deficiency hasn't been enforced by FERC either. In the license renewal process, FERC made known that they will be actively seeking the fish ladder installation, and McCallum estimated the installation of it would be a significant expense upon them. McCallum is thus seeking to modify the license to allow them to fill the portion of the canal which is non-contributory to their hydro-electric generation infrastructure, but was included in the acreage controlled by the license. Upon achieving granting of filling in the canal, the Shelton Canal Co. (a similar ownership entity to McCallum) has stated that their goal is to create land area for residential development, similar to the numerous applications occuring in their neighborhood. Such pursuit would involve applications to the Army Corps of Engineers, DEP for Water Quality permit, and local Inland Wetlands and PZC approvals - a long and expensive process.
The following article appeared in CtPost last week. I post for public access to the news (CtPost does not retain links for very long) alongside my comments for clarification of the report. Please visit their website to view the original content:
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11444959
Shelton: Take down that fence
By Kate RamunnISTAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/13/2009 11:29:45 PM EST
SHELTON -- The city has ordered McCallum Enterprises to take down the fence it erected several months ago that prevents residents from accessing land along the river that is supposed to be open to the public.
But the cease-and-desist order issued last week doesn't mean the fence is coming down any time soon, one of the company's owners said.
Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz issued the order last Thursday, giving McCallum 10 days to take down the fence, or face a lawsuit.
"We will not be taking down the fence as a result of the cease and desist," McCallum managing partner Joseph Szarmach said. "We believe they do not have jurisdiction in this case."
Szarmach's grandfather E.J. McCallum Jr. got the initial Planning and Zoning Commission approval in 1986 to run the hydroelectric plant at the Derby Dam. As part of that approval, the canal company agreed to "provide an adequate and acceptable location of access to the water on the Shelton side of the river for the fishing and boating public." But Szarmach, citing Hackett v. J.L.G. Properties, LLC, a Connecticut Supreme Court decision earlier this year, maintains that he doesn't need the city's blessing to put up the fence -- only the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which granted that permission last year.
++ The "acceptable location" component of the approval was and continues to be decided by FERC. FERC did recently modify the recreational area outlined in the license, but withdrew the approval shortly thereafter. ++
In Hackett, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Power Act pre-empts local zoning regulations, which Szarmach said means that the conditions the commission placed on the approval are not enforceable.
"Federal licenses are not regulated by local zoning officials," he said.
++ I agree with Mr. Szarmach on that point. FERC pre-empts both local and state decision making. However, as seen with the attempt by Broadwater Energy to install a liquid natural gas platform in the middle of Long Island Sound, FERC decisions can consider input from a variety of sources such at the Attorney General, or other government representatitves. ++
Commission member Leon J. Sylvester was the chairman at the time and said he remembers the hours of work that went into the agreement reached with McCallum.
"They made a deal of good faith with the Planning and Zoning Commission years ago, and now they're saying that doesn't count," he said.
"I don't believe that; I believe a deal is a deal.
"That fence is a sign telling people, 'you're not welcome,' and that's wrong and he needs to adjust that," Sylvester said.
++ Leon is correct that a lot of work goes into hammering out an agreement. Ensuring that the agreement is adhered to is where the process was lacking on a local level. The PZC at the time should have requested a public access easement recorded in the land records with the City of Shelton as a grantee. That would have trumped any FERC change in license. ++
McCallum also is in the process of suing the city and the commission over its recent actions that rezoned the Shelton Canal Co. property from R-4 to R-1.
++ The rezoning is a separate issue that occured as part of the tasks assigned the PZC in the PoC&D. ++
Szarmach had intended to build 24 townhouses on a 2.5-acre portion of the property in order to raise funds to pay for the $2 million fish ladder the state Department of Environmental Protection is requiring the company to install. But under the new zoning, only a couple of single family homes can be built there, rendering the value of the property worthless compared to the R-4 designation, he said.
++ The fish ladder is a requirement of the FERC license, though the CtDEP would like to see it accomplished. McCallum Enterprises has had consultants estimate the cost at $2million, and they have made the decision to try and convert under-utilized asset of land into more value (via various Federal, State and Local agency approvals) that can then be sold for development. ++
It was after the city rejected Szarmach's offer to sell it the land, and during the rezoning process, that the fence went up.
"We understand that they want our private property kept undeveloped as an amenity for the Canal Street developers and their new residents, and they will say and do anything to make that happen," Szarmach said. "The city of Shelton is once again trying to bully a private property owner -- this is standard procedure for them.
++ The public access reqd by FERC is for the public. Shelton, Derby, Valley, CT, USA - generally any public. It is not, nor ever would be, exclusive to nearby developers or new residents. ++
"It is apparent to us the City of Shelton is perfectly content to put our viable Shelton family business out of business to get a free city park," he said.
++ The area is not a City Park. It is privately owned land where public access is mandated by the FERC license - NOT the City of Shelton. The City recognizes the acreage as "managed" open space, similar in character to cemeteries or golf courses which are owners of land that will contribute to the open space character of the community. ++
"I'm not saying he shouldn't fight for his rights in court," Sylvester said, "but until he does that, that fence shouldn't be there.
"This should not be about the zoning issue," he said.
++ Leon is absolutely correct on those points. ++
"This is about an issue that has already been fairly decided -- it was fairly negotiated between the originator of the facility and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
"It was a fair deal for Mr. McCallum and for the city of Shelton," he said.
++ But, as was frequent 20yrs ago when Leon and others chaired the PZC, "deals" weren't always recorded on land records, fair or otherwise. ++
While FERC initially approved McCallum's application to alter the public area of the property -- and thus allowing it to put up the fence -- it later reversed that decision after the DEP appealed it.
Schultz said the city, represented by Assistant Corporation Counsel Ramon Sous, would work with the DEP to resolve the issue but would file a lawsuit if the fence hasn't been removed by Jan. 18.
"We are hoping the DEP will resolve this once and for all," Schultz said.
++ It may resolve the current barrier to public access issue, but overall there are many issues that intertwine with affect of effect which will take some time to reach resolution. ++
1. The City's Plan of Conservation & Development was recently updated. It has tasks laid before the Planning & Zoning Commission to accomplish such as updating subdivision regulations, maps, etc. In light of that PoC&D, the PZC has been examining areas that should be re-zoned to better reflect either current existing or future desired uses. One way this is being done is to change the zone to R1 in the downtown area where otherwise there could be significant impact on the viewshed of the Housatonic River Greenway. McCallum's property is within that zone change area.
2. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission grants via license for the right of McCallum to take hydroelectric power away from the Housatonic River. In return for granting the license to take power from a public asset (the river is public), FERC requires a fee (based on the amount of power taken) and several other items called out in the license - notably providing public access to the river, and a fish ladder to allow their migration up river. McCallum has expressed concern that in light of significant residential development proposals in close proximity to their public access area, and the coming change in character from an industrial to residential setting, that they had concern of liability and safety due to increased use of the public access area of their private property, and sought to reduce the size of such area. They applied to FERC to modify the license and installed a new fence to delineate the area. This is in conflict with FERC's ruling that does not allow this. Although FERC over-rules state or local agencies, this is also in conflict with the City's PZC approval of use back when the Shelton hydro-electric plant was constructed in the mid 1980's. The City has issued the cease and desist order against McCallum to take down the fence. No local permit was sought to construct the fence (and in this case FERC has no ruling or change to McCallum's license that would allow them to overide seeking such a permit).
3. The fish ladder component of the FERC license has not been installed since being required under the license issued in the mid 1980's, but the deficiency hasn't been enforced by FERC either. In the license renewal process, FERC made known that they will be actively seeking the fish ladder installation, and McCallum estimated the installation of it would be a significant expense upon them. McCallum is thus seeking to modify the license to allow them to fill the portion of the canal which is non-contributory to their hydro-electric generation infrastructure, but was included in the acreage controlled by the license. Upon achieving granting of filling in the canal, the Shelton Canal Co. (a similar ownership entity to McCallum) has stated that their goal is to create land area for residential development, similar to the numerous applications occuring in their neighborhood. Such pursuit would involve applications to the Army Corps of Engineers, DEP for Water Quality permit, and local Inland Wetlands and PZC approvals - a long and expensive process.
The following article appeared in CtPost last week. I post for public access to the news (CtPost does not retain links for very long) alongside my comments for clarification of the report. Please visit their website to view the original content:
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11444959
Shelton: Take down that fence
By Kate RamunnISTAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/13/2009 11:29:45 PM EST
SHELTON -- The city has ordered McCallum Enterprises to take down the fence it erected several months ago that prevents residents from accessing land along the river that is supposed to be open to the public.
But the cease-and-desist order issued last week doesn't mean the fence is coming down any time soon, one of the company's owners said.
Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz issued the order last Thursday, giving McCallum 10 days to take down the fence, or face a lawsuit.
"We will not be taking down the fence as a result of the cease and desist," McCallum managing partner Joseph Szarmach said. "We believe they do not have jurisdiction in this case."
Szarmach's grandfather E.J. McCallum Jr. got the initial Planning and Zoning Commission approval in 1986 to run the hydroelectric plant at the Derby Dam. As part of that approval, the canal company agreed to "provide an adequate and acceptable location of access to the water on the Shelton side of the river for the fishing and boating public." But Szarmach, citing Hackett v. J.L.G. Properties, LLC, a Connecticut Supreme Court decision earlier this year, maintains that he doesn't need the city's blessing to put up the fence -- only the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which granted that permission last year.
++ The "acceptable location" component of the approval was and continues to be decided by FERC. FERC did recently modify the recreational area outlined in the license, but withdrew the approval shortly thereafter. ++
In Hackett, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Power Act pre-empts local zoning regulations, which Szarmach said means that the conditions the commission placed on the approval are not enforceable.
"Federal licenses are not regulated by local zoning officials," he said.
++ I agree with Mr. Szarmach on that point. FERC pre-empts both local and state decision making. However, as seen with the attempt by Broadwater Energy to install a liquid natural gas platform in the middle of Long Island Sound, FERC decisions can consider input from a variety of sources such at the Attorney General, or other government representatitves. ++
Commission member Leon J. Sylvester was the chairman at the time and said he remembers the hours of work that went into the agreement reached with McCallum.
"They made a deal of good faith with the Planning and Zoning Commission years ago, and now they're saying that doesn't count," he said.
"I don't believe that; I believe a deal is a deal.
"That fence is a sign telling people, 'you're not welcome,' and that's wrong and he needs to adjust that," Sylvester said.
++ Leon is correct that a lot of work goes into hammering out an agreement. Ensuring that the agreement is adhered to is where the process was lacking on a local level. The PZC at the time should have requested a public access easement recorded in the land records with the City of Shelton as a grantee. That would have trumped any FERC change in license. ++
McCallum also is in the process of suing the city and the commission over its recent actions that rezoned the Shelton Canal Co. property from R-4 to R-1.
++ The rezoning is a separate issue that occured as part of the tasks assigned the PZC in the PoC&D. ++
Szarmach had intended to build 24 townhouses on a 2.5-acre portion of the property in order to raise funds to pay for the $2 million fish ladder the state Department of Environmental Protection is requiring the company to install. But under the new zoning, only a couple of single family homes can be built there, rendering the value of the property worthless compared to the R-4 designation, he said.
++ The fish ladder is a requirement of the FERC license, though the CtDEP would like to see it accomplished. McCallum Enterprises has had consultants estimate the cost at $2million, and they have made the decision to try and convert under-utilized asset of land into more value (via various Federal, State and Local agency approvals) that can then be sold for development. ++
It was after the city rejected Szarmach's offer to sell it the land, and during the rezoning process, that the fence went up.
"We understand that they want our private property kept undeveloped as an amenity for the Canal Street developers and their new residents, and they will say and do anything to make that happen," Szarmach said. "The city of Shelton is once again trying to bully a private property owner -- this is standard procedure for them.
++ The public access reqd by FERC is for the public. Shelton, Derby, Valley, CT, USA - generally any public. It is not, nor ever would be, exclusive to nearby developers or new residents. ++
"It is apparent to us the City of Shelton is perfectly content to put our viable Shelton family business out of business to get a free city park," he said.
++ The area is not a City Park. It is privately owned land where public access is mandated by the FERC license - NOT the City of Shelton. The City recognizes the acreage as "managed" open space, similar in character to cemeteries or golf courses which are owners of land that will contribute to the open space character of the community. ++
"I'm not saying he shouldn't fight for his rights in court," Sylvester said, "but until he does that, that fence shouldn't be there.
"This should not be about the zoning issue," he said.
++ Leon is absolutely correct on those points. ++
"This is about an issue that has already been fairly decided -- it was fairly negotiated between the originator of the facility and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
"It was a fair deal for Mr. McCallum and for the city of Shelton," he said.
++ But, as was frequent 20yrs ago when Leon and others chaired the PZC, "deals" weren't always recorded on land records, fair or otherwise. ++
While FERC initially approved McCallum's application to alter the public area of the property -- and thus allowing it to put up the fence -- it later reversed that decision after the DEP appealed it.
Schultz said the city, represented by Assistant Corporation Counsel Ramon Sous, would work with the DEP to resolve the issue but would file a lawsuit if the fence hasn't been removed by Jan. 18.
"We are hoping the DEP will resolve this once and for all," Schultz said.
++ It may resolve the current barrier to public access issue, but overall there are many issues that intertwine with affect of effect which will take some time to reach resolution. ++
Thursday, January 22, 2009
OSPlan CtPost 3rd article
The Ct Post has a 3rd article in Friday's paper (I'm alerted online via google news at 7:30 the day before it's in the "dead-wood" format). Please goto the newspaper's website to view the content first hand. As is my custom and purpose of this forum, I note the article with my comments throughout, and serve as an archive for articles not retained in an online format.
At issue: Setting aside open space
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/22/2009 06:25:33 PM EST
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11530005
SHELTON -- As it moves closer to approving a new Open Space Plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission will next look to implement higher subdivision set aside regulations.
The commission's Plan of Development recommends developers deed 15 percent of their property for open space and the Conservation Commission's proposed Open Space Plan does likewise. That requirement is currently 10 percent.
++ Technically, it is the "Plan of Conservation and Development". It recognized planning goals, and strategies that could achieve those goals. One of the goals is to permanently protect as Open Space 15% of the City's landmass. One of the strategies to reach that goal is to increase the set-aside for open space, currently called out in subdivision regulations as 10%, to 15%. The OSPlan drafted by the CC concurrs or reinforces pursuit of that strategy. ++
When that plan came before the zoning commission for approval late last year, Shelton Builder's Association attorney Stephen Bellis told the commission that he would file a lawsuit should it be implemented into the subdivision regulations, when it would become legally enforceable.
Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson and zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester clashed over the issue when Sylvester said he wanted see more discussion on it.
But a joint meeting of the two commissions Wednesday lacked that acrimony as they worked out their differences in anticipation of the P&Z approving the plan at its Jan. 28 meeting.
Since the issue came up, Sylvester repeatedly said he supported the plan and made motions to pass it on two different occasions. But he said he wanted the percentage issue resolved by putting it to a vote to change the regulations, which the commission will do after the plan passes next week.
++ Technically, only the January mtg of the PZC had a motion made and seconded to adopt the OSPlan. ++
"I would like to have a public hearing and have a discussion about it in the open rather than as just part of the plan," Sylvester said. "I believe it should be brought forward and discussed and decided."
++ The strategy expressed in the OSPlan (increasing the % of OS set-aside) was available for discussion at public forums which created the PoC&D in 2004, public hearings by the PZC during it's adoption in 2006, and in public hearings by the BOA during it's favorable referral to the PZC for the PoC&D in 2006. The same strategy was re-iterated in the OSPlan which was available for comment online in summer of 2008, and during the public hearing on it held by the PZC in Nov2008. The only person who spoke unfavorably was a representative of the Shelton Builders Group, and the sole comment was concern over pursuing the recomended strategy in light of CtGenStatues. ++
Because his wife is a real estate agent, Sylvester has been accused of favoring developers, but that's not so, he said, pointing to the many times he has pushed for open space preservation over the years, especially waterfront property.
++ I have never accused Leon of favoring developers in subdivision applications presented before the PZC. However, I have pointed out the difference between abstaining and recusing on an issue, and the lack of clarity on the record when that occurs. Simply look at the PZC minutes of Jan13 just a week ago. An inadequate example of recusing is recorded by Chris Jones in the pg.9 for application #09-01 (didn't state reason for conflict), and a proper example shown by Pat Lapera in the same mtg on pg.14 for application #109-4 (wife works at law firm that is party secondarily involved with the application). I have never even accused anyone on the PZC of an ethics violation, I simply pointed out the difference that should be acknowledged on the record in the minutes of the PZC mtgs. ++
And on several occasions, he supported buying open space when others were not interested, he said, such as land along the Housatonic River near Indian Wells that the city declined to buy from the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company, which owned it at the time.
++ The area being referred to is the "Maples" on the right along the shore as you enter the area of Indian Wells State Park. The land was leased by the water company to private homeowners, and land leases not being renewed. The owners of the improvements wanted to gain full ownership in fee-simple. The water company had difficulty doing this directly due to liability concerns (the homes were often flooded being right on the riverfront). I believe that the City acted as an intermediary to facilitate transfer to private owners, but this was before my involvement with the City and that is the extent of my knowledge on the issue ++
The city also initially passed on property on Perry Hill Road adjacent to the former Shelton Intermediate School that it later bought at a higher price from developers who had plans to build on it.
++ The area being referred to is the "Hurd" property on the left as you enter the old Intermediate School parking lot from Perry Hill. It is often alleged when this subject arises that there was a "right of first refusal", but no such document has ever surfaced. I'm unaware of an offer made to the City that they "passed on". From my memory, a developer either had an option or had made purchase in fee-simple, and presented application for zone change and development. This was around the time that the Board of Ed had just completed the new SIS bldg and questions about the future use of the old SIS bldg and possible need for an elementary school were being floated. Leon was the Superintendent of Schools at the time (and also was on the PZC then too). Consequently, the passive stance of the City changed to a more active interest and the property was purchased. The City has leased the dwelling, and currently is using a rear portion for stockpiling materials during re-construction of a new school on the site. ++
"It would be helpful to have information about such properties and have better planning with all city agencies such as the Board of Education and the Parks and Recreation Commission," Harbinson said.
++ The P&R should have projections on sports fields needs. The BoEd should consider where residential development can or may take place and the results that could be felt on the school system that would result in expanded facility needs. The CC has been out in front with these thoughts. It was the CC who pushed for the BHC purchase, recognizing that parts of the property purchased would make a fine candidate for a school campus being adjacent to the High School. It was the CC who additionally encouraged that the Wiacek Farm adjacent to the SHS campus and sports fields, be examined and deserved attention for acquisition. It was the CC who saw to the purchase of the Behuniak and Carrol properties that surrounded the Long Hill Elementary School. It was the CC who sought the City purchase the Tall Farm and it is now providing informal fields for lacrosse use. I'm not tooting my own horn, as there were many other individuals and bodies who contributed toward conclustion sought by the CC, but these decisions would be better prepared for if the two bodies mentioned would do some planning, and share the results. The projected needs could then be matched against potential land areas with their varying characteristics and valuations. ++
The proposed set aside increase from 10 to 15 percent is nothing new, Harbinson said. "This is not something that came out of the blue," he said.
The plan also has a goal of preserving 15 percent of the city as open space, he said, and because of the lack of large remaining parcels, subdivision set asides are an important tool to reaching that goal.
"It's one strategy," he said.
++ With or without a PZC follow thru to implement such a strategy, the goal to achieve a balanced community of developed areas and open space land will be met. ++
At issue: Setting aside open space
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/22/2009 06:25:33 PM EST
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11530005
SHELTON -- As it moves closer to approving a new Open Space Plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission will next look to implement higher subdivision set aside regulations.
The commission's Plan of Development recommends developers deed 15 percent of their property for open space and the Conservation Commission's proposed Open Space Plan does likewise. That requirement is currently 10 percent.
++ Technically, it is the "Plan of Conservation and Development". It recognized planning goals, and strategies that could achieve those goals. One of the goals is to permanently protect as Open Space 15% of the City's landmass. One of the strategies to reach that goal is to increase the set-aside for open space, currently called out in subdivision regulations as 10%, to 15%. The OSPlan drafted by the CC concurrs or reinforces pursuit of that strategy. ++
When that plan came before the zoning commission for approval late last year, Shelton Builder's Association attorney Stephen Bellis told the commission that he would file a lawsuit should it be implemented into the subdivision regulations, when it would become legally enforceable.
Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson and zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester clashed over the issue when Sylvester said he wanted see more discussion on it.
But a joint meeting of the two commissions Wednesday lacked that acrimony as they worked out their differences in anticipation of the P&Z approving the plan at its Jan. 28 meeting.
Since the issue came up, Sylvester repeatedly said he supported the plan and made motions to pass it on two different occasions. But he said he wanted the percentage issue resolved by putting it to a vote to change the regulations, which the commission will do after the plan passes next week.
++ Technically, only the January mtg of the PZC had a motion made and seconded to adopt the OSPlan. ++
"I would like to have a public hearing and have a discussion about it in the open rather than as just part of the plan," Sylvester said. "I believe it should be brought forward and discussed and decided."
++ The strategy expressed in the OSPlan (increasing the % of OS set-aside) was available for discussion at public forums which created the PoC&D in 2004, public hearings by the PZC during it's adoption in 2006, and in public hearings by the BOA during it's favorable referral to the PZC for the PoC&D in 2006. The same strategy was re-iterated in the OSPlan which was available for comment online in summer of 2008, and during the public hearing on it held by the PZC in Nov2008. The only person who spoke unfavorably was a representative of the Shelton Builders Group, and the sole comment was concern over pursuing the recomended strategy in light of CtGenStatues. ++
Because his wife is a real estate agent, Sylvester has been accused of favoring developers, but that's not so, he said, pointing to the many times he has pushed for open space preservation over the years, especially waterfront property.
++ I have never accused Leon of favoring developers in subdivision applications presented before the PZC. However, I have pointed out the difference between abstaining and recusing on an issue, and the lack of clarity on the record when that occurs. Simply look at the PZC minutes of Jan13 just a week ago. An inadequate example of recusing is recorded by Chris Jones in the pg.9 for application #09-01 (didn't state reason for conflict), and a proper example shown by Pat Lapera in the same mtg on pg.14 for application #109-4 (wife works at law firm that is party secondarily involved with the application). I have never even accused anyone on the PZC of an ethics violation, I simply pointed out the difference that should be acknowledged on the record in the minutes of the PZC mtgs. ++
And on several occasions, he supported buying open space when others were not interested, he said, such as land along the Housatonic River near Indian Wells that the city declined to buy from the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company, which owned it at the time.
++ The area being referred to is the "Maples" on the right along the shore as you enter the area of Indian Wells State Park. The land was leased by the water company to private homeowners, and land leases not being renewed. The owners of the improvements wanted to gain full ownership in fee-simple. The water company had difficulty doing this directly due to liability concerns (the homes were often flooded being right on the riverfront). I believe that the City acted as an intermediary to facilitate transfer to private owners, but this was before my involvement with the City and that is the extent of my knowledge on the issue ++
The city also initially passed on property on Perry Hill Road adjacent to the former Shelton Intermediate School that it later bought at a higher price from developers who had plans to build on it.
++ The area being referred to is the "Hurd" property on the left as you enter the old Intermediate School parking lot from Perry Hill. It is often alleged when this subject arises that there was a "right of first refusal", but no such document has ever surfaced. I'm unaware of an offer made to the City that they "passed on". From my memory, a developer either had an option or had made purchase in fee-simple, and presented application for zone change and development. This was around the time that the Board of Ed had just completed the new SIS bldg and questions about the future use of the old SIS bldg and possible need for an elementary school were being floated. Leon was the Superintendent of Schools at the time (and also was on the PZC then too). Consequently, the passive stance of the City changed to a more active interest and the property was purchased. The City has leased the dwelling, and currently is using a rear portion for stockpiling materials during re-construction of a new school on the site. ++
"It would be helpful to have information about such properties and have better planning with all city agencies such as the Board of Education and the Parks and Recreation Commission," Harbinson said.
++ The P&R should have projections on sports fields needs. The BoEd should consider where residential development can or may take place and the results that could be felt on the school system that would result in expanded facility needs. The CC has been out in front with these thoughts. It was the CC who pushed for the BHC purchase, recognizing that parts of the property purchased would make a fine candidate for a school campus being adjacent to the High School. It was the CC who additionally encouraged that the Wiacek Farm adjacent to the SHS campus and sports fields, be examined and deserved attention for acquisition. It was the CC who saw to the purchase of the Behuniak and Carrol properties that surrounded the Long Hill Elementary School. It was the CC who sought the City purchase the Tall Farm and it is now providing informal fields for lacrosse use. I'm not tooting my own horn, as there were many other individuals and bodies who contributed toward conclustion sought by the CC, but these decisions would be better prepared for if the two bodies mentioned would do some planning, and share the results. The projected needs could then be matched against potential land areas with their varying characteristics and valuations. ++
The proposed set aside increase from 10 to 15 percent is nothing new, Harbinson said. "This is not something that came out of the blue," he said.
The plan also has a goal of preserving 15 percent of the city as open space, he said, and because of the lack of large remaining parcels, subdivision set asides are an important tool to reaching that goal.
"It's one strategy," he said.
++ With or without a PZC follow thru to implement such a strategy, the goal to achieve a balanced community of developed areas and open space land will be met. ++
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
HuntHrld article on OSPlan
The Huntington Herald had an article on the OSPlan adoption process by the PZC. I have typed and added comment as I normally due via articles on CC related issues. Please visit their website to see the article's original presentation.
Open Space Stirs dispute
Subdivision Set-aside Debate Turns Emotional
Huntington Herald - Fred Musante, EDITOR
2009/Jan/21 Printing
Who could have guessed adopting an Open Space Plan would be so emotional?
The Conservation Commission updated Shelton’s official plan for acquiring and managing open space over the last one-and-a-half years and referred it to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Since then, the local land developers’ association has threatened to sue the city, and the chairman of the Conservation Commission (CC) and a longtime member of the P&Z got into a public shouting match.
All of the controversy swirls around one short section of the plan that recommends increasing the open space set-aside requirement in the city’s subdivision zoning regulations from 10%, which it is now, to 15%.
At a public hearing just before Thanksgiving, Stephen Bellis, the attorney for the Shelton Builders Association, said he would file a lawsuit for his client if the P&Z adopted the higher set-aside percentage.
At a follow-up P&Z meeting in December, commission member Leon Sylvester said although he hadn’t read the plan, he had questions about increasing the open space set-aside, which angered CC Chairman Tom Harbinson, resulting in a heated argument between the two.
“We had a few words,” said Sylvester.
++ My thoughts on the December PZC mtg are better referenced in the comments on articles that appeared closer to the Dec mtg. It does not improve the situation to restate them again now, months later. ++
Sylvester didn’t improve matters at a Jan. 13 P&Z meeting when he launched into a rambling defense, denying that he was pro-developer. “I’ve sat here for 20 years and never made a dime here,” he said. “I’m not corrupt.”
++ I have never alleged that Leon is "corrupt". He has served the community of Shelton for a very long time in a multitude of contributing ways. I was not at the Jan13 PZC mtg, but the minutes are available at the City's website and the comments referred to as "rambling" by the reporter are on page 8. ++
Officials hope the whole thing will smooth out this afternoon when members of the two commissions held a powwow Wednesday in City Hall to hash out final changes to the Open Space Plan.
++ As I write this entry, we have held said mtg and it is expected the PZC will adopt the plan as ammended, and presented. ++
Changes might mean the P&Z will hold yet another public hearing before voting on the plan.
This spring, the P&Z might also take up the question of the subdivision regulations. Bellis said the Open Space Plan only recommends a change in the zoning regulations. If the P&Z actually changes them, increasing the set-aside from 10% to 15%, he’ll sue.
++ Adopting the OSPlan does not change subdivision regulations. It would however recognize the % change as a possible strategy to implement so the Plan's goals can be reached. Adopting the OSPlan does not cause the PZC to be held to pursue a specific strategy, though I obviously hope that they would. ++
To fully appreciate all of this, it is important to know that the usual function for the Open Space Plan is to back up grant applications — for example, if funding assistance is requested to purchase land for open space, it is helpful if the plan says the property has historical or environmental value.
Open Space Plans are not supposed to be controversial.
Harbinson said he’s not sure why there is any controversy. He said increasing the set-aside is already in the city’s Plan of Conservation and Development adopted in 2006, and Bellis is the only person who spoke against it at the public hearing.
++ The public had input thru public forum and exercises to create the PoC&D, and there were public hearings for it's adoption by both the PZC and the BOA. The OSPlan reaffirms said strategies of the PoC&D, and had public hearing by the PZC as well as numerous opportunity for comment by the public at our CC mtgs. ++
“How can you have an opinion about a plan when you admit you have not read the plan?” Harbinson said. He said if Sylvester didn’t read the plan but is opposed to part of it, it must mean someone else is reading the plan for him, though he declined to say who that might be.
On the Shelton Conservation Commission Web site he maintains, Harbinson also takes some pokes at Sylvester, whose wife is a real estate agent handling listings for developer Robert Scinto and whose son-in-law, Ben Perry, is a business partner of Joseph Salemme in a recycling business on Oliver Terrace.
Harbinson criticized Sylvester on the Web site for frequently recusing himself on P&Z matters without explaining why he had a conflict of interest. “I believe the public have a right to know why that happens, and the frequency to which it happens,” he wrote.
++ "Poke" may be the unfortunately correct word. My comments about recuse vs abstain made at the Dec PZC public hearing on an issue separate from the OSPlan adpoption have contiminated this adoption process, and for that I have regret. The comments were a public nudge-in-the-side reminder regarding a detail which I believe the record should record. It was not made with malice toward an individual, but rather with encouragement to the PZC body toward greater clarity and transparency in light of even further astray issues that are darkening public impression regarding various approval actions made by them over the recent years. An improper example of recusing is subsequently shown by Chris Jones in the PZC minutes of Jan13 pg.9 for application #09-01, and a proper example shown by Pat Lapera in the same mtg on pg.14 for application #109-4. ++
“I think I was misunderstood,” said Sylvester.
++ Precisely why I have this blog to offer clarification when my comment are misunderstood in media accounts. ++
He said he is ready to vote to adopt the Open Space Plan as is, but he wants to hear from the public, particularly land owners affected by increasing the open space set-aside, before increasing the percentage mandated in the zoning regulations.
++ The time for the public to comment in detail on such an increase recomendation, is when the detail of a proposal is available for them to review. I believe the PZC should thus pursue the revision of subdivision regulations ASAP. ++
Sylvester also said he may not have read the plan, but he did read its executive summary, so he knew something about what was in it.
The matter also was discussed in detail at the public hearing on Nov. 25.
++ My thoughts on the December PZC mtg are better referenced in the comments on articles that appeared closer to the Dec mtg. It does not improve the situation to restate them again now, months later. ++
Bellis’ lawsuit threat against raising the open space set-aside percentage is based on his interpretation of Section 8-25 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
When the Legislature passed a provision in 1990 that allowed developers to substitute a cash payment in lieu of land for all or part of the open space set-aside, it capped the percentage at 10% of the fair market value of the subdivision.
“Such payment or combination of payment and the fair market value of land transfer shall be equal to but not more than 10% of the fair market value of the land to be subdivided prior to approval of the subdivision,” reads the statute.
The question is whether that 10% cap also applies to an open space set-aside of land only. Bellis said it does, but Assistant Corporation Council Ramon Sous contends it doesn’t.
“I have researched state statute 8-25 and find nothing in it specifically which limits the right of the Planning & Zoning Commission to require more than 10% as open space set aside as part of the subdivision approval, and I specifically disagree with attorney Bellis’ argument,” Sous said in an e-mail to P&Z and CC staff officials.
++ A note: Atty Sous' communication was communicated to the CC via our google group msg service, and thus was made public immediately. ++
“A judge is going to have to decide, and sometimes the judge is wrong and an appellate court is going to decide,” said Bellis this week.
He said P&Z Administrator Richard Schultz told him the zoning commission expects to consider changing the subdivision regulations sometime this spring.
What does he think about the dispute between Sylvester and Harbinson? “I’m not going there,” Bellis said.
It turns out Sylvester might not either. Sounding weary of the whole thing, he said he might not attend this afternoon’s meeting of the two commissions.
“I just don’t feel like debating any more,” he said.
++ The CC (5+ConsAgent=6) and the PZC (4+P&Z Adm=5) met Wed and discussed openly our issues until resolution was reached. It is expected that the PZC will adopt the OSPlan at their next mtg. ++
Open Space Stirs dispute
Subdivision Set-aside Debate Turns Emotional
Huntington Herald - Fred Musante, EDITOR
2009/Jan/21 Printing
Who could have guessed adopting an Open Space Plan would be so emotional?
The Conservation Commission updated Shelton’s official plan for acquiring and managing open space over the last one-and-a-half years and referred it to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Since then, the local land developers’ association has threatened to sue the city, and the chairman of the Conservation Commission (CC) and a longtime member of the P&Z got into a public shouting match.
All of the controversy swirls around one short section of the plan that recommends increasing the open space set-aside requirement in the city’s subdivision zoning regulations from 10%, which it is now, to 15%.
At a public hearing just before Thanksgiving, Stephen Bellis, the attorney for the Shelton Builders Association, said he would file a lawsuit for his client if the P&Z adopted the higher set-aside percentage.
At a follow-up P&Z meeting in December, commission member Leon Sylvester said although he hadn’t read the plan, he had questions about increasing the open space set-aside, which angered CC Chairman Tom Harbinson, resulting in a heated argument between the two.
“We had a few words,” said Sylvester.
++ My thoughts on the December PZC mtg are better referenced in the comments on articles that appeared closer to the Dec mtg. It does not improve the situation to restate them again now, months later. ++
Sylvester didn’t improve matters at a Jan. 13 P&Z meeting when he launched into a rambling defense, denying that he was pro-developer. “I’ve sat here for 20 years and never made a dime here,” he said. “I’m not corrupt.”
++ I have never alleged that Leon is "corrupt". He has served the community of Shelton for a very long time in a multitude of contributing ways. I was not at the Jan13 PZC mtg, but the minutes are available at the City's website and the comments referred to as "rambling" by the reporter are on page 8. ++
Officials hope the whole thing will smooth out this afternoon when members of the two commissions held a powwow Wednesday in City Hall to hash out final changes to the Open Space Plan.
++ As I write this entry, we have held said mtg and it is expected the PZC will adopt the plan as ammended, and presented. ++
Changes might mean the P&Z will hold yet another public hearing before voting on the plan.
This spring, the P&Z might also take up the question of the subdivision regulations. Bellis said the Open Space Plan only recommends a change in the zoning regulations. If the P&Z actually changes them, increasing the set-aside from 10% to 15%, he’ll sue.
++ Adopting the OSPlan does not change subdivision regulations. It would however recognize the % change as a possible strategy to implement so the Plan's goals can be reached. Adopting the OSPlan does not cause the PZC to be held to pursue a specific strategy, though I obviously hope that they would. ++
To fully appreciate all of this, it is important to know that the usual function for the Open Space Plan is to back up grant applications — for example, if funding assistance is requested to purchase land for open space, it is helpful if the plan says the property has historical or environmental value.
Open Space Plans are not supposed to be controversial.
Harbinson said he’s not sure why there is any controversy. He said increasing the set-aside is already in the city’s Plan of Conservation and Development adopted in 2006, and Bellis is the only person who spoke against it at the public hearing.
++ The public had input thru public forum and exercises to create the PoC&D, and there were public hearings for it's adoption by both the PZC and the BOA. The OSPlan reaffirms said strategies of the PoC&D, and had public hearing by the PZC as well as numerous opportunity for comment by the public at our CC mtgs. ++
“How can you have an opinion about a plan when you admit you have not read the plan?” Harbinson said. He said if Sylvester didn’t read the plan but is opposed to part of it, it must mean someone else is reading the plan for him, though he declined to say who that might be.
On the Shelton Conservation Commission Web site he maintains, Harbinson also takes some pokes at Sylvester, whose wife is a real estate agent handling listings for developer Robert Scinto and whose son-in-law, Ben Perry, is a business partner of Joseph Salemme in a recycling business on Oliver Terrace.
Harbinson criticized Sylvester on the Web site for frequently recusing himself on P&Z matters without explaining why he had a conflict of interest. “I believe the public have a right to know why that happens, and the frequency to which it happens,” he wrote.
++ "Poke" may be the unfortunately correct word. My comments about recuse vs abstain made at the Dec PZC public hearing on an issue separate from the OSPlan adpoption have contiminated this adoption process, and for that I have regret. The comments were a public nudge-in-the-side reminder regarding a detail which I believe the record should record. It was not made with malice toward an individual, but rather with encouragement to the PZC body toward greater clarity and transparency in light of even further astray issues that are darkening public impression regarding various approval actions made by them over the recent years. An improper example of recusing is subsequently shown by Chris Jones in the PZC minutes of Jan13 pg.9 for application #09-01, and a proper example shown by Pat Lapera in the same mtg on pg.14 for application #109-4. ++
“I think I was misunderstood,” said Sylvester.
++ Precisely why I have this blog to offer clarification when my comment are misunderstood in media accounts. ++
He said he is ready to vote to adopt the Open Space Plan as is, but he wants to hear from the public, particularly land owners affected by increasing the open space set-aside, before increasing the percentage mandated in the zoning regulations.
++ The time for the public to comment in detail on such an increase recomendation, is when the detail of a proposal is available for them to review. I believe the PZC should thus pursue the revision of subdivision regulations ASAP. ++
Sylvester also said he may not have read the plan, but he did read its executive summary, so he knew something about what was in it.
The matter also was discussed in detail at the public hearing on Nov. 25.
++ My thoughts on the December PZC mtg are better referenced in the comments on articles that appeared closer to the Dec mtg. It does not improve the situation to restate them again now, months later. ++
Bellis’ lawsuit threat against raising the open space set-aside percentage is based on his interpretation of Section 8-25 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
When the Legislature passed a provision in 1990 that allowed developers to substitute a cash payment in lieu of land for all or part of the open space set-aside, it capped the percentage at 10% of the fair market value of the subdivision.
“Such payment or combination of payment and the fair market value of land transfer shall be equal to but not more than 10% of the fair market value of the land to be subdivided prior to approval of the subdivision,” reads the statute.
The question is whether that 10% cap also applies to an open space set-aside of land only. Bellis said it does, but Assistant Corporation Council Ramon Sous contends it doesn’t.
“I have researched state statute 8-25 and find nothing in it specifically which limits the right of the Planning & Zoning Commission to require more than 10% as open space set aside as part of the subdivision approval, and I specifically disagree with attorney Bellis’ argument,” Sous said in an e-mail to P&Z and CC staff officials.
++ A note: Atty Sous' communication was communicated to the CC via our google group msg service, and thus was made public immediately. ++
“A judge is going to have to decide, and sometimes the judge is wrong and an appellate court is going to decide,” said Bellis this week.
He said P&Z Administrator Richard Schultz told him the zoning commission expects to consider changing the subdivision regulations sometime this spring.
What does he think about the dispute between Sylvester and Harbinson? “I’m not going there,” Bellis said.
It turns out Sylvester might not either. Sounding weary of the whole thing, he said he might not attend this afternoon’s meeting of the two commissions.
“I just don’t feel like debating any more,” he said.
++ The CC (5+ConsAgent=6) and the PZC (4+P&Z Adm=5) met Wed and discussed openly our issues until resolution was reached. It is expected that the PZC will adopt the OSPlan at their next mtg. ++
CtPost on Bark Park
I have previously blogged about this subject for articles that appeared in 2008/Aug in several papers. As far as I am aware, the Parks & Recreation Commission has not advanced the issue substantially since Aug2008, however I have spoken with P&R Chair John Papa and he has asked staff to pull examples of what other Parks Departments offer in the region so Shelton can learn from the best examples. He has pulled a committee together to directly address the issue and then make recomendations to prospective boards or commissions as necessary.
Below is the CtPost article. As is my custom, I recount it's content with my comments as online locations are not retained indefinately. Please visit the article's link for comments that may occur in their publication's website.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11516359
An interesting note on this blog entry: I have a google news alert set for "Shelton" and received an email on Wednesday afternoon that this article had been published on connpost.com I have done this commentary on Wed evening and thus my comments on the article have occurred before the actual article has appeared in print. The compressed news-cycle of the 21st century. Electrons are faster than protons.
Shelton considers a bark park
By Kate Ramunni, STAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/21/2009 04:34:19 PM EST
SHELTON -- A new city committee will meet next month to begin work on establishing a park dedicated to man's best friend.
The Parks and Recreation Commission recently established a Dog Park Committee charged with determining where best to put the park and how much it will cost. The committee will hold its first meeting Feb. 10 at 7 p.m. at the Community Center.
++ I said I would make myself available, but until now I was unaware of the date. ++
"We have information from other towns on what they have just so we can get an idea of what we need," said John Papa, commission chairman, who is also serving on the committee. Once it finishes its work, the committee will report its findings to the commission, Papa said, which will in turn send a proposal to the Board of Aldermen.
"We don't know how long it will take," he said. "The most important thing is to find the best location with accessibility and parking." And to that end, the committee will look in large part to Tom Harbinson, Papa said, who is the chairman of the Conservation Commission and is a member of the committee. "Tom knows where the open space is," he said.
++ One hope I have for Shelton government, is that more planning be done and technology be used. The Park & Rec Commission and The Board of Education should have plans and projections that reference land needs of the future. Such considerations could then be utilized as input for land acquisitions, an activity the Conservation Commission commonly does in attempting to increase the acreage of Permanently Protected Open Space, and thus is intimately (and often exclusively) aware of opportunities where such preparations for the future could best be accomplished. The use of GIS software would help make such plans and decisions easier.++
"Informally, this concept has been brought up at the Conservation Commission some time ago," Harbinson said. Some also expressed an interest in a "bark park" to Mayor Mark A. Lauretti, who referred it to the two boards.
++ See my 2008/Aug/28 blog entry for more detail on this ++
To be successful, the park would need behind it a group that would assume responsibility for it, Harbinson said. "Typically, for anyone interested in open space, we are interested to see what kind of group would be behind it or sustain it," he said. "We haven't seen that for this yet."
For example, in Ridgefield, the volunteer group, Ridgefield Operation for Animal Rescue, oversees the town's Bark Park Dog Park on Governor Street. And in Hamden, the Hamden Responsible Dog Owner's Group maintains that town's park on Waite Street.
The Hamden park is fenced in and has picnic benches and water bowls, as well as "poop bags."
In Milford, a portion of Eisenhower Park is fenced in for dogs to run off-leash and also provides the bags but no water. The Ridgefield Bark Park includes a separate area for small dogs and provides built-in dog toys, as well as benches and water.
++ I note that all of Shelton's Open Space is open to animals (pooper scooper rules of course, and dogs on leash), but that a "bark park" is one where the dogs roam off leash to play and socialize with other dogs. ++
"It's a good education to see what other communities have," Harbinson said. "Before we start rolling, we want a knowledge base of where it might fit in and how much space it needs and if it needs things such as access to water. "You have to think about where people are going to park, and if you need restroom or storage facilities," he said.
One possible spot could be the city-owned site at the corner of Nells Rock Road and Route 108, he said. "It's one area that has been mentioned, but it's no where near final approval," he said of the property the city bought that includes a home that was formally rented but is now vacant.
"There is some acreage there that might facilitate such a use," he said.
++ The Nell's Rock Rd site will likely be a prominent public access point in the future for the Shelton Lakes Recreation Path, and has also been mentioned as a community garden spot. When compatible uses can co-habitate and make shared use of resources such as parking with impervious surfaces - it is environmentally advantageous, and a manner I'm confident our community would seek to proceed in if it deems the facilities appropriate to pursue. ++
Below is the CtPost article. As is my custom, I recount it's content with my comments as online locations are not retained indefinately. Please visit the article's link for comments that may occur in their publication's website.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11516359
An interesting note on this blog entry: I have a google news alert set for "Shelton" and received an email on Wednesday afternoon that this article had been published on connpost.com I have done this commentary on Wed evening and thus my comments on the article have occurred before the actual article has appeared in print. The compressed news-cycle of the 21st century. Electrons are faster than protons.
Shelton considers a bark park
By Kate Ramunni, STAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/21/2009 04:34:19 PM EST
SHELTON -- A new city committee will meet next month to begin work on establishing a park dedicated to man's best friend.
The Parks and Recreation Commission recently established a Dog Park Committee charged with determining where best to put the park and how much it will cost. The committee will hold its first meeting Feb. 10 at 7 p.m. at the Community Center.
++ I said I would make myself available, but until now I was unaware of the date. ++
"We have information from other towns on what they have just so we can get an idea of what we need," said John Papa, commission chairman, who is also serving on the committee. Once it finishes its work, the committee will report its findings to the commission, Papa said, which will in turn send a proposal to the Board of Aldermen.
"We don't know how long it will take," he said. "The most important thing is to find the best location with accessibility and parking." And to that end, the committee will look in large part to Tom Harbinson, Papa said, who is the chairman of the Conservation Commission and is a member of the committee. "Tom knows where the open space is," he said.
++ One hope I have for Shelton government, is that more planning be done and technology be used. The Park & Rec Commission and The Board of Education should have plans and projections that reference land needs of the future. Such considerations could then be utilized as input for land acquisitions, an activity the Conservation Commission commonly does in attempting to increase the acreage of Permanently Protected Open Space, and thus is intimately (and often exclusively) aware of opportunities where such preparations for the future could best be accomplished. The use of GIS software would help make such plans and decisions easier.++
"Informally, this concept has been brought up at the Conservation Commission some time ago," Harbinson said. Some also expressed an interest in a "bark park" to Mayor Mark A. Lauretti, who referred it to the two boards.
++ See my 2008/Aug/28 blog entry for more detail on this ++
To be successful, the park would need behind it a group that would assume responsibility for it, Harbinson said. "Typically, for anyone interested in open space, we are interested to see what kind of group would be behind it or sustain it," he said. "We haven't seen that for this yet."
For example, in Ridgefield, the volunteer group, Ridgefield Operation for Animal Rescue, oversees the town's Bark Park Dog Park on Governor Street. And in Hamden, the Hamden Responsible Dog Owner's Group maintains that town's park on Waite Street.
The Hamden park is fenced in and has picnic benches and water bowls, as well as "poop bags."
In Milford, a portion of Eisenhower Park is fenced in for dogs to run off-leash and also provides the bags but no water. The Ridgefield Bark Park includes a separate area for small dogs and provides built-in dog toys, as well as benches and water.
++ I note that all of Shelton's Open Space is open to animals (pooper scooper rules of course, and dogs on leash), but that a "bark park" is one where the dogs roam off leash to play and socialize with other dogs. ++
"It's a good education to see what other communities have," Harbinson said. "Before we start rolling, we want a knowledge base of where it might fit in and how much space it needs and if it needs things such as access to water. "You have to think about where people are going to park, and if you need restroom or storage facilities," he said.
One possible spot could be the city-owned site at the corner of Nells Rock Road and Route 108, he said. "It's one area that has been mentioned, but it's no where near final approval," he said of the property the city bought that includes a home that was formally rented but is now vacant.
"There is some acreage there that might facilitate such a use," he said.
++ The Nell's Rock Rd site will likely be a prominent public access point in the future for the Shelton Lakes Recreation Path, and has also been mentioned as a community garden spot. When compatible uses can co-habitate and make shared use of resources such as parking with impervious surfaces - it is environmentally advantageous, and a manner I'm confident our community would seek to proceed in if it deems the facilities appropriate to pursue. ++
Thursday, January 15, 2009
CtPost article 2 on adopting the OSPlan
Keeping open space an issue in Shelton
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11453621
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/14/2009 11:57:55 PM EST
SHELTON -- The Conservation Commission's 2009 Open Space Plan will go at least another two weeks before adoption, but not because one Planning and Zoning Commission member didn't try to get it passed.
The plan, when approved, will become part of the zoning commission's Plan of Conservation and Development, but its specific recommendations must be incorporated into the zoning regulations to be legally enforceable. It initially appeared before the commission in December, when Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester suggested that the recommendation to require a hike from 10 percent to 15 percent in subdivision open space set-asides merited more discussion.
++ The Open Space Plan would become a supporting document to the Plan of Conservation and Development (the "Master" Plan for our community), just as a Parks & Recreation Plan would be a supporting document. The goals of the Open Space Plan and the strategies to achieve them mimic those already contained in the PoC&D which was adopted by the PZC and BOA in 2006. The strategy in question, increasing the set-aside of public open space as part of the exchange for approval of a subdivision to land, is something the P&Z asked itself to do back in 2006, and it has not done so. The OSPlan would reinforce the request that they consider pursuit of the strategy. ++
At the time, Sylvester said he was willing to pass the plan as presented, but wanted it noted that the set-aside issue needed to be further investigated, mainly because state law caps that percentage at 10.
++ The "further investigated" has been done by the CC and presented at the first public hearing with examples from the other communities who have >10% set-asides in their regulations, and the P&Z Administrator confirmed with Assistant Corporation Counsel Ray Sous that this was within the City's right to pursue and incorporate into subdivision regulations. Pursuit of a strategy, such as modifying the subdivision regulations, requires further work by the PZC, and should be holistic. ++
Several other communities in the state require higher percentages and have not been legally challenged. But Shelton Builders Association attorney Stephen Bellis indicated that if the requirement were adopted in the commission's regulations, he would mount a legal challenge.
Because of Sylvester's concerns, the zoning commission decided to discuss the issue with Conservation Commission members before adopting the plan. Some zoning commissioners, including Sylvester, thought a joint meeting would be held, but instead the zoning staff met with conservation officials last week.
++ A work session was held WedJan7 at 3pm between P&Z Administrator Rick Schultz, P&Z Planning Consultant Tony Panico, PZC Chair Tony Pagoda, and CC Chair Tom Harbinson, Vice Chair Bill Dyer, and Commissioner Jim Tate. It was my understanding that all questions that had been brought forth were answered. ++
On Tuesday, the zoning commission again took up the plan, which included changes from last week's meeting but retained the 15 percent set-aside recommendation.
++ To be clear, the OSPlan has as a goal to conserve/preserve a certain amount of land in Shelton. One of the strategies to achieve the goal is to increase the set-aside percentage in the subdivision regulations. Adopting the OSPlan in itself does not increase the set-aside. It simply reinforces the PoC&D's similar request for such strategies to be pursued. ++
The plan also has a goal of preserving 15 percent of the city's land as locally controlled open space, including that which is controlled by organizations such as the Shelton Land Trust. It doesn't include Indian Well State Park, which is controlled by the General Assembly.
++ The CC had much debate as to the term "open space" and the adjectives in front of the noun phrase, such as: public, permanently protected, perceived, etc. While undeveloped lands contribute to environmental balance in a natural way, some lands are or will be needed for recreation activities both passive and active. It was felt that land which the City of Shelton did not have some influence over should thus not be included in the achievement goal of open space percentage in the community. ++
Of that 15 percent, which equates to 3,060 acres, 2,610 are already preserved, Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said, leaving 450 to acquire through purchase or subdivision set asides.
There is about 3,000 acres of open space left in the city, Schultz said. "It is the opinion of the staff that the 450 acres can only be done through acquisition," he said. "We aren't seeing many subdivisions now."
++ The subdivisions that will more commonly occur in Shelton's future are what would be termed "in-fill" projects. Parcels of 10acres or less where subdivision of the land may not yield a worthwhile open space dedication due to it's disjointed nature or not linking with other open space. This is not to say that the inclusion of a "pocket park" from an open space dedication wouldn't be valued, but it will be more unlikely for such proposals. ++
According to the zoning regulations now in place, developers must dedicate 10 percent of their property to the city for open space. The Conservation Commission wants to see that raised to 15 percent.
++ The Ct Gen Statutes refer to no more than 10% of the raw parcel value can be reqd to be set-aside. That is slightly different than assuming 10% of the raw parcel acreage equals 10% of the raw parcel value. A wetlands or steep slope acreage does not have the same value as a flat meadow where a building lot could be created. ++
"There haven't been any appeals" in towns that have a requirement of more than 10 percent, Schultz said, "but we are bound by state statutes." Last month when the issue came up Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson became angry at Sylvester's comments that the proposal to hike the percentage required more discussion. Harbinson was out of state Tuesday and did not attend the P&Z meeting.
++ I believe that the plan speaks for itself, is a reinforcement of the master plan already adopted by the PZC, and that our work session last week had answered any questions. I have attended the public hearing, and a subsequent meetings of the PZC where I expected it to be adopted. I was unable to attend this PZC mtg.++
Again on Tuesday, Sylvester made a motion to pass the plan as presented, but the commission decided to wait until a joint meeting of the two commissions takes place.
"I believe that the plans are well done," Sylvester said. "The criticism leveled at me -- I don't know where that came from."
++ My criticism is that there is a deriliction of duty being witnessed in regard to being prepared for a meeting where consideration and voting on the OSPlan should have taken place. ++
The 15 percent set-aside requirement also is in the Conservation Commission's former plan, Sylvester said, but still needs more discussion, especially if the actual regulations are ever amended to reflect that change.
++ For the first time, I agree with Mr. Sylvester. When subdivision regulations are amended, there should be more discussion so that they are holistically reviewed and consider more than just what is being requested as a supporting strategy toward OSPlan goals. ++
"If that is to be accepted it should be brought to the floor and before a public hearing," he said. "It needs to have a hearing and be discussed." But the plan as a whole is perfectly acceptable, Sylvester said, which is why he made the motion twice to approve it.
++ I'm confused, the OSPlan had a public hearing. There is no change being proposed to the draft that would cause a new public hearing to be reqd. Certainly if the subdivision regs were to be changed, there would be a public hearing. To be clear, at the last PZC mtg, although there was discussion, no motion to approve the plan was made. ++
"I'm appreciative of this group of volunteers who do a great job," he said. "I compliment them for a job incredibly well done and I don't have an issue with the plan -- I am not their enemy."
++ "I don't have an issue with the plan" - then why not adopt it? This defies logic. ++
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11453621
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/14/2009 11:57:55 PM EST
SHELTON -- The Conservation Commission's 2009 Open Space Plan will go at least another two weeks before adoption, but not because one Planning and Zoning Commission member didn't try to get it passed.
The plan, when approved, will become part of the zoning commission's Plan of Conservation and Development, but its specific recommendations must be incorporated into the zoning regulations to be legally enforceable. It initially appeared before the commission in December, when Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester suggested that the recommendation to require a hike from 10 percent to 15 percent in subdivision open space set-asides merited more discussion.
++ The Open Space Plan would become a supporting document to the Plan of Conservation and Development (the "Master" Plan for our community), just as a Parks & Recreation Plan would be a supporting document. The goals of the Open Space Plan and the strategies to achieve them mimic those already contained in the PoC&D which was adopted by the PZC and BOA in 2006. The strategy in question, increasing the set-aside of public open space as part of the exchange for approval of a subdivision to land, is something the P&Z asked itself to do back in 2006, and it has not done so. The OSPlan would reinforce the request that they consider pursuit of the strategy. ++
At the time, Sylvester said he was willing to pass the plan as presented, but wanted it noted that the set-aside issue needed to be further investigated, mainly because state law caps that percentage at 10.
++ The "further investigated" has been done by the CC and presented at the first public hearing with examples from the other communities who have >10% set-asides in their regulations, and the P&Z Administrator confirmed with Assistant Corporation Counsel Ray Sous that this was within the City's right to pursue and incorporate into subdivision regulations. Pursuit of a strategy, such as modifying the subdivision regulations, requires further work by the PZC, and should be holistic. ++
Several other communities in the state require higher percentages and have not been legally challenged. But Shelton Builders Association attorney Stephen Bellis indicated that if the requirement were adopted in the commission's regulations, he would mount a legal challenge.
Because of Sylvester's concerns, the zoning commission decided to discuss the issue with Conservation Commission members before adopting the plan. Some zoning commissioners, including Sylvester, thought a joint meeting would be held, but instead the zoning staff met with conservation officials last week.
++ A work session was held WedJan7 at 3pm between P&Z Administrator Rick Schultz, P&Z Planning Consultant Tony Panico, PZC Chair Tony Pagoda, and CC Chair Tom Harbinson, Vice Chair Bill Dyer, and Commissioner Jim Tate. It was my understanding that all questions that had been brought forth were answered. ++
On Tuesday, the zoning commission again took up the plan, which included changes from last week's meeting but retained the 15 percent set-aside recommendation.
++ To be clear, the OSPlan has as a goal to conserve/preserve a certain amount of land in Shelton. One of the strategies to achieve the goal is to increase the set-aside percentage in the subdivision regulations. Adopting the OSPlan in itself does not increase the set-aside. It simply reinforces the PoC&D's similar request for such strategies to be pursued. ++
The plan also has a goal of preserving 15 percent of the city's land as locally controlled open space, including that which is controlled by organizations such as the Shelton Land Trust. It doesn't include Indian Well State Park, which is controlled by the General Assembly.
++ The CC had much debate as to the term "open space" and the adjectives in front of the noun phrase, such as: public, permanently protected, perceived, etc. While undeveloped lands contribute to environmental balance in a natural way, some lands are or will be needed for recreation activities both passive and active. It was felt that land which the City of Shelton did not have some influence over should thus not be included in the achievement goal of open space percentage in the community. ++
Of that 15 percent, which equates to 3,060 acres, 2,610 are already preserved, Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said, leaving 450 to acquire through purchase or subdivision set asides.
There is about 3,000 acres of open space left in the city, Schultz said. "It is the opinion of the staff that the 450 acres can only be done through acquisition," he said. "We aren't seeing many subdivisions now."
++ The subdivisions that will more commonly occur in Shelton's future are what would be termed "in-fill" projects. Parcels of 10acres or less where subdivision of the land may not yield a worthwhile open space dedication due to it's disjointed nature or not linking with other open space. This is not to say that the inclusion of a "pocket park" from an open space dedication wouldn't be valued, but it will be more unlikely for such proposals. ++
According to the zoning regulations now in place, developers must dedicate 10 percent of their property to the city for open space. The Conservation Commission wants to see that raised to 15 percent.
++ The Ct Gen Statutes refer to no more than 10% of the raw parcel value can be reqd to be set-aside. That is slightly different than assuming 10% of the raw parcel acreage equals 10% of the raw parcel value. A wetlands or steep slope acreage does not have the same value as a flat meadow where a building lot could be created. ++
"There haven't been any appeals" in towns that have a requirement of more than 10 percent, Schultz said, "but we are bound by state statutes." Last month when the issue came up Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson became angry at Sylvester's comments that the proposal to hike the percentage required more discussion. Harbinson was out of state Tuesday and did not attend the P&Z meeting.
++ I believe that the plan speaks for itself, is a reinforcement of the master plan already adopted by the PZC, and that our work session last week had answered any questions. I have attended the public hearing, and a subsequent meetings of the PZC where I expected it to be adopted. I was unable to attend this PZC mtg.++
Again on Tuesday, Sylvester made a motion to pass the plan as presented, but the commission decided to wait until a joint meeting of the two commissions takes place.
"I believe that the plans are well done," Sylvester said. "The criticism leveled at me -- I don't know where that came from."
++ My criticism is that there is a deriliction of duty being witnessed in regard to being prepared for a meeting where consideration and voting on the OSPlan should have taken place. ++
The 15 percent set-aside requirement also is in the Conservation Commission's former plan, Sylvester said, but still needs more discussion, especially if the actual regulations are ever amended to reflect that change.
++ For the first time, I agree with Mr. Sylvester. When subdivision regulations are amended, there should be more discussion so that they are holistically reviewed and consider more than just what is being requested as a supporting strategy toward OSPlan goals. ++
"If that is to be accepted it should be brought to the floor and before a public hearing," he said. "It needs to have a hearing and be discussed." But the plan as a whole is perfectly acceptable, Sylvester said, which is why he made the motion twice to approve it.
++ I'm confused, the OSPlan had a public hearing. There is no change being proposed to the draft that would cause a new public hearing to be reqd. Certainly if the subdivision regs were to be changed, there would be a public hearing. To be clear, at the last PZC mtg, although there was discussion, no motion to approve the plan was made. ++
"I'm appreciative of this group of volunteers who do a great job," he said. "I compliment them for a job incredibly well done and I don't have an issue with the plan -- I am not their enemy."
++ "I don't have an issue with the plan" - then why not adopt it? This defies logic. ++
NHReg article 2 on adopting the OSPlan
Again the PZC tabled approval of the OSPlan (I was away and could not attend the meetings)
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/01/15/news/valley/b3-shopen14.txt
Shelton PZC again tables vote on open space plan
Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:18 AM EST
By Jean Falbo-Sosnovich, Register Correspondent
SHELTON — For the second time in as many months, the Planning and Zoning Commission has tabled action on approving an updated draft of the city’s Open Space Plan.
The commission Tuesday continued to grapple with some revisions to the document, which was completed by the Conservation Commission last August. Rather than vote on the document in haste, the PZC decided to hold a joint meeting with the Conservation Commission to clear up any remaining concerns and questions.
++ Vote in haste? This has been available for over 1/2 a year. ++
One issue in particular has to do with changing the city’s goal for open space from 10 percent to 15 percent. Ultimately, that requirement would fall into the PZC’s hands, as Planning Administrator Rick Schultz explained the Open Space Plan would become the PZC’s document upon approval.
++ Just as the already adopted (2006) Plan of Conservation and Development that the PZC and BOA both reviewed is the PZC document upon approval. It too has as a goal to preseve an appropriate percentage of the City's landmass as open space, and a strategy to accomplish that goal is to increase the % set-aside of open space in the subdivision regs. The OSPlan does not veer from already adopted strategies ++
Planning and Zoning Commissioner Leon Sylvester continued to express some concerns about whether that issue had been adequately debated. Sylvester, while commending the Conservation Commission on its work to update the plan, said he thinks more input is needed.
“It’s a well-done document and a lot of time and hard work went into it,” Sylvester said. “But there are some items in there that are really impactful on the city. And there are several recommendations in there that are totally in the hands of the Planning and Zoning Commission.”
++ The strategy of % open space set-aside was in the Plan of Conservation & Development when it was reviewed by the BOA, and the PZC. It was also in the OSPlan when it was reviewed by the PZC. Right there are 3 public hearing times. It came about after numerous opportunities for public input during charettes and exercises where the public expressed an importance for Open Space in the community. The strategy does not become a policy or process unless it is pursued. Such pursuit of reviewing the subdivision regs should be taken up, and the public can have even further input into the issue. The recommendations of strategy are absolutely in the hands of the PZC. They were elected to make such decisions on the public's behalf. They represent the public. The public has put into the PZC hands these decisions for planning and zoning applications and the regulations under which they are submitted. They need to proceed with that job. ++
Sylvester said he “took a beating” at the commission’s December meeting for questioning the 10 to 15 percent change. He insisted his comments weren’t intended to thwart the open space plan, but rather to ensure that enough discussion occurred about whether 15 percent was the right number.
++ I refer again to 3 public hearings, and months of public discussion. What has changed since the PZC adopted this strategy, other than the Shelton Builders Association being founded and speaking up in opposition to this strategy? ++
Schultz said there were some concerns, particularly from contractors and attorneys, about whether requiring developers to set aside 15 percent of land from a subdivision for open space was “excessive.” However, Schultz said many other municipalities have been successful with the same figure, and he said the city’s corporation counsel concurred that Shelton do the same.
++ The CC and PZ Administrator have investigated the proposed strategy in light of Ct Gen Statutes and found other communities doing the same direction, and review by Shelton's Asst Corporation Counsel confirmed that it was valid. ++
Sylvester made a motion Tuesday to adopt the plan to show he’s in favor of it, even though questions remained, but later amended his motion in favor of both commissions holding the joint meeting.
++ Not to quibble, but technically under Roberts Rules of Order, you have to make a motion to the issue in order to discuss it, so that doesn't exactly mean you support it until you vote affirmatively for the motion. I have no problem with a jt mtg, but the plan speaks for itself ++
Schultz said the city isn’t under any deadline to approve the document, although the revisions will ultimately enable the Conservation Commission to seek more grants to aid in its open space acquisition.
++ The CC does not have any active acquisition grants in place, but we are in process and discussions toward acquisition of certain parcels which would be possible subjects for such grant applications. Timely review and adoption of the OSPlan would ensure that no hinderence of such application consideration would occur. ++
The plan also recommends that an agricultural district be formed in the city’s White Hills section, which would be designed to focus on preserving remaining farmland, as well as to obtain agricultural grants. It also includes the Conservation Commission’s goal to acquire at least 450 of Shelton’s 3,000 acres left of undevelopable land for future open space.
According to Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson, the city’s Plan of Conservation and Development recommended that the Open Space Plan be updated. While there are no laws mandating when or how often municipalities should update their open space plans, Harbinson said the commission believed it was an appropriate time to do so, especially since the plan hasn’t been updated since 1993.
++ The existing OSPlan has served the community well. There does need to be consideration of the accomplishments since the plan was adopted, and reflect on the subsequent direction of the community during the ensuing years. This plus, as stated, the PoC&D states that the CC is assigned a "task" of updating the OSPlan. ++
Currently, the city has more than 1,900 acres of open space, which is used for passive recreation, including several greenways and trails widely used by residents.
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/01/15/news/valley/b3-shopen14.txt
Shelton PZC again tables vote on open space plan
Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:18 AM EST
By Jean Falbo-Sosnovich, Register Correspondent
SHELTON — For the second time in as many months, the Planning and Zoning Commission has tabled action on approving an updated draft of the city’s Open Space Plan.
The commission Tuesday continued to grapple with some revisions to the document, which was completed by the Conservation Commission last August. Rather than vote on the document in haste, the PZC decided to hold a joint meeting with the Conservation Commission to clear up any remaining concerns and questions.
++ Vote in haste? This has been available for over 1/2 a year. ++
One issue in particular has to do with changing the city’s goal for open space from 10 percent to 15 percent. Ultimately, that requirement would fall into the PZC’s hands, as Planning Administrator Rick Schultz explained the Open Space Plan would become the PZC’s document upon approval.
++ Just as the already adopted (2006) Plan of Conservation and Development that the PZC and BOA both reviewed is the PZC document upon approval. It too has as a goal to preseve an appropriate percentage of the City's landmass as open space, and a strategy to accomplish that goal is to increase the % set-aside of open space in the subdivision regs. The OSPlan does not veer from already adopted strategies ++
Planning and Zoning Commissioner Leon Sylvester continued to express some concerns about whether that issue had been adequately debated. Sylvester, while commending the Conservation Commission on its work to update the plan, said he thinks more input is needed.
“It’s a well-done document and a lot of time and hard work went into it,” Sylvester said. “But there are some items in there that are really impactful on the city. And there are several recommendations in there that are totally in the hands of the Planning and Zoning Commission.”
++ The strategy of % open space set-aside was in the Plan of Conservation & Development when it was reviewed by the BOA, and the PZC. It was also in the OSPlan when it was reviewed by the PZC. Right there are 3 public hearing times. It came about after numerous opportunities for public input during charettes and exercises where the public expressed an importance for Open Space in the community. The strategy does not become a policy or process unless it is pursued. Such pursuit of reviewing the subdivision regs should be taken up, and the public can have even further input into the issue. The recommendations of strategy are absolutely in the hands of the PZC. They were elected to make such decisions on the public's behalf. They represent the public. The public has put into the PZC hands these decisions for planning and zoning applications and the regulations under which they are submitted. They need to proceed with that job. ++
Sylvester said he “took a beating” at the commission’s December meeting for questioning the 10 to 15 percent change. He insisted his comments weren’t intended to thwart the open space plan, but rather to ensure that enough discussion occurred about whether 15 percent was the right number.
++ I refer again to 3 public hearings, and months of public discussion. What has changed since the PZC adopted this strategy, other than the Shelton Builders Association being founded and speaking up in opposition to this strategy? ++
Schultz said there were some concerns, particularly from contractors and attorneys, about whether requiring developers to set aside 15 percent of land from a subdivision for open space was “excessive.” However, Schultz said many other municipalities have been successful with the same figure, and he said the city’s corporation counsel concurred that Shelton do the same.
++ The CC and PZ Administrator have investigated the proposed strategy in light of Ct Gen Statutes and found other communities doing the same direction, and review by Shelton's Asst Corporation Counsel confirmed that it was valid. ++
Sylvester made a motion Tuesday to adopt the plan to show he’s in favor of it, even though questions remained, but later amended his motion in favor of both commissions holding the joint meeting.
++ Not to quibble, but technically under Roberts Rules of Order, you have to make a motion to the issue in order to discuss it, so that doesn't exactly mean you support it until you vote affirmatively for the motion. I have no problem with a jt mtg, but the plan speaks for itself ++
Schultz said the city isn’t under any deadline to approve the document, although the revisions will ultimately enable the Conservation Commission to seek more grants to aid in its open space acquisition.
++ The CC does not have any active acquisition grants in place, but we are in process and discussions toward acquisition of certain parcels which would be possible subjects for such grant applications. Timely review and adoption of the OSPlan would ensure that no hinderence of such application consideration would occur. ++
The plan also recommends that an agricultural district be formed in the city’s White Hills section, which would be designed to focus on preserving remaining farmland, as well as to obtain agricultural grants. It also includes the Conservation Commission’s goal to acquire at least 450 of Shelton’s 3,000 acres left of undevelopable land for future open space.
According to Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson, the city’s Plan of Conservation and Development recommended that the Open Space Plan be updated. While there are no laws mandating when or how often municipalities should update their open space plans, Harbinson said the commission believed it was an appropriate time to do so, especially since the plan hasn’t been updated since 1993.
++ The existing OSPlan has served the community well. There does need to be consideration of the accomplishments since the plan was adopted, and reflect on the subsequent direction of the community during the ensuing years. This plus, as stated, the PoC&D states that the CC is assigned a "task" of updating the OSPlan. ++
Currently, the city has more than 1,900 acres of open space, which is used for passive recreation, including several greenways and trails widely used by residents.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
CtPost article on adoption of the OSPlan
There was an article in today's CtPost regarding the OSPlan. As is my custom to comment on media reports in this blog, I reference the online article by hyperlink, but as they often become stale, I cut/paste with my comments.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11257354
Commissioners spar on open space issue
By KATE RAMUNNI Staff writer
Article Last Updated: 12/17/2008 10:28:04 PM EST
SHELTON -- The Planning and Zoning Commission will meet with the Conservation Commission about the proposed draft of the city's Open Space Plan, a decision that came after two commissioners butted heads over one aspect of the plan.
If approved, the draft would be incorporated in the zoning commission's Plan of Conservation and Development. But the one controversial aspect of the plan -- increasing open space subdivision set aside requirements from 10 to 15 percent -- would only be implemented if it were changed in the zoning regulations.
++ The Open Space Plan is a supplement to the 2006 Plan of Conservation & Development and thus seeks to reinforce it's guidance to the Planning & Zoning Commission. In the Plan of Conservation & Development (adopted 2006/Jul/11, Commissioner Sylvester was in office but did not vote on the plan, yes or no, not sure why), page 3-3 states: "As these 4,500 acres of unprotected land are developed, not only will the 34% ratio of actual and perceived open space diminish, but the 14% ratio of dedicated open space to committed land as well. To maintain this ratio as the remaining developable land becomes committed land, Shelton should consider increasing the amount of open space to be set aside in new subdivisions from 10% to 15%." It is also the 1st item of recomended open space strategies on page 3-8. The Open Space Plan is simply reinforcing that direction, and asking that the Planning & Zoning Commission amend the subdivision regulations to implement that adopted principal. ++
The issue led to an angry outburst by Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson, who hurled accusations at Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester after Sylvester raised the set aside issue.
++ As the public hearing was closed on this application, I had to sit on my hands and watch Commissioner Sylvester say he 1) wanted to approve the document, 2) not wanting to be held accountable to following a plan have a "disclaimer" that they weren't approving every item in the document, 3) couldn't identify what he didn't like specifically because he hadn't read the plan beyond the Executive Summary. You can read their minutes starting on p.6 All this while I was realizing that I spent 2yrs on the committee which prepared the Plan of Conservation & Development, and nobody was paying attention to it's guidance as mentioned above. I was angry, and admit that I should have presented myself during the public portion of the meeting (which now occur at the end) in a more diplomatic way. ++
Last month at a public hearing on the draft, attorney Stephen Bellis, representing the Shelton Builders Association, told the zoning commission that it was his belief that state statute caps such set asides at 10 percent, so to require more would go against state law. The association opposed the increase, Bellis said, and would consider a court challenge should it be fully implemented in the zoning regulations.
++ This was refuted during the public hearing when Atty Bellis spoke. As clear example: Bethel 10%, Bridgewater 15%, Brookfield 15%, Danbury 5% to 20%, New Fairfield 20%, New Milford 15%, Newtown 15%, Redding 10%, Ridgefield 10%, Sherman 15%. Read an email response from the Town of Greenwich which has never been challenged on their regulations of 15% set aside. ++
Because of that, Sylvester said he wanted to have more discussion on that proposed increase. But, Sylvester said, he supported the plan draft and made a motion to approve it with the caveat that the PZC would further discuss the set aside issue.
++ This is an strategy of the City's adopted Plan of Conservation & Development. This Open Space Plan is reinforcing that strategy. The strategy is not IMPLEMENTED until the Planning & Zoning Commission reviews and then possibly changes their subdivision regulations. ++
That enraged Harbinson, who said it made no sense to pass a plan when questions about it still lingered. He also criticized Sylvester for not reading the entire plan before the meeting.
++ As mentioned above. There should be no "questions" about the 15% set-aside strategy already adopted by the PZC. This was confirmed as allowed by Assistant Corporate Counsel Ray Sous on Nov26 ++
But Sylvester said he only received a copy of the report shortly before the meeting. The copy he initially received two weeks ago he gave to another commissioner who hadn't gotten one, he said, and only got the second copy this week. He said he did read the parts that summarized its contents. Not only that, but he is in favor of approving the draft, he said.
++ The OSPlan is available to the public since Aug2008. Formally turned to the PZ staff on Sep17 to allow ample review time, articles appeared in CtPost on Sep19, letter to editor on Sep21, promoted on City website homepage starting Sep22, 8-24 referral made to BOA on Oct29, public hearing held Nov25, and yet on Dec9 - this former Chairman of the P&Z, who is retired, had not read the plan. This shows a deriliction of duty in my opinion. I think it important to bring that to the attention of the public. ++
"I read thoroughly the executive summary and the overview, and I am thoroughly familiar with the plan and totally supportive," he said. "I am only thinking of looking for a notation that the board would move on that issue in the near future."
++ Both can't be done in the same breath. You can't approve a plan on the exhale, while saying you hold "notation" over any item on the inhale. ++
That didn't satisfy Harbinson, who angrily told the commission he would rather the plan be tabled than approved with any caveats.
++ Only two commissioners spoke up to question such an "empty" approval with undefined disclaimers ++
It's not the first time the two have clashed, something Sylvester said he doesn't understand. "Mr. Harbinson obviously has some personal anger with me -- he has a personal or political objection with everything I do," Sylvester said.
++ Perhaps Commissioner Sylvester forgets our NOVEMBER 2008 joint meeting for a CtPost article attempting to draw attention to the recreational component of the canal's FERC license? We met together with the reporter and it resulted in a complementary article where we were photographed together. I do NOT have a personal issue with Leon. I do NOT have political objection with everything he does. That said, I did take issue with Commissioner Sylvester at the same meeting for not fully recusing himself with explanation for a refuse processing application in which his son-in-law is a partner. If you recuse yourself due to a conflict of interest, you MUST state what that conflict is. This is different than simply abstaining from a vote, which anyone can do for any reason and without explanation under the Roberts Rules of Order. Due to his wifes real-estate vocation, Commissioner Sylvester has frequent conflicts for which he does not fully state the reason for such conflict. I believe the public have a right to know why that happens, and the frequency to which it happens.++
"My motion was to pass the plan and just to make a notation that I was thinking the commission should have further discussions about the taking of greater percentages of open space. "I don't have any idea why he got so upset," Sylvester said.
++ That closing comment, is not what the record shows. Commissioner Sylvester NEVER made any motion on the record to pass the Open Space Plan. Only when Chairman Pagoda asked if anyone had any comments did Commissioner Sylvester start into his thoughts. Sad to see such a spin of the truth. ++
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11257354
Commissioners spar on open space issue
By KATE RAMUNNI Staff writer
Article Last Updated: 12/17/2008 10:28:04 PM EST
SHELTON -- The Planning and Zoning Commission will meet with the Conservation Commission about the proposed draft of the city's Open Space Plan, a decision that came after two commissioners butted heads over one aspect of the plan.
If approved, the draft would be incorporated in the zoning commission's Plan of Conservation and Development. But the one controversial aspect of the plan -- increasing open space subdivision set aside requirements from 10 to 15 percent -- would only be implemented if it were changed in the zoning regulations.
++ The Open Space Plan is a supplement to the 2006 Plan of Conservation & Development and thus seeks to reinforce it's guidance to the Planning & Zoning Commission. In the Plan of Conservation & Development (adopted 2006/Jul/11, Commissioner Sylvester was in office but did not vote on the plan, yes or no, not sure why), page 3-3 states: "As these 4,500 acres of unprotected land are developed, not only will the 34% ratio of actual and perceived open space diminish, but the 14% ratio of dedicated open space to committed land as well. To maintain this ratio as the remaining developable land becomes committed land, Shelton should consider increasing the amount of open space to be set aside in new subdivisions from 10% to 15%." It is also the 1st item of recomended open space strategies on page 3-8. The Open Space Plan is simply reinforcing that direction, and asking that the Planning & Zoning Commission amend the subdivision regulations to implement that adopted principal. ++
The issue led to an angry outburst by Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson, who hurled accusations at Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester after Sylvester raised the set aside issue.
++ As the public hearing was closed on this application, I had to sit on my hands and watch Commissioner Sylvester say he 1) wanted to approve the document, 2) not wanting to be held accountable to following a plan have a "disclaimer" that they weren't approving every item in the document, 3) couldn't identify what he didn't like specifically because he hadn't read the plan beyond the Executive Summary. You can read their minutes starting on p.6 All this while I was realizing that I spent 2yrs on the committee which prepared the Plan of Conservation & Development, and nobody was paying attention to it's guidance as mentioned above. I was angry, and admit that I should have presented myself during the public portion of the meeting (which now occur at the end) in a more diplomatic way. ++
Last month at a public hearing on the draft, attorney Stephen Bellis, representing the Shelton Builders Association, told the zoning commission that it was his belief that state statute caps such set asides at 10 percent, so to require more would go against state law. The association opposed the increase, Bellis said, and would consider a court challenge should it be fully implemented in the zoning regulations.
++ This was refuted during the public hearing when Atty Bellis spoke. As clear example: Bethel 10%, Bridgewater 15%, Brookfield 15%, Danbury 5% to 20%, New Fairfield 20%, New Milford 15%, Newtown 15%, Redding 10%, Ridgefield 10%, Sherman 15%. Read an email response from the Town of Greenwich which has never been challenged on their regulations of 15% set aside. ++
Because of that, Sylvester said he wanted to have more discussion on that proposed increase. But, Sylvester said, he supported the plan draft and made a motion to approve it with the caveat that the PZC would further discuss the set aside issue.
++ This is an strategy of the City's adopted Plan of Conservation & Development. This Open Space Plan is reinforcing that strategy. The strategy is not IMPLEMENTED until the Planning & Zoning Commission reviews and then possibly changes their subdivision regulations. ++
That enraged Harbinson, who said it made no sense to pass a plan when questions about it still lingered. He also criticized Sylvester for not reading the entire plan before the meeting.
++ As mentioned above. There should be no "questions" about the 15% set-aside strategy already adopted by the PZC. This was confirmed as allowed by Assistant Corporate Counsel Ray Sous on Nov26 ++
But Sylvester said he only received a copy of the report shortly before the meeting. The copy he initially received two weeks ago he gave to another commissioner who hadn't gotten one, he said, and only got the second copy this week. He said he did read the parts that summarized its contents. Not only that, but he is in favor of approving the draft, he said.
++ The OSPlan is available to the public since Aug2008. Formally turned to the PZ staff on Sep17 to allow ample review time, articles appeared in CtPost on Sep19, letter to editor on Sep21, promoted on City website homepage starting Sep22, 8-24 referral made to BOA on Oct29, public hearing held Nov25, and yet on Dec9 - this former Chairman of the P&Z, who is retired, had not read the plan. This shows a deriliction of duty in my opinion. I think it important to bring that to the attention of the public. ++
"I read thoroughly the executive summary and the overview, and I am thoroughly familiar with the plan and totally supportive," he said. "I am only thinking of looking for a notation that the board would move on that issue in the near future."
++ Both can't be done in the same breath. You can't approve a plan on the exhale, while saying you hold "notation" over any item on the inhale. ++
That didn't satisfy Harbinson, who angrily told the commission he would rather the plan be tabled than approved with any caveats.
++ Only two commissioners spoke up to question such an "empty" approval with undefined disclaimers ++
It's not the first time the two have clashed, something Sylvester said he doesn't understand. "Mr. Harbinson obviously has some personal anger with me -- he has a personal or political objection with everything I do," Sylvester said.
++ Perhaps Commissioner Sylvester forgets our NOVEMBER 2008 joint meeting for a CtPost article attempting to draw attention to the recreational component of the canal's FERC license? We met together with the reporter and it resulted in a complementary article where we were photographed together. I do NOT have a personal issue with Leon. I do NOT have political objection with everything he does. That said, I did take issue with Commissioner Sylvester at the same meeting for not fully recusing himself with explanation for a refuse processing application in which his son-in-law is a partner. If you recuse yourself due to a conflict of interest, you MUST state what that conflict is. This is different than simply abstaining from a vote, which anyone can do for any reason and without explanation under the Roberts Rules of Order. Due to his wifes real-estate vocation, Commissioner Sylvester has frequent conflicts for which he does not fully state the reason for such conflict. I believe the public have a right to know why that happens, and the frequency to which it happens.++
"My motion was to pass the plan and just to make a notation that I was thinking the commission should have further discussions about the taking of greater percentages of open space. "I don't have any idea why he got so upset," Sylvester said.
++ That closing comment, is not what the record shows. Commissioner Sylvester NEVER made any motion on the record to pass the Open Space Plan. Only when Chairman Pagoda asked if anyone had any comments did Commissioner Sylvester start into his thoughts. Sad to see such a spin of the truth. ++
Friday, December 12, 2008
NHReg article on adoption of OSPlan
On TueDec9 the Planning and Zoning Commission met and on the agenda was possible adoption of the Open Space Plan. The NHRegister had an article, which I cut/paste with my comments as is custom for this blog.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2008/12/11/news/valley/b6-shopen.txt
Thursday, December 11, 2008 6:03 AM EST
By Sarah W. Caron, Register Correspondent
SHELTON — An angry exchange between city officials at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting Tuesday followed the tabling of a vote on the proposed update to the Open Space Plan.
The update would change the city’s goal for open space from 10 percent of land in the city to 15 percent. However, PZC member Leon Sylvester, who said he had not yet read the draft document, which was completed by the Conservation Commission in August, expressed concerns that other items in the document might later cause problems for the PZC. He favored approving the document in theory, though not giving it a full and formal approval.
++ To be clear on the obfuscation attempted by Commissioner Sylvester in the same breath: 1) he wanted to approve the document, 2) with concern over items in the document that might hold the PZC accountable to following a plan, he didn't want to give it full and formal approval (an approval of theory?), 3) and yet he hadn't even read the plan.++
“I think 15 percent hangs over my head as that is the recommendation and I think that should be debated. ... I am not trying to thwart the plan. I am just trying to put some sort of disclaimer in here that would protect the (planning) board,” Sylvester said.
++ The PZC's own Plan of Conservation & Development calls for an increase in percentage of Open Space acreage preservation achievement, and to increase the open space set-aside in every residential subdivision application. (p.3-8) This was approved by the PZC several years ago, and Commissioner Sylverster sat on that board and voted to approve that plan. The OSPlan is a supplement to build upon, reinforce and does not change those previously stated, accepted, and adopted principles of the PZC.++
The remarks met with criticism from Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson, who attended the meeting. "I am a little disappointed that after two months some members of the commission haven’t read it,” said Harbinson, looking at Sylvester. “I just received it. I think that is very unfair,” Sylvester replied. “At the last meeting I asked for a copy. When I got it, I gave it over to someone else, trying to do the right thing. ... This ... it’s ridiculous to argue this.”
++ I'm upset by 1) The facts mentioned in the earlier paragraph that there is an already adopted and accepted goal by the PoC&D which the OSPlan is seeking to reinforce, all of which a long time Commissioner such as Mr. Sylvester should be intimately aware of. 2) The OSPlan was provided to the public via the City website during August of 2008. It was formally forwarded to the PZC on Sep17 so that there would be ample time given to review it, publicity was generated for the plan via a CtPost article on Sep19, a CtPost letter to the editor on Sep21, a prominent link on the front page of the City website on Sep22, a 8-24 referral to the BOA on Oct29, all of which was promotion for comment toward a public hearing held on Nov25 to hear comments for the record. During that Nov25 meeting the public hearing was closed, and the PZC had some discussion which led to having the matter tabled to this mtg 2 weeks later on Dec9. Mr. Sylvester is retired, has had several months to review the plan, and has the audacity to say "he just received it" and I'm being "unfair". The record speaks for itself, and it is ridiculous for him to argue with the record of facts. The public record should be more open and transparent about the record of fact, and my comments were accomplishing that - which is what I suspect was the root to what upset Commissioner Sylvester. ++
The update will allow the Conservation Commission to apply for grants to purchase more open land.
++ The CC has no active land acquisition grants, but there are other grants such as trails enhancement grants from the DEP and others, where the OSPlan is a reference document. Updating the OSPlan from a 1990's document is important to be successful on such applications. ++
Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Anthony Pagota favored a sit-down with the Conservation Commission, to go over points of the draft plan and “see where they are coming from. What their definition is and what our definition is may be a little different.”
The commission voted to table the matter until its Jan. 13 meeting. In the meantime, the document is expected to be reviewed by the panel.
++ The CC is always available to dialogue with other agencies of the City of Shelton (as well as other communities) regarding our thoughts on Open Space conservation and preservation. Improving communication can only be positive. I'm disappointed with myself in how I presented my opinions at the PZC mtg of Dec9. I could and should have been more diplomatic in tone, but I do stand behind the content of what the CC is attempting to achieve. It is simply the reinforcement and support of planning documents the PZC has already accepted, reviewed and adopted. ++
http://nhregister.com/articles/2008/12/11/news/valley/b6-shopen.txt
Thursday, December 11, 2008 6:03 AM EST
By Sarah W. Caron, Register Correspondent
SHELTON — An angry exchange between city officials at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting Tuesday followed the tabling of a vote on the proposed update to the Open Space Plan.
The update would change the city’s goal for open space from 10 percent of land in the city to 15 percent. However, PZC member Leon Sylvester, who said he had not yet read the draft document, which was completed by the Conservation Commission in August, expressed concerns that other items in the document might later cause problems for the PZC. He favored approving the document in theory, though not giving it a full and formal approval.
++ To be clear on the obfuscation attempted by Commissioner Sylvester in the same breath: 1) he wanted to approve the document, 2) with concern over items in the document that might hold the PZC accountable to following a plan, he didn't want to give it full and formal approval (an approval of theory?), 3) and yet he hadn't even read the plan.++
“I think 15 percent hangs over my head as that is the recommendation and I think that should be debated. ... I am not trying to thwart the plan. I am just trying to put some sort of disclaimer in here that would protect the (planning) board,” Sylvester said.
++ The PZC's own Plan of Conservation & Development calls for an increase in percentage of Open Space acreage preservation achievement, and to increase the open space set-aside in every residential subdivision application. (p.3-8) This was approved by the PZC several years ago, and Commissioner Sylverster sat on that board and voted to approve that plan. The OSPlan is a supplement to build upon, reinforce and does not change those previously stated, accepted, and adopted principles of the PZC.++
The remarks met with criticism from Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson, who attended the meeting. "I am a little disappointed that after two months some members of the commission haven’t read it,” said Harbinson, looking at Sylvester. “I just received it. I think that is very unfair,” Sylvester replied. “At the last meeting I asked for a copy. When I got it, I gave it over to someone else, trying to do the right thing. ... This ... it’s ridiculous to argue this.”
++ I'm upset by 1) The facts mentioned in the earlier paragraph that there is an already adopted and accepted goal by the PoC&D which the OSPlan is seeking to reinforce, all of which a long time Commissioner such as Mr. Sylvester should be intimately aware of. 2) The OSPlan was provided to the public via the City website during August of 2008. It was formally forwarded to the PZC on Sep17 so that there would be ample time given to review it, publicity was generated for the plan via a CtPost article on Sep19, a CtPost letter to the editor on Sep21, a prominent link on the front page of the City website on Sep22, a 8-24 referral to the BOA on Oct29, all of which was promotion for comment toward a public hearing held on Nov25 to hear comments for the record. During that Nov25 meeting the public hearing was closed, and the PZC had some discussion which led to having the matter tabled to this mtg 2 weeks later on Dec9. Mr. Sylvester is retired, has had several months to review the plan, and has the audacity to say "he just received it" and I'm being "unfair". The record speaks for itself, and it is ridiculous for him to argue with the record of facts. The public record should be more open and transparent about the record of fact, and my comments were accomplishing that - which is what I suspect was the root to what upset Commissioner Sylvester. ++
The update will allow the Conservation Commission to apply for grants to purchase more open land.
++ The CC has no active land acquisition grants, but there are other grants such as trails enhancement grants from the DEP and others, where the OSPlan is a reference document. Updating the OSPlan from a 1990's document is important to be successful on such applications. ++
Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Anthony Pagota favored a sit-down with the Conservation Commission, to go over points of the draft plan and “see where they are coming from. What their definition is and what our definition is may be a little different.”
The commission voted to table the matter until its Jan. 13 meeting. In the meantime, the document is expected to be reviewed by the panel.
++ The CC is always available to dialogue with other agencies of the City of Shelton (as well as other communities) regarding our thoughts on Open Space conservation and preservation. Improving communication can only be positive. I'm disappointed with myself in how I presented my opinions at the PZC mtg of Dec9. I could and should have been more diplomatic in tone, but I do stand behind the content of what the CC is attempting to achieve. It is simply the reinforcement and support of planning documents the PZC has already accepted, reviewed and adopted. ++
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Public Access to the Housatonic
update: 2008/Dec/10: To further clarify. The CC never gave any info to the DEP. We did give info directly to FERC. The DEP got all their info independently, sending a representative out to examine the location and included his report in their submission to the DEP. When the ConsAgent contacted DEP to offer support, the DEP had already submitted their comments and it was too late.
Another article was published in the CtPost today, and it's important to understand the full nuances of what is going on regarding the FERC licensed area near the Ousatonic Dam, specifically it's recreational component.
First the link to the article
http://www.connpost.com/valley/ci_11066285
And then as is my practice - a cut/paste of the article (the online link doesn't retain content forever) with my comments inserted.
By KATE RAMUNNI Staff writer Updated: 11/24/2008 11:50:20 PM EST
SHELTON -- The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has reversed its decision to allow McCallum Enterprises to close off a portion of the public access on its Shelton Canal Co. property -- but that doesn't mean the fence erected weeks ago there will be coming down any time soon.
"They issued a ruling but haven't issued a ruling on other proceedings," McCallum president Joseph Szarmach said Monday. "It's still up in the air right now."
++ For purposes of comment, I'll try to stay focused on the recreation component of McCallum's FERC license to withdraw electrical power from the public waters. FERC has indeed denied closure of the area to the public. The fence installed recently should be removed, and access restored to viewing areas such as the historic photo display and the steps leading to the river's shore for fishing and portage. There is nothing "up in the air", FERC has ruled. The other proceedings Mr Szarmach refers to are unrelated to the recreation component.++
On Sept. 3, the FERC's Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance approved McCallum's application to amend its recreation plan for the Derby Dam that provided about 1.5 acres of public open space for fishing and picnicking. But about a month later, the state Department of Environmental Protection asked the commission for a rehearing on the application.
According to the ruling, the DEP contended that relocating the area would "unnecessarily diminish recreational opportunities," which is in violation of the hydroelectric company's license. This time, the commission agreed.
++ The Ct. DEP both applied for intervenor status, and made comments in opposition to the request. Those were heard, and the initial opinion of FERC was revisited and changed. ++
"The licensee has not produced sufficient evidence to support relocating the area nor shown that the proposed new site will provide the same recreational opportunities as the existing site," the ruling says. "We are unwilling, without more evidence, to deprive the public of the benefits of recreational fishing at the current site."
++ If evidence can be made to FERC that the McCallum request is with merit, they still may limit the recreational area.++
"I applaud the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for revisiting their decision," Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson said. "The recreation component of the FERC license has been valued by the region for years, and not just by Shelton residents. This was recognized by the [Connecticut] DEP and Shelton Conservation Commission, who, along with their efforts as well as those of others, will be returning a value of passive public use to the citizens."
But, according to Szarmach, the Conservation Commission's assertions that the area is a popular fishing spot are greatly exaggerated. "This ruling is based on misinformation the Conservation Commission gave to the DEP, who gave it to FERC," he said. "We know first hand that it is absolutely false," he said, adding that Shelton Canal Co. employees report there is seldom anyone fishing, and no one has ever launched a canoe from the area.
++ Their is no mis-information by the CC. The City did not file intervenor status in time to make comment on it's own. Yes, we did point to our local knowledge via photos, videos and observations to the Ct DEP - they are all publicly available on our google group msg board, and online web presence that links to the imagery. That includes video of kayak use. The Shelton Canal Co. employees are not an arbitrary party. Why not ask someone who is an advocacy group and body of fisherman like the "Friends of the Housatonic" group that fought dredging issues on this river about a year ago? ++
Planning and Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester took exception to Szarmach's comments, saying he knows the area is definitely used for fishing and that the level of use depends on the water levels, water condition and time of year.
++ Leon's son writes a regular fishing article in one of the local papers. Leon would know about fishing activities rather than relying on the chance viewing by an employee. ++
The FERC rejected McCallum's claims that the area presents a danger because of the possibilities of drowning and fatalities in the canal.
++ Lets see some facts. How many drownings occured in the "recreational area" of the canal? The canal does run open in some locations down-street toward the Birmingham condos, but that is outside of the FERC licensed area, and being next to Canal Street, has had some auto accidents. To imply that accidents in this "canal" are dangerous to the "recreation area" is sly. The answer is no deaths and drownings have occured in the recreational area, or maybe they occurred but nobody saw them happen - like the fisherman we haven't seen fishing?++
It also rejected McCallum's argument that the expected influx of residents living along Canal Street would increase that danger. "The suggestion that there could in the future be increased public use of this recreation site, which could result in some safety issues, is speculative, but in any event such issues would be considered and resolved at such time as they presented themselves," the ruling says.
++ This is an interesting comment by FERC, and to a certain degree I understand the McCallum perspective. Obviously, there will be economic development occuring in the vicinity. These changes in neighborhood character may require re-evaluating the safety fencing, benches, trash cans and other amenities in the area. Being pro-active to look forward at possibilities makes good business sense, but as there is no application on the horizon for this area for several years - such a claim to needing a course of action to solve a problem that doesn't exist is simply jumping the gun ++
Szarmach said his company is continuing with its plans to appeal the Planning and Zoning Commission recent rezoning of the property from R-4 to R-1, which decreases the number of units that would be allowed if it were to be developed. And it will be either developed or sold, he said. "We are waiting for the zoning to be overturned, and we are confident it will be," he said. "We can't move forward on filling in on the Army Corps [of Engineers] permit until we get that out of the way. "This most recent ruling is not the end all, just one ruling," Szarmach added. "We are still looking to fill in the canal and sell or codevelop it."
++ The public should understand that concurrent to the FERC ruling on the recreational component, there has been a separate application to FERC requesting that McCallum be allowed to fill the canal. I understand that this was already approved. There is however another layer, the Army Corps of Engineers. The ACE issued a pretty expansive letter of requested items in Mar2008, and in Jun2008 McCallum "temporarily" withdrew their ACE application. The Ct DEP, Housatonic River Estuary Commission, State Historical Society, and Housatonic Valley Association all issued comments in opposition.
Additionally, there is a third action going on. The PZC has as part of it's review of their zoning map determined that an area which encompasses the Canal Co. property (and includes a good bit of other acreage from adjacent parcels) should be modified for zone in accord with their Plan of Conservation and Development recomendations. This is unrelated to anything regarding the two FERC applications.++
The CC supports transparency in government. You can get right to all the documents via a webpage created for this subject.
Another article was published in the CtPost today, and it's important to understand the full nuances of what is going on regarding the FERC licensed area near the Ousatonic Dam, specifically it's recreational component.
First the link to the article
http://www.connpost.com/valley/ci_11066285
And then as is my practice - a cut/paste of the article (the online link doesn't retain content forever) with my comments inserted.
By KATE RAMUNNI Staff writer Updated: 11/24/2008 11:50:20 PM EST
SHELTON -- The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has reversed its decision to allow McCallum Enterprises to close off a portion of the public access on its Shelton Canal Co. property -- but that doesn't mean the fence erected weeks ago there will be coming down any time soon.
"They issued a ruling but haven't issued a ruling on other proceedings," McCallum president Joseph Szarmach said Monday. "It's still up in the air right now."
++ For purposes of comment, I'll try to stay focused on the recreation component of McCallum's FERC license to withdraw electrical power from the public waters. FERC has indeed denied closure of the area to the public. The fence installed recently should be removed, and access restored to viewing areas such as the historic photo display and the steps leading to the river's shore for fishing and portage. There is nothing "up in the air", FERC has ruled. The other proceedings Mr Szarmach refers to are unrelated to the recreation component.++
On Sept. 3, the FERC's Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance approved McCallum's application to amend its recreation plan for the Derby Dam that provided about 1.5 acres of public open space for fishing and picnicking. But about a month later, the state Department of Environmental Protection asked the commission for a rehearing on the application.
According to the ruling, the DEP contended that relocating the area would "unnecessarily diminish recreational opportunities," which is in violation of the hydroelectric company's license. This time, the commission agreed.
++ The Ct. DEP both applied for intervenor status, and made comments in opposition to the request. Those were heard, and the initial opinion of FERC was revisited and changed. ++
"The licensee has not produced sufficient evidence to support relocating the area nor shown that the proposed new site will provide the same recreational opportunities as the existing site," the ruling says. "We are unwilling, without more evidence, to deprive the public of the benefits of recreational fishing at the current site."
++ If evidence can be made to FERC that the McCallum request is with merit, they still may limit the recreational area.++
"I applaud the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for revisiting their decision," Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson said. "The recreation component of the FERC license has been valued by the region for years, and not just by Shelton residents. This was recognized by the [Connecticut] DEP and Shelton Conservation Commission, who, along with their efforts as well as those of others, will be returning a value of passive public use to the citizens."
But, according to Szarmach, the Conservation Commission's assertions that the area is a popular fishing spot are greatly exaggerated. "This ruling is based on misinformation the Conservation Commission gave to the DEP, who gave it to FERC," he said. "We know first hand that it is absolutely false," he said, adding that Shelton Canal Co. employees report there is seldom anyone fishing, and no one has ever launched a canoe from the area.
++ Their is no mis-information by the CC. The City did not file intervenor status in time to make comment on it's own. Yes, we did point to our local knowledge via photos, videos and observations to the Ct DEP - they are all publicly available on our google group msg board, and online web presence that links to the imagery. That includes video of kayak use. The Shelton Canal Co. employees are not an arbitrary party. Why not ask someone who is an advocacy group and body of fisherman like the "Friends of the Housatonic" group that fought dredging issues on this river about a year ago? ++
Planning and Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester took exception to Szarmach's comments, saying he knows the area is definitely used for fishing and that the level of use depends on the water levels, water condition and time of year.
++ Leon's son writes a regular fishing article in one of the local papers. Leon would know about fishing activities rather than relying on the chance viewing by an employee. ++
The FERC rejected McCallum's claims that the area presents a danger because of the possibilities of drowning and fatalities in the canal.
++ Lets see some facts. How many drownings occured in the "recreational area" of the canal? The canal does run open in some locations down-street toward the Birmingham condos, but that is outside of the FERC licensed area, and being next to Canal Street, has had some auto accidents. To imply that accidents in this "canal" are dangerous to the "recreation area" is sly. The answer is no deaths and drownings have occured in the recreational area, or maybe they occurred but nobody saw them happen - like the fisherman we haven't seen fishing?++
It also rejected McCallum's argument that the expected influx of residents living along Canal Street would increase that danger. "The suggestion that there could in the future be increased public use of this recreation site, which could result in some safety issues, is speculative, but in any event such issues would be considered and resolved at such time as they presented themselves," the ruling says.
++ This is an interesting comment by FERC, and to a certain degree I understand the McCallum perspective. Obviously, there will be economic development occuring in the vicinity. These changes in neighborhood character may require re-evaluating the safety fencing, benches, trash cans and other amenities in the area. Being pro-active to look forward at possibilities makes good business sense, but as there is no application on the horizon for this area for several years - such a claim to needing a course of action to solve a problem that doesn't exist is simply jumping the gun ++
Szarmach said his company is continuing with its plans to appeal the Planning and Zoning Commission recent rezoning of the property from R-4 to R-1, which decreases the number of units that would be allowed if it were to be developed. And it will be either developed or sold, he said. "We are waiting for the zoning to be overturned, and we are confident it will be," he said. "We can't move forward on filling in on the Army Corps [of Engineers] permit until we get that out of the way. "This most recent ruling is not the end all, just one ruling," Szarmach added. "We are still looking to fill in the canal and sell or codevelop it."
++ The public should understand that concurrent to the FERC ruling on the recreational component, there has been a separate application to FERC requesting that McCallum be allowed to fill the canal. I understand that this was already approved. There is however another layer, the Army Corps of Engineers. The ACE issued a pretty expansive letter of requested items in Mar2008, and in Jun2008 McCallum "temporarily" withdrew their ACE application. The Ct DEP, Housatonic River Estuary Commission, State Historical Society, and Housatonic Valley Association all issued comments in opposition.
Additionally, there is a third action going on. The PZC has as part of it's review of their zoning map determined that an area which encompasses the Canal Co. property (and includes a good bit of other acreage from adjacent parcels) should be modified for zone in accord with their Plan of Conservation and Development recomendations. This is unrelated to anything regarding the two FERC applications.++
The CC supports transparency in government. You can get right to all the documents via a webpage created for this subject.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
CtPost tommorrows article on Canal issues
My google alert tossed up another news-wire article under keyword of Shelton.
http://www.connpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11031243
Tommorrow's CtPost has an article regarding the Canal Co battling with the City. Primarily the article covers the recent P&Z rezoning in the area that included land of the Canal Co, from R4 to R1. Given the owner of the Canal Co's comments in the past regarding his claims of favored treatment of one developer over another - you can guess what subject got drawn into the article. It's not surprising that when the 1st FBI indictment alleges that 4 of the PZC were given rewards for voting favorably to a developer, that the public is going to draw extra scrutiny to every item involving their decisions.
I had separately and coincidentally been emailing the CtPost reporter news regarding the recent FERC decision shared by Teresa via our google group, especially in light of the article a couple of Sundays back in which I appeared in a photo for and gave quotes to. Unfortunately, the updated FERC info was made known after this online article was created, but perhaps tommorrow's print version will have such extra updated content.
These online articles have a commentary / blogging type component, and one of them is at over 300 comments from readers. Naturally, as people can hide behind an alias or "handle", they are a little more blatant about what they say, thinking they have no worry of facing libel or slander. That's not my focus, rather that there is a sentiment voiced by more than one, which paraphrased is "throw all the bums out". They would seem to include any commission or board that has anything to do with land use decisions, and there have been mentioned in these commentaries 2 Open Space purchases.
This is unacceptable, to have our good-will capital with the public, which was built up over the years, swirl down the toilet bowl with the other crap that apparantly has gone on.
After a request from a reporter today, I was separately giving comments regarding the upcoming Public Hearing by the PZC to consider update to the OSPlan. The timing of this hearing could not be worse, or better, depending on your point of view. From my perspective, and what I communicated to the reporter: the OSPlan from 1993 has served the residents well. Modifications to it are in essence recognizing past accomplishments and building upon them. It has helped us garner grants and awards in the past from various agencies, and we hope similar recognitions will occur in the future. There is nothing being requested in the OSPlan update that is extraordinary, and on a whole serves to balance development in the community with Shelton's long held tradition of conservation related aspects - which thus contributes to a quality of life we all desire to enjoy.
It serves little purpose to look in the rearview mirror of what has happened among these PZC individuals. If you continue driving while looking over your shoulder, you will run into things, and there are a lot of important things on the road ahead: OSPlan adoption, RecPath completion, OS acquisitions, monitoring and assisting issues involving recreational use of the Canal area. Reading all this news is certainly a distracting parlor game, one I'm guilty of too. We should all recommit to focusing on our CC issues ahead and let the others reap what they sowed.
By nature of a special email address, this is appearing simultaneously in the CC google group, and on my Commissioner's Blog (which I refer the media to).
http://www.connpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11031243
Tommorrow's CtPost has an article regarding the Canal Co battling with the City. Primarily the article covers the recent P&Z rezoning in the area that included land of the Canal Co, from R4 to R1. Given the owner of the Canal Co's comments in the past regarding his claims of favored treatment of one developer over another - you can guess what subject got drawn into the article. It's not surprising that when the 1st FBI indictment alleges that 4 of the PZC were given rewards for voting favorably to a developer, that the public is going to draw extra scrutiny to every item involving their decisions.
I had separately and coincidentally been emailing the CtPost reporter news regarding the recent FERC decision shared by Teresa via our google group, especially in light of the article a couple of Sundays back in which I appeared in a photo for and gave quotes to. Unfortunately, the updated FERC info was made known after this online article was created, but perhaps tommorrow's print version will have such extra updated content.
These online articles have a commentary / blogging type component, and one of them is at over 300 comments from readers. Naturally, as people can hide behind an alias or "handle", they are a little more blatant about what they say, thinking they have no worry of facing libel or slander. That's not my focus, rather that there is a sentiment voiced by more than one, which paraphrased is "throw all the bums out". They would seem to include any commission or board that has anything to do with land use decisions, and there have been mentioned in these commentaries 2 Open Space purchases.
This is unacceptable, to have our good-will capital with the public, which was built up over the years, swirl down the toilet bowl with the other crap that apparantly has gone on.
After a request from a reporter today, I was separately giving comments regarding the upcoming Public Hearing by the PZC to consider update to the OSPlan. The timing of this hearing could not be worse, or better, depending on your point of view. From my perspective, and what I communicated to the reporter: the OSPlan from 1993 has served the residents well. Modifications to it are in essence recognizing past accomplishments and building upon them. It has helped us garner grants and awards in the past from various agencies, and we hope similar recognitions will occur in the future. There is nothing being requested in the OSPlan update that is extraordinary, and on a whole serves to balance development in the community with Shelton's long held tradition of conservation related aspects - which thus contributes to a quality of life we all desire to enjoy.
It serves little purpose to look in the rearview mirror of what has happened among these PZC individuals. If you continue driving while looking over your shoulder, you will run into things, and there are a lot of important things on the road ahead: OSPlan adoption, RecPath completion, OS acquisitions, monitoring and assisting issues involving recreational use of the Canal area. Reading all this news is certainly a distracting parlor game, one I'm guilty of too. We should all recommit to focusing on our CC issues ahead and let the others reap what they sowed.
By nature of a special email address, this is appearing simultaneously in the CC google group, and on my Commissioner's Blog (which I refer the media to).
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Canal - FERC modifies Recreation Area
There are several subjects regarding the area of the Canal and it's historic locks located on Canal Street in downtown Shelton. This entry covers the recent modification of the recreation area at the location. I'll say upfront, that I am a layman and no expert, but to the best of my knowledge and information available - this is how I see a very complicated subject with multi-jurisdictional issues.
Much information, documents, links to online resources and such data are compiled on a webpage the Conservation Commission created covering the subjects being discussed for this area of the canal.
The dam blocks a navigable channel (the Housatonic River), and takes value from the public domain (water power, sometimes called riparian rights) into private hands (water's energy converted into the portable and marketable electric energy via a hydro-electric generating station). The agency that govern such activity is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). There are also environmental concerns such as fish spawning migration, watercourse impact (besides the obvious Housatonic River, the Captain Curtiss Brook empties into a man made watercourse in the form of the canal), in addition to land use issues. These can variously cause involvement by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), the Ct. Dept of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Shelton Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) and the Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC). All are regulatory agencies and are in addition to the Shelton Conservation Commission (CC) which I chair, but is purely advisory and can only comment to any or all of the above groups.
The owners of the dam and it's associated infrastructure are currently McCallum Enterprises, and they conduct their operations via a license issued by FERC in 1986/Mar/25, with the filing of final license documents occuring in April and August of 1987. A license of this nature typically has a 20yr period upon which it is reviewed. It is specifically referred to as "Derby Dam Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 6066 - CT". A component of the FERC license (Article 32) is a "Recreation and Public Safety Plan".
On 2008/Mar/14, McCallum sought to alter the Recreation and Public Safety Plan. You can read the submission via this link. The City became aware of this on 2008/Jul/8, as you can see on the scanned document at the top from it's fax date/time. The period for public comment had already closed on June 30th.
McCallum stated two reasons for wanting the change. Safety, and Convenience.
Of the request letter's three bullet items supporting the safety reason: the first will not occur for quite some time, but I agree is a valid concern. The second is so inaccurate that some might think it as deceptive. The third is no change from what has existed for over 20yrs and has caused no increase in hazard from the allowance of access which has occured over that entire period.
Of the request letter's two bullet items supporting the convenience reason: the first, while valid in terms of walking a few 100yds less than what existed, renders a more difficult portage locations, and much poorer fishing location given the attraction of the fish toward the more oxygen laden water in the vicinity of the dam. The second bullet refers to what exists aproximately 2 miles drive away, due to it being on the other side of the river.
The DEP sought intervenor status (basically puts them on a notification list for when things such as hearings or decisions are scheduled and noticed) and concurrently commented on the ammendment request in a non-supportive manner. The CC discussed this at their next meeting in August, and despite the fact that the public comment period had closed, they felt it important and wrote a letter expressing their objections. That letter as you can see, was courtesy copied to all local agents who could express similar objections.
On 2008/Sep/3, FERC approved the request, a new fence barrier and gate was soon installed, and the general public began to become aware of what was lost and voiced confusion and then displeasure when fully informed. (several calls reached the Conservation Agent and Planning & Zoning Dept in City Hall).
To my knowledge, the only other public municipal comments occurred when the PZC wrote a letter on 2008/Sep/10. However, due to the delay in our awareness over the filing (the public notice appeared in a Waterbury newspaper), the period when FERC allows public comment had already expired on 2008/Jun/30, and any effort including that of the CC would have had small affect.
The FERC approval did have an allowance of 30 days for requests of rehearing. The BOA approved filing an rehearing request on 2008/Oct/9 (see item 11.6 on p.16), six days after when such period of opportunity had already expired.
The lessons learned are:
1. Better communication must occur with City government agencies.
2. Better notification must occur between different levels of government.
If a reader of this account is dismayed, disapointed or mad that this was allowed to occur, I encourage you to WRITE to the following officials:
1. Mayor Mark Lauretti
2. Your respective Aldermen
3. CT. DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy
4. CT Representative Jason Perillo
5. CT Senator Dan Debicella
6. Congressional Representive Rosa Delora
7. Congressional Representive Jim Himes
8. Senator Joseph Lieberman
9. Senator Christopher Dodd
10. Your newspaper editor of choice.
There is currently no course of action available to remedy this matter as the regulatory agency (FERC) has issued it's ruling on the request. It is unknown at this time if an outside party (someone other than the license holder) can petition for a review and/or change of articles (The Recreation Plan) within a license.
If you have an interest in this matter, you can additionally comment publicly in this blog forum or contact me privately.
Much information, documents, links to online resources and such data are compiled on a webpage the Conservation Commission created covering the subjects being discussed for this area of the canal.
The dam blocks a navigable channel (the Housatonic River), and takes value from the public domain (water power, sometimes called riparian rights) into private hands (water's energy converted into the portable and marketable electric energy via a hydro-electric generating station). The agency that govern such activity is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). There are also environmental concerns such as fish spawning migration, watercourse impact (besides the obvious Housatonic River, the Captain Curtiss Brook empties into a man made watercourse in the form of the canal), in addition to land use issues. These can variously cause involvement by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), the Ct. Dept of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Shelton Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) and the Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC). All are regulatory agencies and are in addition to the Shelton Conservation Commission (CC) which I chair, but is purely advisory and can only comment to any or all of the above groups.
The owners of the dam and it's associated infrastructure are currently McCallum Enterprises, and they conduct their operations via a license issued by FERC in 1986/Mar/25, with the filing of final license documents occuring in April and August of 1987. A license of this nature typically has a 20yr period upon which it is reviewed. It is specifically referred to as "Derby Dam Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 6066 - CT". A component of the FERC license (Article 32) is a "Recreation and Public Safety Plan".
On 2008/Mar/14, McCallum sought to alter the Recreation and Public Safety Plan. You can read the submission via this link. The City became aware of this on 2008/Jul/8, as you can see on the scanned document at the top from it's fax date/time. The period for public comment had already closed on June 30th.
McCallum stated two reasons for wanting the change. Safety, and Convenience.
Of the request letter's three bullet items supporting the safety reason: the first will not occur for quite some time, but I agree is a valid concern. The second is so inaccurate that some might think it as deceptive. The third is no change from what has existed for over 20yrs and has caused no increase in hazard from the allowance of access which has occured over that entire period.
Of the request letter's two bullet items supporting the convenience reason: the first, while valid in terms of walking a few 100yds less than what existed, renders a more difficult portage locations, and much poorer fishing location given the attraction of the fish toward the more oxygen laden water in the vicinity of the dam. The second bullet refers to what exists aproximately 2 miles drive away, due to it being on the other side of the river.
The DEP sought intervenor status (basically puts them on a notification list for when things such as hearings or decisions are scheduled and noticed) and concurrently commented on the ammendment request in a non-supportive manner. The CC discussed this at their next meeting in August, and despite the fact that the public comment period had closed, they felt it important and wrote a letter expressing their objections. That letter as you can see, was courtesy copied to all local agents who could express similar objections.
On 2008/Sep/3, FERC approved the request, a new fence barrier and gate was soon installed, and the general public began to become aware of what was lost and voiced confusion and then displeasure when fully informed. (several calls reached the Conservation Agent and Planning & Zoning Dept in City Hall).
To my knowledge, the only other public municipal comments occurred when the PZC wrote a letter on 2008/Sep/10. However, due to the delay in our awareness over the filing (the public notice appeared in a Waterbury newspaper), the period when FERC allows public comment had already expired on 2008/Jun/30, and any effort including that of the CC would have had small affect.
The FERC approval did have an allowance of 30 days for requests of rehearing. The BOA approved filing an rehearing request on 2008/Oct/9 (see item 11.6 on p.16), six days after when such period of opportunity had already expired.
The lessons learned are:
1. Better communication must occur with City government agencies.
2. Better notification must occur between different levels of government.
If a reader of this account is dismayed, disapointed or mad that this was allowed to occur, I encourage you to WRITE to the following officials:
1. Mayor Mark Lauretti
2. Your respective Aldermen
3. CT. DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy
4. CT Representative Jason Perillo
5. CT Senator Dan Debicella
6. Congressional Representive Rosa Delora
7. Congressional Representive Jim Himes
8. Senator Joseph Lieberman
9. Senator Christopher Dodd
10. Your newspaper editor of choice.
There is currently no course of action available to remedy this matter as the regulatory agency (FERC) has issued it's ruling on the request. It is unknown at this time if an outside party (someone other than the license holder) can petition for a review and/or change of articles (The Recreation Plan) within a license.
If you have an interest in this matter, you can additionally comment publicly in this blog forum or contact me privately.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Charter Revision - Why I supported it.
I am disappointed that the public turned down the most recent attempt at charter revision for Shelton. The current charter has gaps that allow inaction to occur with no consequences. I have witnessed and been impacted by those gaps in my work with the City. The proposed charter addressed those gaps.
I have followed the Charter Revision pretty closely over many years due to an issue of personal interest. As evidence, I read into the record during the current Charter Commissions deliberations, my letters on it going back to 2002.
My interest and examination of the current proposal led to me discovering an item the Charter Revision Commission included as a component that was of hope to me as Chairman of the Conservation Commission: appointments to boards and commissions.
The Shelton Conservation Commission has always been non-political through my involvement since 1998. The commissioners are appointed to serve for a 3yr term. My witness has been that when there is a vacancy, the commission has experience with someone interested in our efforts and approaches them about possibly serving. If that is a positive response, the person is recomended to the Mayor for appointment to the post and that is carried out to conclusion. Current Mayor Lauretti has never recomended someone or appointed someone to the Conservation Commission from his sole initiation until recently.
As example, I came on in 1998 after Harriet Wilbur (co-chair at the time) asked me if I was interested in serving as they had a vacancy (I had attended a few meetings out of concern for a development proposal near where I lived). Joe Welsh, who was and is involved with the Shelton Land Conservation Trust (a private non-profit entity with preservation efforts similar to those dealt with on the Conservation Commission), replaced Soren Ibsen who simply ended his term. Bill Dyer had been working on trails as a volunteer, and was asked if he wanted to serve on the commission.
A concern over lack of action for appointment to the Conservation Commission arose over two years ago. Harriet Wilbur resigned for health reasons, but the Mayor refused to accept the resignation, a nice gesture to signify he thought she would recover and have a healthy future. Sadly she passed away soon after. In subsequent months, the ConsComm interviewed three candidates, and made a recomendation to the Mayor for filling Harriet's vacant position, along with the resumes and opinions on the other candidates. Despite repeated attempts and encouragement, the Mayor failed to fill the vacancy.
Thus it was with surprise that I read the Mayor's comments quoted in the Aug27 Huntington Herald which I cut/paste here for reference/comment in case they aren't retained at their current online archive:
*** Mayor Mark Lauretti participated in the CRC meeting Aug. 21 by calling in on a speakerphone, but his objections to several provisions didn’t sway the commission. Lauretti was most adamant about two CRC recommendations concerning appointments to boards and commissions. One requires the mayor to notify the Board of Aldermen and the City/Town Clerk 15 days before the appointment goes into effect. The other requires the “appointing authority,” which often is the mayor, to fill a vacancy within 30 days, or the board or commission is authorized to do so.
“Is there a problem with the way I’ve been making appointments?” Lauretti asked. He repeatedly stated there was no problem with the current charter and said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
But the CRC felt it was broke enough to fix. DiMauro said the provisions were intended to promote good government, not as a criticism of Lauretti.
“In real life there’s more important things for me to deal with than appointments to boards and commissions,” Lauretti said.
When he questioned how would he know if someone’s term had expired, DiMauro said notification could be provided by using a computer spreadsheet.
When Lauretti noted that several times members of boards continued to serve for years without reappointment, DiMauro asked, “Why didn’t you reappoint them?”
Lauretti paused, then said it was another example of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
****
My simple experience is that the system IS broke. If the current charter was being violated (the Mayor was not following the process for appointments) there were no ramifications and no course of solution. As Chairman of the Commission, I expressed to the Mayor how displeased I was to read his comments in the news, especially in light of our experience. I informed him that the person recomended over a year previously, who he had interviewed and was fine with appointing - was still interested.
He was surprised at the vacancy and thought that he had already done the appointment. I can't understand that reaction since every ConsComm mtg minutes over the past 2 yrs clearly states in the Call to Order that we only have 6 active members. (for example, see pg 2 of our Sep30 minutes)
On Monday Sept 15, during the Mayor's Golf Classic Tournament (charity benefits the Boys & Girls Club among other recipients), the Mayor informed me that he made an appointment to fill Harriet Wilbur's vacancy: Albert John Grasso (AJ), the owner of Prestige Builders. This brings our membership to a full complement of 7. It is my understanding that the Mayor did not further pursue appointing the ConsComm's suggested nominee from the 3 who expressed interest and were interviewed about 1.5 yrs ago.
I have followed the Charter Revision pretty closely over many years due to an issue of personal interest. As evidence, I read into the record during the current Charter Commissions deliberations, my letters on it going back to 2002.
My interest and examination of the current proposal led to me discovering an item the Charter Revision Commission included as a component that was of hope to me as Chairman of the Conservation Commission: appointments to boards and commissions.
The Shelton Conservation Commission has always been non-political through my involvement since 1998. The commissioners are appointed to serve for a 3yr term. My witness has been that when there is a vacancy, the commission has experience with someone interested in our efforts and approaches them about possibly serving. If that is a positive response, the person is recomended to the Mayor for appointment to the post and that is carried out to conclusion. Current Mayor Lauretti has never recomended someone or appointed someone to the Conservation Commission from his sole initiation until recently.
As example, I came on in 1998 after Harriet Wilbur (co-chair at the time) asked me if I was interested in serving as they had a vacancy (I had attended a few meetings out of concern for a development proposal near where I lived). Joe Welsh, who was and is involved with the Shelton Land Conservation Trust (a private non-profit entity with preservation efforts similar to those dealt with on the Conservation Commission), replaced Soren Ibsen who simply ended his term. Bill Dyer had been working on trails as a volunteer, and was asked if he wanted to serve on the commission.
A concern over lack of action for appointment to the Conservation Commission arose over two years ago. Harriet Wilbur resigned for health reasons, but the Mayor refused to accept the resignation, a nice gesture to signify he thought she would recover and have a healthy future. Sadly she passed away soon after. In subsequent months, the ConsComm interviewed three candidates, and made a recomendation to the Mayor for filling Harriet's vacant position, along with the resumes and opinions on the other candidates. Despite repeated attempts and encouragement, the Mayor failed to fill the vacancy.
Thus it was with surprise that I read the Mayor's comments quoted in the Aug27 Huntington Herald which I cut/paste here for reference/comment in case they aren't retained at their current online archive:
*** Mayor Mark Lauretti participated in the CRC meeting Aug. 21 by calling in on a speakerphone, but his objections to several provisions didn’t sway the commission. Lauretti was most adamant about two CRC recommendations concerning appointments to boards and commissions. One requires the mayor to notify the Board of Aldermen and the City/Town Clerk 15 days before the appointment goes into effect. The other requires the “appointing authority,” which often is the mayor, to fill a vacancy within 30 days, or the board or commission is authorized to do so.
“Is there a problem with the way I’ve been making appointments?” Lauretti asked. He repeatedly stated there was no problem with the current charter and said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
But the CRC felt it was broke enough to fix. DiMauro said the provisions were intended to promote good government, not as a criticism of Lauretti.
“In real life there’s more important things for me to deal with than appointments to boards and commissions,” Lauretti said.
When he questioned how would he know if someone’s term had expired, DiMauro said notification could be provided by using a computer spreadsheet.
When Lauretti noted that several times members of boards continued to serve for years without reappointment, DiMauro asked, “Why didn’t you reappoint them?”
Lauretti paused, then said it was another example of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
****
My simple experience is that the system IS broke. If the current charter was being violated (the Mayor was not following the process for appointments) there were no ramifications and no course of solution. As Chairman of the Commission, I expressed to the Mayor how displeased I was to read his comments in the news, especially in light of our experience. I informed him that the person recomended over a year previously, who he had interviewed and was fine with appointing - was still interested.
He was surprised at the vacancy and thought that he had already done the appointment. I can't understand that reaction since every ConsComm mtg minutes over the past 2 yrs clearly states in the Call to Order that we only have 6 active members. (for example, see pg 2 of our Sep30 minutes)
On Monday Sept 15, during the Mayor's Golf Classic Tournament (charity benefits the Boys & Girls Club among other recipients), the Mayor informed me that he made an appointment to fill Harriet Wilbur's vacancy: Albert John Grasso (AJ), the owner of Prestige Builders. This brings our membership to a full complement of 7. It is my understanding that the Mayor did not further pursue appointing the ConsComm's suggested nominee from the 3 who expressed interest and were interviewed about 1.5 yrs ago.
I met AJ personally on FriSep19 (in the interest of full disclosure, we were in the same home-room at Shelton High School, but haven't traveled in the same circles since we graduated). We discussed his interest in serving on our commission. He was sworn in by the City Clerk, and began serving by our next meeting in October. AJ is a member and Director of the recently formed Shelton Builders Association, and has done some developments in Shelton, for example Freedom Way off Buddington Road. A developer has the potential to bring a complementing contribution and developer's perspective to our Conservation affairs, but the Conservation Commission is meant to be a balance to the development perspective.
Thus, coming from a builder/developer background will obviously raise questions for some in the public. The public impression of the ConsComm's affairs is of great value, having been compiled through years of earning the public's respect. I have a duty to see that this wealth of respect is not squandered. Where there are obvious conflicts of interest, it is easy for any commissioner to abstain from voting, or more thoroughly, recuse themself from discussing or deliberating on the issue. The City has a Board of Ethics and those regulations and rules are given out to any new appointee. More complicated are when the ConsComm deals with land acquisitions issues as executive session items, and if/when it is warranted for someone to be excused from such discussions. This was just discussed openly and frankly by the ConsComm at our first meeting with AJ as a commissioner.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Where is my property line?
When there is a question between property owners over the property line location, it's usually pretty easy to work out conflicts promptly. Both owners are there to react with immediacy to a breach or infringement on their property. But what happens if one of the property owners is the City and isn't there regularly to see someone using its property improperly?
Before anyone gets excited, you can't claim City property as your own just by using if for several years (the legal term is "adverse possession"). Just the same, the City holds value in the character of the land to the benefit of it's residents, and does need to protect the asset.
Obviously, if someone were dumping debris or garbage on City property, there is a detriment. Less obvious an impact is when someone cuts down trees to improve their view, or mows a meadow to have expanded lawn. One person's view into a valley, can become another person's view disrupted onto a formerlly naturally vegetated ridgeline. A meadow may look unruly, but it may be filtering contaminents from runnoff heading toward a stream.
The City has been very active since the mid 1960's in acquiring Open Space, as well as other parcels conserved for future municipal use (ball fields, firehouses, etc). Not every parcel is monitored on a short periodic basis, and a great reliance on maintaining the value of City's interests comes from reports of resident (which are then followed up on). That concept of neighbors watching city property is known as our "landkeepers program" (inquire with the City Conservation Agent if interested in participating). Not all parcels have hikers and birdwatchers enjoying them, so there are a few that escape notice of encroachments until after the damage is done.
If the vacant lot of woods at the rear of your yard looks like a good place to dump lawn debris, some people might not think about going ahead and doing that - but it would be a violation of Open Space Regulations.
The CtPost had an article that I hope was widely read on this subject. I cut/paste it for longevity and comment as the URL locations can change.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_10815959
Trail leads to property line education
By KATE RAMUNNIStaff writer
Article Last Updated: 10/25/2008 06:44:36 PM EDT
SHELTON -- Martin Reynolds loves to walk the city's Shelton Lakes Recreation Path, so much so that when his business relocated him to the area, he focused his apartment hunt on Shelton to be close to the popular trail.
And while he loves the idea of the city providing the path to the public, he said he can understand how those whose backyards abut the trail might assume an attitude that the city-owned open space that abuts their yards is free for the using.
"There are some areas where it seems like it goes right through people's backyards, and sometimes I've seen people who live there doing yard work pretty close to the trail," he said Thursday as he returned from an early morning trek. "I never really thought about it, but I'm sure some are doing work on property they don't own."
That encroachment has become an issue the Conservation Commission increasingly must confront, though one that officials feel should be done with a soft touch.
It's not the commission's purpose to punish those who encroach on city-owned property, but rather to educate, said Tom Harbinson, the commission chairman.
"I would hope they look at us as the educator of where property lines between public and private spaces are and the reasons why and when certain areas are left natural, wooded, meadow or open for other passive recreation," he said.
Homeowners aren't always aware that they're treating city-owned land as their own, he said. Although, he added, there have been some instances when property owners abutting city land knew they had encroached on public holdings.
"Sometimes, validly, the homeowner doesn't know or assumes where the boundary is, and other times they are outright commandeering public property for personal use," he said, such as putting up sheds without permits. "The Conservation Commission never had an agent to monitor or address these situations before, so we have taken a personal approach to each case as they are discovered.
"But we are finding that the public does not understand what public open space is versus a conservation easement or even a pedestrian easement," he said.
***
When the City owns property it generally is known as "municipal property" (schools, police station, firehouse, cityhall, sports fields, etc). If the municipal property has a natural landscape character it is more specifically referenced as "Open Space" (meadows, farmfields, woods). If the municipal property that has a natural landscape character is deed restricted to remain undeveloped, it is further referred to as "Permanently Protected Open Space".
When Private Property has a covenant that a portion of it can not be mowed, or trees cut down, that language recorded on the deed in the land records is known as a "Conservation Easement". When the restriction refers to public passage for a trail or path, it is known as a "Pedestrian Easement". Easements are a common way to pass certain rights to others and are recorded in the land records (sewer easements, utility easement, etc). The language of every easement is unique to itself, however the City of Shelton has attempted to bring some uniformity to conservation and pedestrian easement language in the modern day subdivisions it reviews.
***
Much of the enforcement falls on Conservation Agent Teresa Gallagher, whose job it is to monitor public encroachment on open space.
Using tax assessor maps and the computer program Google Earth, she is able to see where the property lines are and what is on the open space, Gallagher said. "Major encroachments can be identified very quickly this way," she said.
There are other Web sites that can be used to view properties, she said.
"The bottom line is, people may think no one can see what they are doing when they cut down trees in the open space behind their homes," she said, "but in the age of the Internet, we can see it from our desks."
***
The State of Ct has aerial photography that is taken regularly and available to municipalities. This is in addition to the publicly accessible resources such as satelite photography (google earth), aerial photography (microsoft live), and ground level photography (google street view).
***
Some encroachment issues stem from people's fear of Lyme disease, she said.
"One very disturbing trend I am seeing is people who are worried about ticks clearing out large areas, leaving only short grass, and then spraying that area heavily with insecticide," she said. "I have heard this reasoning from residents to justify why they clear and mow the open space. They say they are taking care of it, and have trouble understanding why land in a natural state, which they fear, might be a good thing.
"It used to be that people maintained swaths of natural areas on their properties as buffers, but some people now view this as tick habitat, which is not entirely correct. Many people get Lyme Disease by walking through a lawn."
That also creates another problem -- some of the insecticides that people use are known health hazards to humans and pets, she said.
"Modern insecticides are much more toxic than DDT, they just break down faster; people don't realize that," she said. "So we have parents letting their children and pets run around through the insecticide thinking it's healthy because there are no ticks." In some cases, developers building housing around the trail don't delineate property lines properly, Gallagher said. There was once such case at Toll Brothers' development, she said.
"It was due to Toll Brothers not having delineating the property line before the homeowner moved in," she said. "The property owner was very eager to have the line identified and is planting trees along the border." Sometimes homeowners will mow city-owned property, or even ask the city to mow it, she said. But it's better to leave it in a natural state, she said.
"In reality, conservation lands should not be mowed," she said. "Eventually, the grass will revert to brush and then to trees."
"The suburban interpretation that a lawn is prettier or nicer landscape than a meadow or natural-scape, while subjective, does not address why the area was sought to be left natural when the original parcel was subdivided into lots creating the neighborhood," Harbinson said. "It could be to provide passive recreation -- a field for neighborhood kids to play in -- or wildlife habitat, meadow for cover of birds, or water resource protection, filter contaminants before they reach a stream.
"Education to the public will be the real resolution to this task," he said.
**
People can review our Open Space Plan online, in addition to Open Space maps showing where parcels are kept natural and connect with others to create wildlife or habitat corridors which we refer to as Greenways.
**
Before anyone gets excited, you can't claim City property as your own just by using if for several years (the legal term is "adverse possession"). Just the same, the City holds value in the character of the land to the benefit of it's residents, and does need to protect the asset.
Obviously, if someone were dumping debris or garbage on City property, there is a detriment. Less obvious an impact is when someone cuts down trees to improve their view, or mows a meadow to have expanded lawn. One person's view into a valley, can become another person's view disrupted onto a formerlly naturally vegetated ridgeline. A meadow may look unruly, but it may be filtering contaminents from runnoff heading toward a stream.
The City has been very active since the mid 1960's in acquiring Open Space, as well as other parcels conserved for future municipal use (ball fields, firehouses, etc). Not every parcel is monitored on a short periodic basis, and a great reliance on maintaining the value of City's interests comes from reports of resident (which are then followed up on). That concept of neighbors watching city property is known as our "landkeepers program" (inquire with the City Conservation Agent if interested in participating). Not all parcels have hikers and birdwatchers enjoying them, so there are a few that escape notice of encroachments until after the damage is done.
If the vacant lot of woods at the rear of your yard looks like a good place to dump lawn debris, some people might not think about going ahead and doing that - but it would be a violation of Open Space Regulations.
The CtPost had an article that I hope was widely read on this subject. I cut/paste it for longevity and comment as the URL locations can change.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_10815959
Trail leads to property line education
By KATE RAMUNNIStaff writer
Article Last Updated: 10/25/2008 06:44:36 PM EDT
SHELTON -- Martin Reynolds loves to walk the city's Shelton Lakes Recreation Path, so much so that when his business relocated him to the area, he focused his apartment hunt on Shelton to be close to the popular trail.
And while he loves the idea of the city providing the path to the public, he said he can understand how those whose backyards abut the trail might assume an attitude that the city-owned open space that abuts their yards is free for the using.
"There are some areas where it seems like it goes right through people's backyards, and sometimes I've seen people who live there doing yard work pretty close to the trail," he said Thursday as he returned from an early morning trek. "I never really thought about it, but I'm sure some are doing work on property they don't own."
That encroachment has become an issue the Conservation Commission increasingly must confront, though one that officials feel should be done with a soft touch.
It's not the commission's purpose to punish those who encroach on city-owned property, but rather to educate, said Tom Harbinson, the commission chairman.
"I would hope they look at us as the educator of where property lines between public and private spaces are and the reasons why and when certain areas are left natural, wooded, meadow or open for other passive recreation," he said.
Homeowners aren't always aware that they're treating city-owned land as their own, he said. Although, he added, there have been some instances when property owners abutting city land knew they had encroached on public holdings.
"Sometimes, validly, the homeowner doesn't know or assumes where the boundary is, and other times they are outright commandeering public property for personal use," he said, such as putting up sheds without permits. "The Conservation Commission never had an agent to monitor or address these situations before, so we have taken a personal approach to each case as they are discovered.
"But we are finding that the public does not understand what public open space is versus a conservation easement or even a pedestrian easement," he said.
***
When the City owns property it generally is known as "municipal property" (schools, police station, firehouse, cityhall, sports fields, etc). If the municipal property has a natural landscape character it is more specifically referenced as "Open Space" (meadows, farmfields, woods). If the municipal property that has a natural landscape character is deed restricted to remain undeveloped, it is further referred to as "Permanently Protected Open Space".
When Private Property has a covenant that a portion of it can not be mowed, or trees cut down, that language recorded on the deed in the land records is known as a "Conservation Easement". When the restriction refers to public passage for a trail or path, it is known as a "Pedestrian Easement". Easements are a common way to pass certain rights to others and are recorded in the land records (sewer easements, utility easement, etc). The language of every easement is unique to itself, however the City of Shelton has attempted to bring some uniformity to conservation and pedestrian easement language in the modern day subdivisions it reviews.
***
Much of the enforcement falls on Conservation Agent Teresa Gallagher, whose job it is to monitor public encroachment on open space.
Using tax assessor maps and the computer program Google Earth, she is able to see where the property lines are and what is on the open space, Gallagher said. "Major encroachments can be identified very quickly this way," she said.
There are other Web sites that can be used to view properties, she said.
"The bottom line is, people may think no one can see what they are doing when they cut down trees in the open space behind their homes," she said, "but in the age of the Internet, we can see it from our desks."
***
The State of Ct has aerial photography that is taken regularly and available to municipalities. This is in addition to the publicly accessible resources such as satelite photography (google earth), aerial photography (microsoft live), and ground level photography (google street view).
***
Some encroachment issues stem from people's fear of Lyme disease, she said.
"One very disturbing trend I am seeing is people who are worried about ticks clearing out large areas, leaving only short grass, and then spraying that area heavily with insecticide," she said. "I have heard this reasoning from residents to justify why they clear and mow the open space. They say they are taking care of it, and have trouble understanding why land in a natural state, which they fear, might be a good thing.
"It used to be that people maintained swaths of natural areas on their properties as buffers, but some people now view this as tick habitat, which is not entirely correct. Many people get Lyme Disease by walking through a lawn."
That also creates another problem -- some of the insecticides that people use are known health hazards to humans and pets, she said.
"Modern insecticides are much more toxic than DDT, they just break down faster; people don't realize that," she said. "So we have parents letting their children and pets run around through the insecticide thinking it's healthy because there are no ticks." In some cases, developers building housing around the trail don't delineate property lines properly, Gallagher said. There was once such case at Toll Brothers' development, she said.
"It was due to Toll Brothers not having delineating the property line before the homeowner moved in," she said. "The property owner was very eager to have the line identified and is planting trees along the border." Sometimes homeowners will mow city-owned property, or even ask the city to mow it, she said. But it's better to leave it in a natural state, she said.
"In reality, conservation lands should not be mowed," she said. "Eventually, the grass will revert to brush and then to trees."
"The suburban interpretation that a lawn is prettier or nicer landscape than a meadow or natural-scape, while subjective, does not address why the area was sought to be left natural when the original parcel was subdivided into lots creating the neighborhood," Harbinson said. "It could be to provide passive recreation -- a field for neighborhood kids to play in -- or wildlife habitat, meadow for cover of birds, or water resource protection, filter contaminants before they reach a stream.
"Education to the public will be the real resolution to this task," he said.
**
People can review our Open Space Plan online, in addition to Open Space maps showing where parcels are kept natural and connect with others to create wildlife or habitat corridors which we refer to as Greenways.
**
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
