encourage readers to go to the CTPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_12821834
Possible sale of Shelton properties explored
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 07/12/2009 10:32:51 PM EDT
SHELTON -- Despite unfavorable recommendations from two city boards, the Board of Aldermen has voted to continue the process of selling city-owned land for two properties many say should not be sold.
Five properties were on the board's agenda Thursday night, and for all but one, the sales process will proceed. The aldermen agreed not to sell 450 Howe Ave., the former home of the Naugatuck Valley Health District and at one time City Hall.
Shelton Fire Department Chief Fran Jones has notified the aldermen that the department would like to see the downtown building turned into a new fire headquarters that also could house a police substation.
In order to sell city property, the aldermen must first get opinions from the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. It then votes either not to continue the process, or to send the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an 8-24 referral, named for the state statute that requires the step.
If P&Z recommends favorably, the aldermen then vote to either schedule a public hearing on the sale or not continue the process. If the zoning recommendation is unfavorable, the aldermen can override that with a two-thirds vote.
The board agreed to move forward with possible sale of Access Road, a road that runs parallel to Bridgeport Avenue that developer Monty Blakeman wants to buy and incorporate into his plans to build a shopping center at the site of the former Crabtree auto dealership. It has not yet been determined if the city or the state, which had turned the road over to the city for future expansion of Bridgeport Avenue, has authority to dispose of the road.
The board also agreed to continue investigating the sale of 279 Soundview Ave. and 58 Perry Hill Road, despite both the Conservation and Parks and Recreation commission's opinions that both should be retained by the city.
Initially the motion to continue the process for the Perry Hill Road property failed with a 4-4 vote. Since Mayor Mark A. Lauretti was not present to case the tie-breaking vote, board President John Anglace had the option of voting twice, which he did. His second vote in favor of continuing the process now sends it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
+++ Update Jul17: This may be an invalidated vote. The Chairman of the meeting can vote as an Alderman, or as the Chair, but he can't vote twice. Assistant Corporation Counsel decided this was OK during the mtg, but the Corporation Counsel may ask for reconsideration of this +++
The board also will send to the zoning commission an 8-24 referral for the Soundview Avenue property. Only Aldermen Jack Finn and Stan Kudej voted against it.
Opponents of the sales say that it is a bad time for the city to sell any real estate unless it is an emergency, while proponents maintain the funds the city would realize from the sales would help pay down bonded debt.
Criticism has been directed at the possible sale of one acre of the 14-acre site on Soundview Avenue that includes the only house on the land. Several years ago the city passed on buying the land, which was sold to developer Alvaro DaSilva for $1.4 million. But several months later DaSilva, who at the time was the chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission, sold the property to the city for $2.1 million.
+++ The City didn't "pass" on buying the land. The CC was actively talking to the property owner for years, and she simply decided she wanted to sell at a certain point, and wanted immediate cash payment in full for sales price - which City couldn't do, but a developer could. This was the premise for having an Open Space Trust Account to act in a quick manner. (which capability has been tampered with due to lack of following funding as called for in ordinance). The CC advocated for the parcel to be purchased and did not take a "pass". +++
The Perry Hill property is valuable to the city, some say, because it is part of the old Shelton Intermediate School property. That building is now being remodeled into a fifth- and sixth-grade school and could be needed in the future for expansion, some say.
"All we are doing is continuing to see if it would be worth it to sell," Anglace stressed. "We are not voting to sell anything right now -- all we are doing is continuing to see if we want to take the next step."
Monday, July 13, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
BOA asks PZC for 8-24 - Valley Sentinel
The BOA moved forward within the process regarding sale of City property, and asked the Planning & Zoning Commission for 8-24 referrals on several parcels being considered for sale.
I use this blog to comment on news reports and there is a new reporting organization that covers the Valley. Not really a news"paper" since they are purely electronic. They use part of the old "Evening Sentinel" moniker which many who have lived here a long time will remember fondly as a daily afternoon paper. (CtPost bought the Evening Sentinel and then morphed it into their "valley" edition). This blog entry is comments on their report on this subject.
I encourage readers to go to the Valley Independent Sentinel article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
by Jodie Mozdzer Jul 10, 2009 11:46 am
Shelton Land Sale Process Moves Forward
The Board of Alderman voted Thursday night to move forward with the lengthy process to sell four city-owned properties.The city was looking at five properties, but decided Thursday to rule out 470 Howe Ave. as a candidate for sale. That parcel is the former police department and Naugatuck Valley Health District office, which the fire department has expressed an interest in using for a training facility.
The board voted to send the other properties – 279 Soundview Ave., 58 Perry Hill Road, Access Road and Middle Avenue — to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an official referral.
According to the city’s procedure on selling property, if the Planning and Zoning Commission votes in favor of selling the land, the city will have it appraised and then hold a public hearing. (Read the ordinance on selling properties here. Scroll down to 2-18.)
As part of the official selling procedure, the Board of Alderman already has asked for opinions from the Conservation and Recreation Commissions. Each objected to selling the Soundview Avenue and Perry Hill Road parcels.
+++ You can view the CC emails online in real-time. This one has the pdf attachment that is our response to the BOA request. +++
Before the votes, Board of Alderman President John Anglace made it clear that voting to send the items to Planning and Zoning would not necessarily mean the land will be put up for sale.
“Tonight we have to determine if we want to proceed in each case with the next step,” Anglace said.
Here’s a map of the properties. Click on the balloons to see descriptions and the board’s vote on each one. +++ online article has embedded google map +++
View Shelton Properties: Should the City Sell Them? in a larger map
The Properties
279 Soundview Ave.
This property is about 14 acres of open space with a house and garage. The city is thinking about selling the roughly 1 acre where the house is located. The Conservation and Parks and Recreation commissions have said they want to keep the property.
The Board of Alderman voted 6-2 Thursday night to continue looking at whether it should sell this property. The Soundview Avenue property has been the topic of much discussion since it appeared on the list. The property was sold to a local developer for $1.4 million while the city was trying to purchase it. In 2008, about a year later, the city purchased the property, which is adjacent to existing open space, from the developer for $2.1 million.
The Conservation Commission has said it would like to use the property for the state’s FarmLink program, which helps match up potential farmers with land.
+++ Search my blog with keyword "279" for entries on this subject +++
58 Perry Hill Road
This property has about 1.4 acres of land and a house adjacent to the old intermediate school.
The Board of Alderman Thursday initially rejected a motion to move forward with this property, with a tie vote 4-4. However, Board of Alderman President John Anglace broke the tie vote with a charter-sanctioned second vote in the place of Mayor Mark Lauretti, who was absent from the meeting. Anglace voted a second time in favor of continuing to look at Perry Hill Lane “since it goes to the next step and just provides additional information and doesn’t make any final decisions.”
+++ See the minutes from the CC mtg of 2009May6, p.13 for our comments on this parcel +++
Middle Road
This is a “paper-road” that has been abandoned by the city. The Board of Alderman voted unanimously to proceed with the process of selling this parcel.
+++ No conservation value +++
Access Road
This road is where the former Crabtree car dealership sits, which is the proposed site for a new retail development. The city has been researching whether the road would revert back to state control if it abandons it.
+++ No conservation value +++
Questions over what the city is doing with the road led the Planning and Zoning Commission to reject Monty Blakeman’s proposal for the development at its last meeting. Read the Valley Independent Sentinel coverage of that meeting here.
The Board of Alderman unanimously voted to continue the process of potentially selling this land. Click play on the video to see Blakeman’s attorney Dominick Thomas press the board for answers on this property. +++ Article has embedded youtube video from the evening +++
Anglace has said the properties are under consideration for various reasons. For instance, the Perry Hill Road property has a house on it that the city used to rent out, Anglace said in an interview last week. But the city did not like being a landlord, Anglace said. “We’ve had bad experiences, people who had to be evicted,” Anglace said.
In the case of Access Road, the city has long wanted to help with traffic problems the road creates, Anglace said. And now the road is potentially part of the proposed retail development at the former Crabtree car dealership.
The Howe Avenue property was vacant, and Anglace said the city wanted to see if it could get it back on the tax roles. The Middle Road property was abandoned by the city several years ago and had been requested by an interested buyer.
As for Soundview Ave, Anglace said the house has no conservation value along with the open space so it might be worth seeing how much money the city could get for the property.
+++ I would disagree as the Soundview Ave dwelling could work in concert as residence for a tenant farmer. That is why the CC is researching the Farmlink program with looks to match just such a situation with possible tenant. +++
I use this blog to comment on news reports and there is a new reporting organization that covers the Valley. Not really a news"paper" since they are purely electronic. They use part of the old "Evening Sentinel" moniker which many who have lived here a long time will remember fondly as a daily afternoon paper. (CtPost bought the Evening Sentinel and then morphed it into their "valley" edition). This blog entry is comments on their report on this subject.
I encourage readers to go to the Valley Independent Sentinel article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
by Jodie Mozdzer Jul 10, 2009 11:46 am
Shelton Land Sale Process Moves Forward
The Board of Alderman voted Thursday night to move forward with the lengthy process to sell four city-owned properties.The city was looking at five properties, but decided Thursday to rule out 470 Howe Ave. as a candidate for sale. That parcel is the former police department and Naugatuck Valley Health District office, which the fire department has expressed an interest in using for a training facility.
The board voted to send the other properties – 279 Soundview Ave., 58 Perry Hill Road, Access Road and Middle Avenue — to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an official referral.
According to the city’s procedure on selling property, if the Planning and Zoning Commission votes in favor of selling the land, the city will have it appraised and then hold a public hearing. (Read the ordinance on selling properties here. Scroll down to 2-18.)
As part of the official selling procedure, the Board of Alderman already has asked for opinions from the Conservation and Recreation Commissions. Each objected to selling the Soundview Avenue and Perry Hill Road parcels.
+++ You can view the CC emails online in real-time. This one has the pdf attachment that is our response to the BOA request. +++
Before the votes, Board of Alderman President John Anglace made it clear that voting to send the items to Planning and Zoning would not necessarily mean the land will be put up for sale.
“Tonight we have to determine if we want to proceed in each case with the next step,” Anglace said.
Here’s a map of the properties. Click on the balloons to see descriptions and the board’s vote on each one. +++ online article has embedded google map +++
View Shelton Properties: Should the City Sell Them? in a larger map
The Properties
279 Soundview Ave.
This property is about 14 acres of open space with a house and garage. The city is thinking about selling the roughly 1 acre where the house is located. The Conservation and Parks and Recreation commissions have said they want to keep the property.
The Board of Alderman voted 6-2 Thursday night to continue looking at whether it should sell this property. The Soundview Avenue property has been the topic of much discussion since it appeared on the list. The property was sold to a local developer for $1.4 million while the city was trying to purchase it. In 2008, about a year later, the city purchased the property, which is adjacent to existing open space, from the developer for $2.1 million.
The Conservation Commission has said it would like to use the property for the state’s FarmLink program, which helps match up potential farmers with land.
+++ Search my blog with keyword "279" for entries on this subject +++
58 Perry Hill Road
This property has about 1.4 acres of land and a house adjacent to the old intermediate school.
The Board of Alderman Thursday initially rejected a motion to move forward with this property, with a tie vote 4-4. However, Board of Alderman President John Anglace broke the tie vote with a charter-sanctioned second vote in the place of Mayor Mark Lauretti, who was absent from the meeting. Anglace voted a second time in favor of continuing to look at Perry Hill Lane “since it goes to the next step and just provides additional information and doesn’t make any final decisions.”
+++ See the minutes from the CC mtg of 2009May6, p.13 for our comments on this parcel +++
Middle Road
This is a “paper-road” that has been abandoned by the city. The Board of Alderman voted unanimously to proceed with the process of selling this parcel.
+++ No conservation value +++
Access Road
This road is where the former Crabtree car dealership sits, which is the proposed site for a new retail development. The city has been researching whether the road would revert back to state control if it abandons it.
+++ No conservation value +++
Questions over what the city is doing with the road led the Planning and Zoning Commission to reject Monty Blakeman’s proposal for the development at its last meeting. Read the Valley Independent Sentinel coverage of that meeting here.
The Board of Alderman unanimously voted to continue the process of potentially selling this land. Click play on the video to see Blakeman’s attorney Dominick Thomas press the board for answers on this property. +++ Article has embedded youtube video from the evening +++
Anglace has said the properties are under consideration for various reasons. For instance, the Perry Hill Road property has a house on it that the city used to rent out, Anglace said in an interview last week. But the city did not like being a landlord, Anglace said. “We’ve had bad experiences, people who had to be evicted,” Anglace said.
In the case of Access Road, the city has long wanted to help with traffic problems the road creates, Anglace said. And now the road is potentially part of the proposed retail development at the former Crabtree car dealership.
The Howe Avenue property was vacant, and Anglace said the city wanted to see if it could get it back on the tax roles. The Middle Road property was abandoned by the city several years ago and had been requested by an interested buyer.
As for Soundview Ave, Anglace said the house has no conservation value along with the open space so it might be worth seeing how much money the city could get for the property.
+++ I would disagree as the Soundview Ave dwelling could work in concert as residence for a tenant farmer. That is why the CC is researching the Farmlink program with looks to match just such a situation with possible tenant. +++
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Procedure to sell City property
The ordinance #839 as adopted 2009/Feb/11 is listed below cut/pasted from the municode website where it appears as Part II, Chapter 2, Article I, Sec. 2-18.
Sec. 2-18. Procedure to sell city property.
(a) Definition. From time to time the city may be asked or may decide to sell real property owned by the city and hereby determines that a procedure shall be provided regarding the sale of said real property. Said procedure pertains only to property which the board of aldermen consider "significant". "Significant" shall be defined as the sale of real property which has a fair market value in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
(b) Initial determination by the board. If a request is received the board of aldermen asking the city to sell city-owned real property and the board of aldermen determines that the board has an interest in selling said property or if the board of aldermen decides to sell city-owned real property, the board shall follow the following procedure.
(c) Procedure.
(1) The board of aldermen shall request from the conservation commission and parks and recreation commission their opinion regarding said sale. The board of aldermen specifically wants said commission's opinion regarding the property's open space, conservation or recreational value to the city.
(2) The board of aldermen will consider the information provided by the conservation commission and parks and recreation commission and determine if the board wishes to proceed.
(3) If the board of aldermen determines to proceed, the board of aldermen will then seek an 8-24 referral from the planning and zoning commission.
a. If the 8-24 is favorable to sell, the board of aldermen may proceed with this process.
b. If the 8-24 is unfavorable, the board of aldermen must override the unfavorable by a two-thirds ( 2/3) vote in order to proceed.
(4) If the board of aldermen wishes to proceed with the sale process, they shall have the property appraised. Any appraisal received shall not be disclosed until after the sale has been completed.
(5) The board of aldermen shall hold a public hearing in accordance with P.A. 07-218, when applicable.
(6) If the board of aldermen wish to proceed with the sale process, the board of aldermen can then proceed to advertise that it is accepting bids with a cutoff date to receive sealed bids subject to any deed restrictions and/or conditions the board deems appropriate. Each bid must be accompanied with a check equal to ten (10) percent of the amount bid.
(7) The purchasing agent would publicly open the bids and refer them to the finance committee off the board of A&T who would determine the highest, responsible bidder. The board of aldermen reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
(8) The board of aldermen approves the price and authorizes the sale.
Specifically excluded from this process is the sale of real property located within the redevelopment plan or a municipal development plan as designated by the board of aldermen. The board of aldermen shall determine the process of the sale of real property located within a redevelopment plan or a municipal redevelopment plan on a case by case basis taking into consideration any grant and statutory requirements.
(Ord. No. 782, 7-8-04; Ord. No. 832, 10-11-07; Ord. No. 839, 2-11-09)
Sec. 2-18. Procedure to sell city property.
(a) Definition. From time to time the city may be asked or may decide to sell real property owned by the city and hereby determines that a procedure shall be provided regarding the sale of said real property. Said procedure pertains only to property which the board of aldermen consider "significant". "Significant" shall be defined as the sale of real property which has a fair market value in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
(b) Initial determination by the board. If a request is received the board of aldermen asking the city to sell city-owned real property and the board of aldermen determines that the board has an interest in selling said property or if the board of aldermen decides to sell city-owned real property, the board shall follow the following procedure.
(c) Procedure.
(1) The board of aldermen shall request from the conservation commission and parks and recreation commission their opinion regarding said sale. The board of aldermen specifically wants said commission's opinion regarding the property's open space, conservation or recreational value to the city.
(2) The board of aldermen will consider the information provided by the conservation commission and parks and recreation commission and determine if the board wishes to proceed.
(3) If the board of aldermen determines to proceed, the board of aldermen will then seek an 8-24 referral from the planning and zoning commission.
a. If the 8-24 is favorable to sell, the board of aldermen may proceed with this process.
b. If the 8-24 is unfavorable, the board of aldermen must override the unfavorable by a two-thirds ( 2/3) vote in order to proceed.
(4) If the board of aldermen wishes to proceed with the sale process, they shall have the property appraised. Any appraisal received shall not be disclosed until after the sale has been completed.
(5) The board of aldermen shall hold a public hearing in accordance with P.A. 07-218, when applicable.
(6) If the board of aldermen wish to proceed with the sale process, the board of aldermen can then proceed to advertise that it is accepting bids with a cutoff date to receive sealed bids subject to any deed restrictions and/or conditions the board deems appropriate. Each bid must be accompanied with a check equal to ten (10) percent of the amount bid.
(7) The purchasing agent would publicly open the bids and refer them to the finance committee off the board of A&T who would determine the highest, responsible bidder. The board of aldermen reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
(8) The board of aldermen approves the price and authorizes the sale.
Specifically excluded from this process is the sale of real property located within the redevelopment plan or a municipal development plan as designated by the board of aldermen. The board of aldermen shall determine the process of the sale of real property located within a redevelopment plan or a municipal redevelopment plan on a case by case basis taking into consideration any grant and statutory requirements.
(Ord. No. 782, 7-8-04; Ord. No. 832, 10-11-07; Ord. No. 839, 2-11-09)
CT Post on 279 Soundview CC letter to BOA re:tenant farming
The CTPost will have an article in Wednesday's paper regarding the CC letter to the BOA in response to their request for comment on the City considering sale of 279 Soundview Ave property as our comments are required to be requested via City ordinance. I'm able to write my commentary on the article a day previous to it being in the paper as I have a google alerts service set for keyword "Shelton" and anything on the newswire with such come to me via email.
I encourage readers to go to the CTPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 06/30/2009 06:09:27 PM EDT
SHELTON - The proposal to sell a portion of city-owned open space on Soundview Avenue isn't going over well with two city commissions.
The Board of Aldermen asked both the Parks and Recreation and Conservation commissions if the city should sell the house and about an acre of property on the open space at 279 Soundview Avenue, and both said no.
+++ The City Ordinance requires the BOA to request the CC and the Park&Rec Commission to give commentary input for their decision as to disposal of City real property (land). CC looks at the environmental values, P&R looks at the recreational value/potential. I am unaware of the P&R opinion regarding the characters they evaluate.+++
Instead, the city should make the entire site part of a new state program that pairs up farm land with potential farmers, according to conservation officials.
"Shelton has taken great strides in recent years beyond almost all other towns in Connecticut in its efforts to preserve agricultural land," Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson said in a letter to aldermanic president John Anglace.
+++ The CC takes great pride in being as transparent as technologically possible for the public to participate in the government process. Any emails sent to a quorom of the CC appear on the internet in real -time (actually before they are sent onward to the commissioners themselves), and thus you can see the actual email where the letter was sent as a pdf file to the BOA on Jun16 in the afternoon. +++
The city has, for some of the larger pieces it owns, leased out the land to local farmers to hay, which has helped maintain the properties at no cost to the city but provides no assurance as to the maintenance of the land long-term, he said.
+++ While maintaining a field as a hay meadow has numerous benefits beyond agriculture (providing migratory bird habitat is just one), as stated in the letter to the BOA, "Basic hayng of property (as is done by license at the Klapik, Tall, and Wiacek farms) does not stop invasive shrubs such as Autumn Olive from advancing in to the field further each year from the edge, eventually taking over the entire field if not cut back with a brush hog at a significant expense". Note that the City does not "lease" parcels for a term, it issues a 1yr "license" to hay them.+++
"The reality is that the city does not have the resources on its own to actively protect and manage all the farmland under its stewardship," Harbinson said, "and current lease agreements with area farmers offers no incentive for those farmers to perform long-term maintenance on city property." That incentive could be gained through participation in the state FarmLink program, Harbinson suggested.
+++ To be clear, I thank the farmers who continue via yearly renewed license agreements to put the City's open space parcels to agricultural use via harvesting the grass as hay. They should be applauded for continuing their activities in an increasingly difficult environment of spreading suburbia development. However, the City should consider a lease of the lands currently licensed, and at length of term where the leasee (farmer) would then have surety that investment they make in the land (enriching the soil, maintaining fencing, etc) would have the potential of payback in a future year of crop yield or ease of harvest. +++
"This program is designed to marry prospective would-be farmers with available agricultural land to be farmed," he said. The farmer acts as a tenant and steward of the land, Harbinson said, in exchange for the right to farm there.
+++ The program via UConn has been operating since at least 2006. For example, there are currently shown new 2009 listings for 11 farms seeking tenants, and 20 farmers seeking farms. http://www.farmlink.uconn.edu/ +++
"We believe the Soundview Avenue property, with a ready house, arable land and upland area where a barn could be built, would be an ideal candidate for such an incentive program," Harbinson said. "As there is no budget crisis in Shelton necessitating selling off of its assets right away, there can be no harm to investigating this option and not rushing into the hasty sale of this valuable asset."
+++ The issue regarding agricultural use is in the short term a moot point as the BOA at it's 2009/Jun/11 meeting (p.14 of minutes) authorized a license to adjacent property owner and farmer Art Maybeck to farm the larger tillable portion of the parcel. The BOA is asking CC commentary for selling a carved out building lot with the existing farmhouse from the overall parcel addressed as 279 Soundview Avenue. Given the farmhouse in the core of the agricultural land, selling the house as a building lot would impact the ability to utilize the remaining farmland to it's full agricultural potential. +++
The commission will have the property evaluated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to determine its appropriateness for the program, Harbinson said.
Anglace said he would be interested in looking into the program but it shouldn't halt the process of investigating a possible sale.
+++ Chairman Anglace is correct. According to Ordinance #839, which was recently reviewed by the Board of Alderman and adopted on 2009/Feb/11, after receiving the Conservation Commission and Park & Recreation Commission opinion (both negative to sell in this case), the BOA is to determine if they want to proceed, and if they do, THEN the BOA (NOTE: NOT the Mayor) is required to request an 8-24 referral from the PZC on the sale of the property. The Mayor requested and 8-24 referral in advance of this 4-sale process, not the BOA, and certainly not after receiving opinions from the PRC and CC. This step has not yet been processed by the BOA. It may be semantics in some people's eyes, but the BOA should not rely on an 8-24 referral made by the request of the Mayor in order to accelerate or by-pass the proper process. +++
"Let them proceed with [the evaluation]," Anglace said. "But I don't think we should stop the sale process for them to do that." The city needs to find out how much a sale could bring in to the city, he said.
+++ If the PZC 8-24 referral is positive the BOA may proceed further. If it is not favorable, the BOA must override the 8-24 referral with a 2/3 vote to proceed further. Then the BOA must have the property appraised, and as professional services that is likely to not require going out to bid to choose the vendor. At that point the BOA would know the appraised value, but as they only purchased the property less than a year ago, that is pretty easy to estimate regardless of the process. However that does not mean the same as "how much a sale could bring" as that is the market conditions of competitive bidding. To get to that step, their must be a public hearing, then the BOA decide whether to proceed and if so, must advertise to accept bids, which are received by the purchasing agent, opened publicly, referred to the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, who would determine the highest responsible bidder. The BOA reserves the right to reject any and all bids. The BOA approves the price and authorizes the sale. You can find all of this on the municode website that maintains the City's charter and Ordinances. It is Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-18. +++
He also questioned what financial benefits the city would see from the FarmLink program. "They can't expect us to get them the property to use - that's crazy, it doesn't make sense," Anglace said. "Someone is going to have to pay the city or else the taxpayers are subsidizing them."
+++ As with a license agreement (currently a few dollars per year for haying City Open Space parcels), a lease agreement with have a renumeration component, along with other terms demanded or negotiated by the City's fiscal authority - the BOA. +++
The aldermen will discuss at its July 9 meeting whether to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission for its opinion on a potential sale, which is the next step in the process, Anglace said.
+++ I have great confidence in the City's process on the "Procedure to sell City property" +++
I encourage readers to go to the CTPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 06/30/2009 06:09:27 PM EDT
SHELTON - The proposal to sell a portion of city-owned open space on Soundview Avenue isn't going over well with two city commissions.
The Board of Aldermen asked both the Parks and Recreation and Conservation commissions if the city should sell the house and about an acre of property on the open space at 279 Soundview Avenue, and both said no.
+++ The City Ordinance requires the BOA to request the CC and the Park&Rec Commission to give commentary input for their decision as to disposal of City real property (land). CC looks at the environmental values, P&R looks at the recreational value/potential. I am unaware of the P&R opinion regarding the characters they evaluate.+++
Instead, the city should make the entire site part of a new state program that pairs up farm land with potential farmers, according to conservation officials.
"Shelton has taken great strides in recent years beyond almost all other towns in Connecticut in its efforts to preserve agricultural land," Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson said in a letter to aldermanic president John Anglace.
+++ The CC takes great pride in being as transparent as technologically possible for the public to participate in the government process. Any emails sent to a quorom of the CC appear on the internet in real -time (actually before they are sent onward to the commissioners themselves), and thus you can see the actual email where the letter was sent as a pdf file to the BOA on Jun16 in the afternoon. +++
The city has, for some of the larger pieces it owns, leased out the land to local farmers to hay, which has helped maintain the properties at no cost to the city but provides no assurance as to the maintenance of the land long-term, he said.
+++ While maintaining a field as a hay meadow has numerous benefits beyond agriculture (providing migratory bird habitat is just one), as stated in the letter to the BOA, "Basic hayng of property (as is done by license at the Klapik, Tall, and Wiacek farms) does not stop invasive shrubs such as Autumn Olive from advancing in to the field further each year from the edge, eventually taking over the entire field if not cut back with a brush hog at a significant expense". Note that the City does not "lease" parcels for a term, it issues a 1yr "license" to hay them.+++
"The reality is that the city does not have the resources on its own to actively protect and manage all the farmland under its stewardship," Harbinson said, "and current lease agreements with area farmers offers no incentive for those farmers to perform long-term maintenance on city property." That incentive could be gained through participation in the state FarmLink program, Harbinson suggested.
+++ To be clear, I thank the farmers who continue via yearly renewed license agreements to put the City's open space parcels to agricultural use via harvesting the grass as hay. They should be applauded for continuing their activities in an increasingly difficult environment of spreading suburbia development. However, the City should consider a lease of the lands currently licensed, and at length of term where the leasee (farmer) would then have surety that investment they make in the land (enriching the soil, maintaining fencing, etc) would have the potential of payback in a future year of crop yield or ease of harvest. +++
"This program is designed to marry prospective would-be farmers with available agricultural land to be farmed," he said. The farmer acts as a tenant and steward of the land, Harbinson said, in exchange for the right to farm there.
+++ The program via UConn has been operating since at least 2006. For example, there are currently shown new 2009 listings for 11 farms seeking tenants, and 20 farmers seeking farms. http://www.farmlink.uconn.edu/ +++
"We believe the Soundview Avenue property, with a ready house, arable land and upland area where a barn could be built, would be an ideal candidate for such an incentive program," Harbinson said. "As there is no budget crisis in Shelton necessitating selling off of its assets right away, there can be no harm to investigating this option and not rushing into the hasty sale of this valuable asset."
+++ The issue regarding agricultural use is in the short term a moot point as the BOA at it's 2009/Jun/11 meeting (p.14 of minutes) authorized a license to adjacent property owner and farmer Art Maybeck to farm the larger tillable portion of the parcel. The BOA is asking CC commentary for selling a carved out building lot with the existing farmhouse from the overall parcel addressed as 279 Soundview Avenue. Given the farmhouse in the core of the agricultural land, selling the house as a building lot would impact the ability to utilize the remaining farmland to it's full agricultural potential. +++
The commission will have the property evaluated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to determine its appropriateness for the program, Harbinson said.
Anglace said he would be interested in looking into the program but it shouldn't halt the process of investigating a possible sale.
+++ Chairman Anglace is correct. According to Ordinance #839, which was recently reviewed by the Board of Alderman and adopted on 2009/Feb/11, after receiving the Conservation Commission and Park & Recreation Commission opinion (both negative to sell in this case), the BOA is to determine if they want to proceed, and if they do, THEN the BOA (NOTE: NOT the Mayor) is required to request an 8-24 referral from the PZC on the sale of the property. The Mayor requested and 8-24 referral in advance of this 4-sale process, not the BOA, and certainly not after receiving opinions from the PRC and CC. This step has not yet been processed by the BOA. It may be semantics in some people's eyes, but the BOA should not rely on an 8-24 referral made by the request of the Mayor in order to accelerate or by-pass the proper process. +++
"Let them proceed with [the evaluation]," Anglace said. "But I don't think we should stop the sale process for them to do that." The city needs to find out how much a sale could bring in to the city, he said.
+++ If the PZC 8-24 referral is positive the BOA may proceed further. If it is not favorable, the BOA must override the 8-24 referral with a 2/3 vote to proceed further. Then the BOA must have the property appraised, and as professional services that is likely to not require going out to bid to choose the vendor. At that point the BOA would know the appraised value, but as they only purchased the property less than a year ago, that is pretty easy to estimate regardless of the process. However that does not mean the same as "how much a sale could bring" as that is the market conditions of competitive bidding. To get to that step, their must be a public hearing, then the BOA decide whether to proceed and if so, must advertise to accept bids, which are received by the purchasing agent, opened publicly, referred to the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, who would determine the highest responsible bidder. The BOA reserves the right to reject any and all bids. The BOA approves the price and authorizes the sale. You can find all of this on the municode website that maintains the City's charter and Ordinances. It is Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-18. +++
He also questioned what financial benefits the city would see from the FarmLink program. "They can't expect us to get them the property to use - that's crazy, it doesn't make sense," Anglace said. "Someone is going to have to pay the city or else the taxpayers are subsidizing them."
+++ As with a license agreement (currently a few dollars per year for haying City Open Space parcels), a lease agreement with have a renumeration component, along with other terms demanded or negotiated by the City's fiscal authority - the BOA. +++
The aldermen will discuss at its July 9 meeting whether to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission for its opinion on a potential sale, which is the next step in the process, Anglace said.
+++ I have great confidence in the City's process on the "Procedure to sell City property" +++
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
HuntHrld on selling 279 Soundview Open Space
The Huntington Herald had an article recently posted online from last weeks paper edition.
You can read my previous blog entries on this sale of property subject here, here, and here, or simply search this blog with the query item of "279" as I will always reference the address and that is unique enough to stand out amongst all the data.
I encourage readers to go to the HuntHrld article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28028:proposed-city-land-sales-touch-off-debate-and-disagreement&catid=170:local-news&Itemid=1594
Proposed city land sales touch off debate and disagreement
Written by Fred Musante
Monday, May 18, 2009
Weighing the pros and cons of selling a piece of open space property the city recently purchased, members of the Conservation Commission decided yes and no. Unfortunately, their 3-3 tie vote last week had the effect of canceling out the commission’s influence rather than extending it in multiple directions.
+++ This is the first time in my 10yr history of serving on the CC that we have had a split vote +++
But lopping a lot off the 13.7-acre tract of field and woods known as 279 Soundview Avenue, the address of the house and garage that would go with the lot, is only one of five potential property sales city officials are pondering.
+++ The City Ordinance requires the BOA to request the CC and the Park&Rec Commission to give commentary input for their decision as to disposal of City real property (land). CC looks at the environmental values, P&R looks at the recreational value/potential. +++
As with the Soundview Avenue tract, some city officials also disagree about selling two of the other properties — a house and land at 58 Perry Hill Road next to Perry Hill School, presently under renovation, and a quaint old brick structure at 470 Howe Ave. that longtime Shelton residents remember was once the city’s police station.
+++ While there is disagreement regarding selling the Howe Ave property among OTHER agencies in City of Shelton that seek to utilize it, there is no environmental value to the downtown urban property which is mostly structure. The property on Perry Hill Road does have some conservation value and rather than regurgitate our thoughts, you can review our CC minutes from May6 and scroll down to p.14 +++
The other two proposed sales are less controversial. They involve road abandonments — part of Access Road near the corner of Nells Rock Road, and a paper street portion of Middle Avenue that was never constructed — and the transfer or sale to the abutting property owners.
The Soundview Avenue sale had drawn the most heat, more because of the lack of information than for what is known about it.
Open space advocates were disappointed in 2006 when the DaSilva brothers bought the tract of farmland and woods that had long been listed on the city’s Open Space Plan as property Shelton should acquire for recreation and land preservation.
But soon after the DaSilvas bought the property for $1.4 million, they sold it to the city for $2.1 million and a $200,000 tax write-off, roughly a 50% profit at taxpayers’ expense after a few months of ownership.
+++ Rather than repeat my comments on activities regarding the City's purchase of the parcel, please read this blog post from 2008/Mar/4 on the subject. +++
The city made its third $700,000 payment in January and became the legal owner. But in February, Mayor Mark Lauretti asked the Planning & Zoning Commission to give its opinion, known as an 8-24 review, whether part of the property should be sold by the city.
+++ The Mayor can ask for an opinion from any department at any time, however an 8-24 referral references Ct Gen Statutes Sec 8-24 regarding either a planning commission requesting a fiscal authority review of a plan or document (such at the P&Z asking BOA to review the City's Master Plan of Conservation & Development). It can also be used by a fiscal authority asking the planning commission to reveiw a land-use issue (such as the City selling a parcel of land - as should be the case for this subject). The BOA did not (and as of this writing has not yet) requested an 8-24 referral as a body. Likely, since the opinion would be the same, the BOA will accept the opinion already issued at the request of the Mayor. +++
Lauretti refuses to say if he has a buyer in mind, which has only increased speculation that the DaSilvas are buying it back in yet another sweetheart deal. “Buy high, sell low,” said one Conservation Commission member.
+++ Regardless of who the buyer may become, the City has a process whereby it has to offer the property to the highest qualified bidder. The end result may or may not be what the reporter assumes. The property was purchased by the City during a high point in the real-estate market, and currently we are experiencing a low valued real-estate market due to the devastating economic conditions. The comment of buy-high, sell-low applies to the current market condition not any specific seller/buyer. +++
The P&Z voted 4-2 in February to recommend favorably, but the vote was along party lines, with Democrats Leon Sylvester and Chris Jones opposing it. Jones, who has since announced he is running for mayor, observed that the FBI is conducting a corruption investigation in Shelton and said the city shouldn’t sell any property until the investigation is concluded.
+++ The PZC vote was in response to the Mayor's request, not the BOA. The fact that there is an investigation of a private developer in town should not halt City business conducted in an open and transparent manner. +++
None of the Conservation Commission members favored the sale, but three of them were willing to vote for it if the city attached easements preserving old stone walls and agricultural rights. The other three commission members opposed it in principle.
“I reluctantly say sell it,” said Ed McCreery, suggesting the money could be used to buy more open space.
But Chairman Tom Harbinson said the money would more likely be used to pay off debt, not to increase open space. He was opposed to selling any open space once the city owned it. “I have a problem with buying a piece of property and three years later selling it,” he said.
+++ To the Mayor and BOA's credit, they have supported significant Open Space acquisitions over the years, some of which required borrowing. One adjacent purchase was accomplished via eminent domain proceedings, to which the court recently adjusted the valuation, causing the City to provide additional moneys. There is no guarantee that funds from sale of 279 Soundview will go toward purchasing other lands. It is a high likelihood that they will instead pay off the debt incurred on previous Open Space purchases. +++
After the vote failed, some of the commissioners worried that all it meant was that their opinions would not be considered, so Harbinson said he would draft a letter to the aldermen saying they felt the matter important enough to reconsider it next month.
+++ I additionally called the President of the BOA and spoke to him personally about our dilliberation on the subject and requirement to have more time to review the proposal +++
The Conservation Commission voted against selling the property at 58 Perry Hill Road. The members unanimously felt the parcel allows the city to add another entrance to the Perry Hill School parking lot, and some day the city would regret selling it.
As for 470 Howe Ave., the Conservation Commission tabled it after noting the Fire Department would like to take it over as a training and equipment storage facility.
+++ That is incorrect. Please read our minutes on p.14 +++
The Conservation Commission voted to recommend the Access Road and Middle Avenue sales.
You can read my previous blog entries on this sale of property subject here, here, and here, or simply search this blog with the query item of "279" as I will always reference the address and that is unique enough to stand out amongst all the data.
I encourage readers to go to the HuntHrld article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28028:proposed-city-land-sales-touch-off-debate-and-disagreement&catid=170:local-news&Itemid=1594
Proposed city land sales touch off debate and disagreement
Written by Fred Musante
Monday, May 18, 2009
Weighing the pros and cons of selling a piece of open space property the city recently purchased, members of the Conservation Commission decided yes and no. Unfortunately, their 3-3 tie vote last week had the effect of canceling out the commission’s influence rather than extending it in multiple directions.
+++ This is the first time in my 10yr history of serving on the CC that we have had a split vote +++
But lopping a lot off the 13.7-acre tract of field and woods known as 279 Soundview Avenue, the address of the house and garage that would go with the lot, is only one of five potential property sales city officials are pondering.
+++ The City Ordinance requires the BOA to request the CC and the Park&Rec Commission to give commentary input for their decision as to disposal of City real property (land). CC looks at the environmental values, P&R looks at the recreational value/potential. +++
As with the Soundview Avenue tract, some city officials also disagree about selling two of the other properties — a house and land at 58 Perry Hill Road next to Perry Hill School, presently under renovation, and a quaint old brick structure at 470 Howe Ave. that longtime Shelton residents remember was once the city’s police station.
+++ While there is disagreement regarding selling the Howe Ave property among OTHER agencies in City of Shelton that seek to utilize it, there is no environmental value to the downtown urban property which is mostly structure. The property on Perry Hill Road does have some conservation value and rather than regurgitate our thoughts, you can review our CC minutes from May6 and scroll down to p.14 +++
The other two proposed sales are less controversial. They involve road abandonments — part of Access Road near the corner of Nells Rock Road, and a paper street portion of Middle Avenue that was never constructed — and the transfer or sale to the abutting property owners.
The Soundview Avenue sale had drawn the most heat, more because of the lack of information than for what is known about it.
Open space advocates were disappointed in 2006 when the DaSilva brothers bought the tract of farmland and woods that had long been listed on the city’s Open Space Plan as property Shelton should acquire for recreation and land preservation.
But soon after the DaSilvas bought the property for $1.4 million, they sold it to the city for $2.1 million and a $200,000 tax write-off, roughly a 50% profit at taxpayers’ expense after a few months of ownership.
+++ Rather than repeat my comments on activities regarding the City's purchase of the parcel, please read this blog post from 2008/Mar/4 on the subject. +++
The city made its third $700,000 payment in January and became the legal owner. But in February, Mayor Mark Lauretti asked the Planning & Zoning Commission to give its opinion, known as an 8-24 review, whether part of the property should be sold by the city.
+++ The Mayor can ask for an opinion from any department at any time, however an 8-24 referral references Ct Gen Statutes Sec 8-24 regarding either a planning commission requesting a fiscal authority review of a plan or document (such at the P&Z asking BOA to review the City's Master Plan of Conservation & Development). It can also be used by a fiscal authority asking the planning commission to reveiw a land-use issue (such as the City selling a parcel of land - as should be the case for this subject). The BOA did not (and as of this writing has not yet) requested an 8-24 referral as a body. Likely, since the opinion would be the same, the BOA will accept the opinion already issued at the request of the Mayor. +++
Lauretti refuses to say if he has a buyer in mind, which has only increased speculation that the DaSilvas are buying it back in yet another sweetheart deal. “Buy high, sell low,” said one Conservation Commission member.
+++ Regardless of who the buyer may become, the City has a process whereby it has to offer the property to the highest qualified bidder. The end result may or may not be what the reporter assumes. The property was purchased by the City during a high point in the real-estate market, and currently we are experiencing a low valued real-estate market due to the devastating economic conditions. The comment of buy-high, sell-low applies to the current market condition not any specific seller/buyer. +++
The P&Z voted 4-2 in February to recommend favorably, but the vote was along party lines, with Democrats Leon Sylvester and Chris Jones opposing it. Jones, who has since announced he is running for mayor, observed that the FBI is conducting a corruption investigation in Shelton and said the city shouldn’t sell any property until the investigation is concluded.
+++ The PZC vote was in response to the Mayor's request, not the BOA. The fact that there is an investigation of a private developer in town should not halt City business conducted in an open and transparent manner. +++
None of the Conservation Commission members favored the sale, but three of them were willing to vote for it if the city attached easements preserving old stone walls and agricultural rights. The other three commission members opposed it in principle.
“I reluctantly say sell it,” said Ed McCreery, suggesting the money could be used to buy more open space.
But Chairman Tom Harbinson said the money would more likely be used to pay off debt, not to increase open space. He was opposed to selling any open space once the city owned it. “I have a problem with buying a piece of property and three years later selling it,” he said.
+++ To the Mayor and BOA's credit, they have supported significant Open Space acquisitions over the years, some of which required borrowing. One adjacent purchase was accomplished via eminent domain proceedings, to which the court recently adjusted the valuation, causing the City to provide additional moneys. There is no guarantee that funds from sale of 279 Soundview will go toward purchasing other lands. It is a high likelihood that they will instead pay off the debt incurred on previous Open Space purchases. +++
After the vote failed, some of the commissioners worried that all it meant was that their opinions would not be considered, so Harbinson said he would draft a letter to the aldermen saying they felt the matter important enough to reconsider it next month.
+++ I additionally called the President of the BOA and spoke to him personally about our dilliberation on the subject and requirement to have more time to review the proposal +++
The Conservation Commission voted against selling the property at 58 Perry Hill Road. The members unanimously felt the parcel allows the city to add another entrance to the Perry Hill School parking lot, and some day the city would regret selling it.
As for 470 Howe Ave., the Conservation Commission tabled it after noting the Fire Department would like to take it over as a training and equipment storage facility.
+++ That is incorrect. Please read our minutes on p.14 +++
The Conservation Commission voted to recommend the Access Road and Middle Avenue sales.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Budget 2009/2010
The BOA had a public hearing on the budget at which I offered prepared comments, repeated below:
Greetings Alderman,
I want to first thank the BOA for the financial support they have given Conservation efforts over the years. You have been there when we needed prompt approvals for modest expenditures related to grant applications. You have given positive 8-24 referrals when review was requested of our Open Space Plan document. You have prepared process of bonding, commenced with negotiation to acquire, and authorized referendum questions that all furthered preservation of open space. However, one can never rest on past achievements – there is more work to be done. It is why I am here at the public hearing on the budget tonight.
I was dismayed by comments made at the BOA meeting of Apr16 that seem to indicate the CC is in favor of not-directly following the Open Space Ordinance. This is not accurate.
The OSTA is sourced from: 1) fees paid in the course of subdivision application, in lieu of land set-aside in accord with subdivision regulations, 2) budget amounts as outlined in the Open Space Ordinance.
As we are all aware, subdivision applications and the land’s appraised value upon which any FILO payment is calculated have both dropped significantly. This funding component is not meant to, and cannot on its own contribute adequately for the OSTA’s intent – the financial preparation for purchase of lands.
Due to sloppy bookkeeping from the Finance Dept and poor administration from the Planning & Zoning Dept, CC has discovered that there has been FILO payment due from subdivision, which was not paid by the developer. The CC is charged with reporting to the BOA annually on the OSTA status and use. CC has requested reports from the Finance Dept, but to date nothing has been received for many months and CC cannot make a formal report.
The last significant expenditure which the OSTA allowed us preparation for was for the purchase of property on Buddington Road from UI, over the objections of a developer who wanted use of the property for development. ($108,001 for 10.86 acres closed on 2007/Jan/16).
The last time a budgeted amount ($250k) was appropriated into the OSTA was also in 2007.
Expenditures since then for items such as 279 Soundview Avenue partial purchase payments, and court ordered supplement payments to achieve court approved value for the Wiacek Farm on Meadow Street, were simply washes of money into the OSTA and out to the sellers, functioning to launder the activity as meeting the “intent” of the ordinance.
The purchase of property at 279 Soundview Avenue has laid witness to the public sector’s lack of prompt ability to act financially compared to the private sector when no ready sources have the backstop of a fund balance – we pay dearly for the outcome we all sought in the first place. Preservation and Conservation of certain lands.
At a BOA meeting on 2006/Sep/14 I stated “the importance of having an OSTA for when we apply for grants is to illustrate that there is an ongoing commitment from the community and you as the fiscal authority pledge toward open space an annual amount that can grow and be utilized from an account. Things like a referendum – that’s the public furthering their comments that that is the right direction to head. Having an OSTA is important for us when we apply for grants, and as you know we have been pretty successful with that.” Since then we have not been awarded any “grants” toward land acquisition.
Let me be clear: The CC, Mayor and BOA have been very successful in conserving the quality of life in our community via purchase of land to be retained as public open space, and the purchase of development rights on agricultural lands to preserve the heritage and character of our community. These have however been somewhat like easy pickings of low hanging fruit. Property owners who approached the City to preserve the land rather than seek out development of their property, substantial grants from the DEP, USDA, and even gifting of land or monetary gifts both result in the sales prices reduced below market value – all effecting reduction in the City’s share of the cost.
Let me offer another quote from the same 2006/Sep/14 meeting mentioned earlier. “I have no problem with the ordinance starting in 2007-08, in fact the motion that I had offered is a resolution that would just keep everything in place. And knowing that we’re going to spend every bit of $200,000 this year, and that we would just make the appropriation next year. What’s the issue? What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.” Mayor Lauretti (p.48).
Flip the diary forward 2 ½ years to the present budget and funding the OSTA. What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.
I ask that you think strongly and independently regarding the funding of the OSTA as part of your budget process, and consider making it in accord with the City Ordinance that 6 of the 8 current Alderman approved 2006/Sep/14.
Greetings Alderman,
I want to first thank the BOA for the financial support they have given Conservation efforts over the years. You have been there when we needed prompt approvals for modest expenditures related to grant applications. You have given positive 8-24 referrals when review was requested of our Open Space Plan document. You have prepared process of bonding, commenced with negotiation to acquire, and authorized referendum questions that all furthered preservation of open space. However, one can never rest on past achievements – there is more work to be done. It is why I am here at the public hearing on the budget tonight.
I was dismayed by comments made at the BOA meeting of Apr16 that seem to indicate the CC is in favor of not-directly following the Open Space Ordinance. This is not accurate.
The OSTA is sourced from: 1) fees paid in the course of subdivision application, in lieu of land set-aside in accord with subdivision regulations, 2) budget amounts as outlined in the Open Space Ordinance.
As we are all aware, subdivision applications and the land’s appraised value upon which any FILO payment is calculated have both dropped significantly. This funding component is not meant to, and cannot on its own contribute adequately for the OSTA’s intent – the financial preparation for purchase of lands.
Due to sloppy bookkeeping from the Finance Dept and poor administration from the Planning & Zoning Dept, CC has discovered that there has been FILO payment due from subdivision, which was not paid by the developer. The CC is charged with reporting to the BOA annually on the OSTA status and use. CC has requested reports from the Finance Dept, but to date nothing has been received for many months and CC cannot make a formal report.
The last significant expenditure which the OSTA allowed us preparation for was for the purchase of property on Buddington Road from UI, over the objections of a developer who wanted use of the property for development. ($108,001 for 10.86 acres closed on 2007/Jan/16).
The last time a budgeted amount ($250k) was appropriated into the OSTA was also in 2007.
Expenditures since then for items such as 279 Soundview Avenue partial purchase payments, and court ordered supplement payments to achieve court approved value for the Wiacek Farm on Meadow Street, were simply washes of money into the OSTA and out to the sellers, functioning to launder the activity as meeting the “intent” of the ordinance.
The purchase of property at 279 Soundview Avenue has laid witness to the public sector’s lack of prompt ability to act financially compared to the private sector when no ready sources have the backstop of a fund balance – we pay dearly for the outcome we all sought in the first place. Preservation and Conservation of certain lands.
At a BOA meeting on 2006/Sep/14 I stated “the importance of having an OSTA for when we apply for grants is to illustrate that there is an ongoing commitment from the community and you as the fiscal authority pledge toward open space an annual amount that can grow and be utilized from an account. Things like a referendum – that’s the public furthering their comments that that is the right direction to head. Having an OSTA is important for us when we apply for grants, and as you know we have been pretty successful with that.” Since then we have not been awarded any “grants” toward land acquisition.
Let me be clear: The CC, Mayor and BOA have been very successful in conserving the quality of life in our community via purchase of land to be retained as public open space, and the purchase of development rights on agricultural lands to preserve the heritage and character of our community. These have however been somewhat like easy pickings of low hanging fruit. Property owners who approached the City to preserve the land rather than seek out development of their property, substantial grants from the DEP, USDA, and even gifting of land or monetary gifts both result in the sales prices reduced below market value – all effecting reduction in the City’s share of the cost.
Let me offer another quote from the same 2006/Sep/14 meeting mentioned earlier. “I have no problem with the ordinance starting in 2007-08, in fact the motion that I had offered is a resolution that would just keep everything in place. And knowing that we’re going to spend every bit of $200,000 this year, and that we would just make the appropriation next year. What’s the issue? What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.” Mayor Lauretti (p.48).
Flip the diary forward 2 ½ years to the present budget and funding the OSTA. What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.
I ask that you think strongly and independently regarding the funding of the OSTA as part of your budget process, and consider making it in accord with the City Ordinance that 6 of the 8 current Alderman approved 2006/Sep/14.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
279 Soundview Ave, CtPost article Apr10
Ct Post had an article today regarding The City starting the process to sell several City owned parcels.
You can read my previous blog entries on this subject from here and here, or simply search this blog with the query item of "279" as I will always reference the address and that is unique enough to stand out amongst all the data.
I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_12117230
Shelton considers selling city-owned property
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 04/10/2009 10:36:15 PM EDT
SHELTON -- The Board of Aldermen Thursday approved starting the process to sell several city-owned pieces of property.
+++ Read my previous blog entries on previous articles over past month where the approved process was not followed. A mistake voided and now corrected. +++
"We are not agreeing to sell but examining the possibility of a sale by proceeding with the procedure to sell city-owned property," explained board president John Anglace.
+++ It has no relationship to my evaluation of the proposal, but it should be stated to the public what the proposal is, who made the proposal, and why they proposed it. +++
The properties considered for sale include a portion of 279 Soundview Ave., a piece that stirred controversy when the city passed on it when it was first put up for sale.
+++ That characterization of the City is not accurate. Please read my blog entry of 2008Mar when the City finally did purchase the property. +++
Developer Al DaSilva bought it and then sold it to the city for a million dollars more than he paid. Now the city is considering selling a small portion of the site that includes a house.
+++ The property was not purchased in raw land form by Al Dasilva as an individual, it was purchased by a Limited Liability Corporation entity in which Al Dasilva was a member. Subdivision applications were pursued at IWC, PZC, etc that upon approval created a subdivision with unimproved building lot valuation. It was at this point that the City purchased the acreage. +++
That didn't sit well with one alderman. "What we have in front of us is a for sale sign saying that Shelton is for sale," Alderman Jack Finn said.
"I think it is prudent to put it out and see what it can bring in," Anglace said. "We can use the money to pay off what we owe on the property, and if we hold on to it we become landlords again."
+++ If the City didn't want to be a landlord, they had opportunity to purchase the building lots acreage from the approved subdivision, minus the building lot which included the house. If the building lot with house was desirable for City ownership 12months ago, what has changed since then? +++
The city has been a landlord to a house at 58 Perry Hill Road, located next to the former Shelton Intermediate School that is now being renovated into the fifth- and sixth-grade Perry Hill School. That property too was on the aldermen's agenda for possible sale. Finn said he also objected to that possible sale because of its proximity to the school. "The land might be needed for expansion," he said.
+++ That parcel had a house and excess acreage yielding potential use for the school and was thus purchased. A significant portion of the acreage is now being used for the current construction project of the Upper Elementary School, mostly for stockpiling earth materials. +++
Planning and Zoning Commission member Chris Jones urged the aldermen to hold off on selling any property. "I feel strongly that there should be no selling of city-owned property until the federal corruption investigation is complete," he said, referring to the FBI probe into possible corruption involving city officials and local developers.
+++ I disagree with this comment. If anything, now is a time where people will make well thought through decisions given the assumption that every move and comment is being viewed by other authorities +++
Fellow zoning member Leon J. Sylvester also said he would oppose the sales, especially the Perry Hill Road site because of its proximity to downtown. "Why would we sell any land that is contiguous to other city-owned property?" Sylvester said. "It is not a good decision to sell either of these properties, especially in the real estate market at this time.
+++ The downtown area is more urban in texture, and better suited for pocket parks rather than contiguous parcels. In this case, proximity to the school campus would make it seem unwise to dispose of until fully evaluated post-construction of the Upper Elementary School. +++
The downtown area is already too dense, having been carved into small lots, Sylvester said. There's no room to breath," he said. "There are very few yards left because developers have come in and carved up every spot left. "All of the so-called do-gooders are so concerned [about open space], but when it comes to downtown they turn their head away from it," he said. "Those who represent downtown need to be more aware of the fact that we need more room and shouldn't be selling off these parcels."
+++ The downtown area is a result of it's early development and build-out occurring at the turn of the century. Significant turn-around in providing open space downtown occured with the preservation of the open area near the Farmers Market. It should be noted that the first City park is downtown (Riverview Park) and has trails, active recreation facilities such as basketball, and baseball fields, a recently improved childrens playground area, and significant plans for recreation expansion via the Riverwalk. Also, not owned by the City as a municipal park area, but available to the general public (not just residents) for passive recreation enjoyment due to McCallum Enterprises' license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is the area of the canal and canal locks along the Housatonic River. When it comes to downtown open space issues - I can say verifiably that the Conservation Commission doesn't "turn it's head away from it." +++
The aldermen held off on two sites -- the former Naugatuck Valley Health District building on Howe Avenue, which has attracted the interest of the city's Fire Department, and the access road in front of the former Crabtree auto dealership where developer Monty Blakeman wants to build a shopping center.
You can read my previous blog entries on this subject from here and here, or simply search this blog with the query item of "279" as I will always reference the address and that is unique enough to stand out amongst all the data.
I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_12117230
Shelton considers selling city-owned property
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 04/10/2009 10:36:15 PM EDT
SHELTON -- The Board of Aldermen Thursday approved starting the process to sell several city-owned pieces of property.
+++ Read my previous blog entries on previous articles over past month where the approved process was not followed. A mistake voided and now corrected. +++
"We are not agreeing to sell but examining the possibility of a sale by proceeding with the procedure to sell city-owned property," explained board president John Anglace.
+++ It has no relationship to my evaluation of the proposal, but it should be stated to the public what the proposal is, who made the proposal, and why they proposed it. +++
The properties considered for sale include a portion of 279 Soundview Ave., a piece that stirred controversy when the city passed on it when it was first put up for sale.
+++ That characterization of the City is not accurate. Please read my blog entry of 2008Mar when the City finally did purchase the property. +++
Developer Al DaSilva bought it and then sold it to the city for a million dollars more than he paid. Now the city is considering selling a small portion of the site that includes a house.
+++ The property was not purchased in raw land form by Al Dasilva as an individual, it was purchased by a Limited Liability Corporation entity in which Al Dasilva was a member. Subdivision applications were pursued at IWC, PZC, etc that upon approval created a subdivision with unimproved building lot valuation. It was at this point that the City purchased the acreage. +++
That didn't sit well with one alderman. "What we have in front of us is a for sale sign saying that Shelton is for sale," Alderman Jack Finn said.
"I think it is prudent to put it out and see what it can bring in," Anglace said. "We can use the money to pay off what we owe on the property, and if we hold on to it we become landlords again."
+++ If the City didn't want to be a landlord, they had opportunity to purchase the building lots acreage from the approved subdivision, minus the building lot which included the house. If the building lot with house was desirable for City ownership 12months ago, what has changed since then? +++
The city has been a landlord to a house at 58 Perry Hill Road, located next to the former Shelton Intermediate School that is now being renovated into the fifth- and sixth-grade Perry Hill School. That property too was on the aldermen's agenda for possible sale. Finn said he also objected to that possible sale because of its proximity to the school. "The land might be needed for expansion," he said.
+++ That parcel had a house and excess acreage yielding potential use for the school and was thus purchased. A significant portion of the acreage is now being used for the current construction project of the Upper Elementary School, mostly for stockpiling earth materials. +++
Planning and Zoning Commission member Chris Jones urged the aldermen to hold off on selling any property. "I feel strongly that there should be no selling of city-owned property until the federal corruption investigation is complete," he said, referring to the FBI probe into possible corruption involving city officials and local developers.
+++ I disagree with this comment. If anything, now is a time where people will make well thought through decisions given the assumption that every move and comment is being viewed by other authorities +++
Fellow zoning member Leon J. Sylvester also said he would oppose the sales, especially the Perry Hill Road site because of its proximity to downtown. "Why would we sell any land that is contiguous to other city-owned property?" Sylvester said. "It is not a good decision to sell either of these properties, especially in the real estate market at this time.
+++ The downtown area is more urban in texture, and better suited for pocket parks rather than contiguous parcels. In this case, proximity to the school campus would make it seem unwise to dispose of until fully evaluated post-construction of the Upper Elementary School. +++
The downtown area is already too dense, having been carved into small lots, Sylvester said. There's no room to breath," he said. "There are very few yards left because developers have come in and carved up every spot left. "All of the so-called do-gooders are so concerned [about open space], but when it comes to downtown they turn their head away from it," he said. "Those who represent downtown need to be more aware of the fact that we need more room and shouldn't be selling off these parcels."
+++ The downtown area is a result of it's early development and build-out occurring at the turn of the century. Significant turn-around in providing open space downtown occured with the preservation of the open area near the Farmers Market. It should be noted that the first City park is downtown (Riverview Park) and has trails, active recreation facilities such as basketball, and baseball fields, a recently improved childrens playground area, and significant plans for recreation expansion via the Riverwalk. Also, not owned by the City as a municipal park area, but available to the general public (not just residents) for passive recreation enjoyment due to McCallum Enterprises' license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is the area of the canal and canal locks along the Housatonic River. When it comes to downtown open space issues - I can say verifiably that the Conservation Commission doesn't "turn it's head away from it." +++
The aldermen held off on two sites -- the former Naugatuck Valley Health District building on Howe Avenue, which has attracted the interest of the city's Fire Department, and the access road in front of the former Crabtree auto dealership where developer Monty Blakeman wants to build a shopping center.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
CtPost: Fence removal gives access to Derby Dam
An article appeared today regarding the FERC order to remove fence that McCallum Enterprises had installed which barred public from the recreational area and portage capability that is outlined and required as part of the license to take power away from the public resource of the Housatonic River.
The article covers areas I've already discussed (search this blog for FERC as a query item). The article does mention a separate subject matter (zoning) which involves an active court case, and I have stated that I will not be discussing legal items until they are resolved via the court process.
Fence removal gives access to Derby Dam
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
SHELTON -- The fence the owners of the Shelton Canal Company put up to keep residents out of the company's property has been taken down after a federal agency ordered it removed.
The public is once again able to fish at the Derby Dam, which has been closed off since late last summer when McCallum Enterprises put up the chain link fence.
Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said the cease and desist order the Planning and Zoning Commission issued to take down the fence has been lifted, but it wasn't that order that prompted McCallum to act -- it was the order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which also ordered the fence taken down. "They took the fence down so I lifted the cease and desist order because they complied with FERC," Schultz said.
McCallum managing partner Joseph Szarmach long maintained that his company was not bound by the conditions the commission set forth in its 1986 approval of the dam but only answerable to FERC.
That angered Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who was chairman of the zoning commission at the time and was instrumental in assuring that a portion of the riverfront site would remain accessible to residents. Sylvester was vocal in urging the commission to take the steps to keep the site open to the public, which led to its issuing the cease and desist order.
McCallum appealed the order to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which was set to act on the appeal Tuesday night. Then FERC issued its ruling denying McCallum a rehearing on its already denied request to relocate the public access, after which the fence was removed.
ZBA did not address the appeal at its meeting Tuesday because McCallum withdrew that appeal, ZBA chairman Gerald Glover said. "It's been withdrawn," he said before Tuesday's meeting.
Szarmach has not responded to requests for comment. McCallum had applied to FERC to modify the public access area at the canal. In its request, the company said the existing space set aside for public recreation presented a liability threat to the company, but FERC said there wasn't evidence to support that claim and denied the request to relocate the public area.
Szarmach has been critical of city officials and the Planning and Zoning Commission, which recently voted to rezone his property from R-4 to R-1, squashing the company's plans to fill in the unused canal and sell it for development. Under the new zoning designation, the land is much less valuable than it would have been under the multi-family zone. Szarmach had plans to build as many as 43 townhouses on the spot.
A sign on the outside gate of the property still advertises it as being for sale. Szarmach has said he is selling it to raise the funds to pay for a state Department of Environmental Protection-mandated fish ladder he must install at the dam at an estimated cost of $2 million.
Szarmach also had hoped the city would buy the land for open space, but Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has indicated the city is not interested.
The article covers areas I've already discussed (search this blog for FERC as a query item). The article does mention a separate subject matter (zoning) which involves an active court case, and I have stated that I will not be discussing legal items until they are resolved via the court process.
I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11942638Fence removal gives access to Derby Dam
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
SHELTON -- The fence the owners of the Shelton Canal Company put up to keep residents out of the company's property has been taken down after a federal agency ordered it removed.
The public is once again able to fish at the Derby Dam, which has been closed off since late last summer when McCallum Enterprises put up the chain link fence.
Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said the cease and desist order the Planning and Zoning Commission issued to take down the fence has been lifted, but it wasn't that order that prompted McCallum to act -- it was the order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which also ordered the fence taken down. "They took the fence down so I lifted the cease and desist order because they complied with FERC," Schultz said.
McCallum managing partner Joseph Szarmach long maintained that his company was not bound by the conditions the commission set forth in its 1986 approval of the dam but only answerable to FERC.
That angered Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who was chairman of the zoning commission at the time and was instrumental in assuring that a portion of the riverfront site would remain accessible to residents. Sylvester was vocal in urging the commission to take the steps to keep the site open to the public, which led to its issuing the cease and desist order.
McCallum appealed the order to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which was set to act on the appeal Tuesday night. Then FERC issued its ruling denying McCallum a rehearing on its already denied request to relocate the public access, after which the fence was removed.
ZBA did not address the appeal at its meeting Tuesday because McCallum withdrew that appeal, ZBA chairman Gerald Glover said. "It's been withdrawn," he said before Tuesday's meeting.
Szarmach has not responded to requests for comment. McCallum had applied to FERC to modify the public access area at the canal. In its request, the company said the existing space set aside for public recreation presented a liability threat to the company, but FERC said there wasn't evidence to support that claim and denied the request to relocate the public area.
Szarmach has been critical of city officials and the Planning and Zoning Commission, which recently voted to rezone his property from R-4 to R-1, squashing the company's plans to fill in the unused canal and sell it for development. Under the new zoning designation, the land is much less valuable than it would have been under the multi-family zone. Szarmach had plans to build as many as 43 townhouses on the spot.
A sign on the outside gate of the property still advertises it as being for sale. Szarmach has said he is selling it to raise the funds to pay for a state Department of Environmental Protection-mandated fish ladder he must install at the dam at an estimated cost of $2 million.
Szarmach also had hoped the city would buy the land for open space, but Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has indicated the city is not interested.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Commentary on cases in court
One purpose for this blog is to communicate with reporters efficiently. There are a couple of matters involving Shelton subjects upon which I typically blog about, that are in court. An interesting article appears in the NYTimes about jurors doing research or commenting about court cases in which they are serving.
I am not a juror on any case at the moment (though I have performed that public service duty on a civil case in Milford where I was elected the jury foreman). The article focuses on the aspect of impartiality and only considering the facts vetted and presented via the court process. The article did make me reflect upon this blog and the communications it makes.
As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I have been called in the past to give testimony on our practices, and I am currently scheduled to give depositions in 2 separate cases brought against the City and/or agents of the City. I want to clearly state in advance how this blog will function as it relates to such proceedings.
1. Wiacek farm being acquired by the City of Shelton as Open Space via eminent domain. I was called to give testimony in this case some time ago (I think it was 2007). The case had two parts, both of which have been decided: Was the City in the right to use eminent domain proceedings to acquire the land (court ruled yes), and was the valuation paid to the property owners appropriate (court recently ruled no, and ordered an adjustment). Since the case was in the hands of the court for decision, I have felt I could make comments on news articles reporting on the results. The BOA may appeal the valuation ruling, but I have no involvement or affect upon that so I continue to offer comments on articles related to this.
2. Wiacek farm, process of how staff enforced or enacted eminent domain proceedings. I've been asked to give deposition in this case and will not be commenting on any news articles directly related to the case while it is in trial. (though I will enter raw news accounts in the blog for posterity and possible later reference)
3. Canal area zone change, process of how the Planning & Zoning Commission enacted a zone change for the area near Canal Street and Riverview Park. I've been asked to give deposition in this case and will not be commenting on any news articles directly related to the case while it is in trial. (though I will enter them in the blog for posterity and possible later reference).
I have received feedback over the years from all the reporters who cover Shelton, stating that this blog method of providing more in-depth information is a valuable tool for them to reference. I hope the reporters understand my decision regarding blogging about these specific subjects while being contested in court. The blog will continue, except for these 2 cases until they are resolved.
I am not a juror on any case at the moment (though I have performed that public service duty on a civil case in Milford where I was elected the jury foreman). The article focuses on the aspect of impartiality and only considering the facts vetted and presented via the court process. The article did make me reflect upon this blog and the communications it makes.
As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I have been called in the past to give testimony on our practices, and I am currently scheduled to give depositions in 2 separate cases brought against the City and/or agents of the City. I want to clearly state in advance how this blog will function as it relates to such proceedings.
1. Wiacek farm being acquired by the City of Shelton as Open Space via eminent domain. I was called to give testimony in this case some time ago (I think it was 2007). The case had two parts, both of which have been decided: Was the City in the right to use eminent domain proceedings to acquire the land (court ruled yes), and was the valuation paid to the property owners appropriate (court recently ruled no, and ordered an adjustment). Since the case was in the hands of the court for decision, I have felt I could make comments on news articles reporting on the results. The BOA may appeal the valuation ruling, but I have no involvement or affect upon that so I continue to offer comments on articles related to this.
2. Wiacek farm, process of how staff enforced or enacted eminent domain proceedings. I've been asked to give deposition in this case and will not be commenting on any news articles directly related to the case while it is in trial. (though I will enter raw news accounts in the blog for posterity and possible later reference)
3. Canal area zone change, process of how the Planning & Zoning Commission enacted a zone change for the area near Canal Street and Riverview Park. I've been asked to give deposition in this case and will not be commenting on any news articles directly related to the case while it is in trial. (though I will enter them in the blog for posterity and possible later reference).
I have received feedback over the years from all the reporters who cover Shelton, stating that this blog method of providing more in-depth information is a valuable tool for them to reference. I hope the reporters understand my decision regarding blogging about these specific subjects while being contested in court. The blog will continue, except for these 2 cases until they are resolved.
Friday, March 13, 2009
279 Soundview - CTPost on flawed process attempt to sell
The Mayor's office requested the BOA consider the appropriateness of the City selling a piece of land which is part of a larger acreage recently acquired at 279 Soundview Ave. The lot is likely the one containing the farmhouse that came with the larger acreage acquisition of the full original parcel.
I don't know what is being proposed because the Conservation Commission has not been consulted yet. I do not know the acreage, street frontage, any impact on access to a remaining public parcel, or who is making the request to the City that they would like to acquire the land.
The Mayor's office is NOT supposed to initiate requests to the Planning & Zoning for them to consider selling City real property (land). Such request must be received by the BOA and then the BOA must determine that the BOA has an interest in selling the property.
Look at my previous blog post on the subject to understand more on the subject.
I have an RSS feed that alerts me to Saturday's CtPost article appearing online today (Friday). I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_11907251
Process to sell city property flawed
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer
Updated: 03/13/2009 08:02:39 PM EDT
SHELTON -- The Planning and Zoning Commission's favorable recommendation for the city to sell a portion of the property on Soundview Avenue it just bought may not hold much weight.
That's because the process to sell city-owned property wasn't followed, according to the president of the Board of Aldermen.
On Tuesday the commission voted 3-2 to report favorably on the proposal to sell about an acre of the 14-acre property -- the portion of the site that has on it a single-family home -- in order to recoup part of the $2.1 million price tag.
++ The PZC should only be concerned with this from the perspective of a planning for city purposes perspective. They are a land use agency, not a fiscal authority ++
Mayor Mark A. Lauretti's office asked the commission for the ruling, which violated the process to sell city-owned property. The request was supposed to come from the Board of Aldermen and was supposed to go to the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission before being forwarded to Planning and Zoning.
++ If the BOA had their Reg monthly mtg last night. Their next Reg monthly mtg will occur after the CC has it's Reg monthly mtg. If the BOA do not receive this request, then act on it to forward to the CC for comment during a special mtg during the interm, the CC can not act on it during it's Apr1 mtg, and it would have to wait for our May mtg. Something that should have been taken care of at last nights BOA mtg was fouled up proceedurally ++
Former Alderman Chris Panek, who heads up the Citizen's United Party, brought up the issue at the Board of Aldermen's monthly meeting Thursday. "It was a blatant violation of the process," he said. "The vote should be null and void."
++ I must give credit to Chris who caught that a request to the PZC must come from the BOA, not the Mayor's office. I missed that when I talked to the Mayor's Adm Asst this week to ask what was going on. ++
He also expressed concern about the fact that the zoning agenda didn't specify which property on Soundview Avenue was being discussed -- it only listed the road name. "The agenda didn't say which number it was," he said.
++ The PZC should list, consistently the development name, street address, and application number. A search engine such as google can be restricted to the city website by entering site:cityofshelton.org as part of a query in the search box. If the balance of the query is an application number, you can deftly find all content in minutes or agendas that refer to that matter. Not having minutes in the full on the City website, works toward hiding information from the public, which can be done either purposely or unknowingly ++
Conservation Commission Tom Harbinson shared Panek's concern. "Not listing the full street address is suspicious," he said. "The process was not appropriately followed."
++ Just for the reasons stated above. ++
Board of Aldermen president John Anglace agreed. "Your comments are absolutely on the mark," he told Panek. The request for the 8-24 referral -- which refers to the state statute that requires land use boards give such recommendations to the legislative body -- came from Lauretti's administrative assistant and not from the board, he said.
"We have to get in synch," he said. "We will not go any further with this until we ask for the recommendations from the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. As far as I am concerned, the zoning recommendation is null and void," he said.
++ I will be curious to see the accompanying request. ++
Harbinson said that communication between city board and agencies needs improvement.
"Communication from City Hall is very poor," he said. "I am disappointed with the communications that comes from City Hall."
++ There are many good workers in City Hall, but there is a poor process put in place in which they are reqd to work under. The worst of those processes is communication. There is no sharing process or central application system by which progress of proposals can be monitored. This is one such case. A simple pdf scan of the request could be emailed to the BOA. They review it at their leisure, then discuss it and act on it if need be at the BOA mtg. The same materials can possibly then be emailed to the CC and PRC members who review it at their leisure, comment on it during their meetings and make recomendation back to the BOA. The BOA can then email fwd those two responses to the PZC for their consideration. The whole process can take one month, and be transparently and clearly be known to the public. ++
I don't know what is being proposed because the Conservation Commission has not been consulted yet. I do not know the acreage, street frontage, any impact on access to a remaining public parcel, or who is making the request to the City that they would like to acquire the land.
The Mayor's office is NOT supposed to initiate requests to the Planning & Zoning for them to consider selling City real property (land). Such request must be received by the BOA and then the BOA must determine that the BOA has an interest in selling the property.
Look at my previous blog post on the subject to understand more on the subject.
I have an RSS feed that alerts me to Saturday's CtPost article appearing online today (Friday). I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_11907251
Process to sell city property flawed
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer
Updated: 03/13/2009 08:02:39 PM EDT
SHELTON -- The Planning and Zoning Commission's favorable recommendation for the city to sell a portion of the property on Soundview Avenue it just bought may not hold much weight.
That's because the process to sell city-owned property wasn't followed, according to the president of the Board of Aldermen.
On Tuesday the commission voted 3-2 to report favorably on the proposal to sell about an acre of the 14-acre property -- the portion of the site that has on it a single-family home -- in order to recoup part of the $2.1 million price tag.
++ The PZC should only be concerned with this from the perspective of a planning for city purposes perspective. They are a land use agency, not a fiscal authority ++
Mayor Mark A. Lauretti's office asked the commission for the ruling, which violated the process to sell city-owned property. The request was supposed to come from the Board of Aldermen and was supposed to go to the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission before being forwarded to Planning and Zoning.
++ If the BOA had their Reg monthly mtg last night. Their next Reg monthly mtg will occur after the CC has it's Reg monthly mtg. If the BOA do not receive this request, then act on it to forward to the CC for comment during a special mtg during the interm, the CC can not act on it during it's Apr1 mtg, and it would have to wait for our May mtg. Something that should have been taken care of at last nights BOA mtg was fouled up proceedurally ++
Former Alderman Chris Panek, who heads up the Citizen's United Party, brought up the issue at the Board of Aldermen's monthly meeting Thursday. "It was a blatant violation of the process," he said. "The vote should be null and void."
++ I must give credit to Chris who caught that a request to the PZC must come from the BOA, not the Mayor's office. I missed that when I talked to the Mayor's Adm Asst this week to ask what was going on. ++
He also expressed concern about the fact that the zoning agenda didn't specify which property on Soundview Avenue was being discussed -- it only listed the road name. "The agenda didn't say which number it was," he said.
++ The PZC should list, consistently the development name, street address, and application number. A search engine such as google can be restricted to the city website by entering site:cityofshelton.org as part of a query in the search box. If the balance of the query is an application number, you can deftly find all content in minutes or agendas that refer to that matter. Not having minutes in the full on the City website, works toward hiding information from the public, which can be done either purposely or unknowingly ++
Conservation Commission Tom Harbinson shared Panek's concern. "Not listing the full street address is suspicious," he said. "The process was not appropriately followed."
++ Just for the reasons stated above. ++
Board of Aldermen president John Anglace agreed. "Your comments are absolutely on the mark," he told Panek. The request for the 8-24 referral -- which refers to the state statute that requires land use boards give such recommendations to the legislative body -- came from Lauretti's administrative assistant and not from the board, he said.
"We have to get in synch," he said. "We will not go any further with this until we ask for the recommendations from the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. As far as I am concerned, the zoning recommendation is null and void," he said.
++ I will be curious to see the accompanying request. ++
Harbinson said that communication between city board and agencies needs improvement.
"Communication from City Hall is very poor," he said. "I am disappointed with the communications that comes from City Hall."
++ There are many good workers in City Hall, but there is a poor process put in place in which they are reqd to work under. The worst of those processes is communication. There is no sharing process or central application system by which progress of proposals can be monitored. This is one such case. A simple pdf scan of the request could be emailed to the BOA. They review it at their leisure, then discuss it and act on it if need be at the BOA mtg. The same materials can possibly then be emailed to the CC and PRC members who review it at their leisure, comment on it during their meetings and make recomendation back to the BOA. The BOA can then email fwd those two responses to the PZC for their consideration. The whole process can take one month, and be transparently and clearly be known to the public. ++
Wiacek - bus lot CtPost article 2
I was at the BOA monthly mtg last night where residents of Summerfield spoke again with concern over actions by the City on a parcel near their neighborhood. Some background.
Wiacek is a property that was acquired by the City via eminent domain process. Please read my earlier blog comments here and here. The City had long valued the property for municipal purposes. The City targeted the property for acquisition and attempted negotiation with the owners. The City could not come to agreement and pursued eminent domain proceedings. The City paid a value to the court based on proffessional appraisals of the property taken. The court determined the City was in the right to take the eminent domain course of action. The court determined that extra value was needed as compensation to the previous owners based on comparison of competing appraisals and the court's knowledge and understanding. I only re-iterate this because public comments were again bringing up these issues.
The parcel was highlited as part of a presentation from the CC to the BOA on 2004/Jan/7. The CC spoke of potential for multiple municipal uses for the parcel.
An article last month discussed this issue. Please read my blog entry on that article as it contains links to online video of speakers at the BOA mtg, and links to mtgs where decisions were made regarding the parcel's purchase.
The CtPost article this morning covers last nights speakers on the bus parking issues. I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11900741
Neighbors oppose Shelton bus lot idea
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer
SHELTON -- For the second month in a row, residents of the Summerfield Gardens condominiums turned out for the Board of Aldermen's monthly meeting Thursday, and vowed to be there every month until they get assurances from the board that the school bus parking lot won't be moved next to their homes.
"I want you all to go down to where the buses are parked now on Riverdale Avenue and see what it looks like," Summerfield Garden Association president Diane Alterio told the board, "and then drive in our neighborhood and along Independence Drive. "I'm sure all of you sitting up there live in very nice homes," she said, "and if this were happening in your neighborhood, tell me you wouldn't be standing here in my place."
"This" is the prospect of the school bus lot moving to city-owned property off Meadow Street, the site of the former Wiacek Farm. Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has said that, if needed, the school buses could be parked there, though there are no immediate plans for that. Lauretti did not attend Thursday's aldermen meeting.
++ Speaking from my experience as CC chair and managing co-ordination of trails construction on City Open Space, any project (private or public) must go thru a process to be approved. If there is sub-surface disturbance there must be a call made to CBYD (call before you dig) which alerts all utilities and requires they locate and mark their infrastructure. If there is any depositing of materials, or disturbance to an area of wetlands or setback area to the wetlands, an application must be made to the IWC. If there is any change of use, an application must occur with the PZC. My understanding is that a CBYD call was made for this location. ++
The city took the 40-acre Wiacek Farm property by eminent domain several years ago, paying $2.5 million for the property. But a Superior Court judge has determined the fair market value was almost $1 million more than that, raising the price to about $3.5 million.
"Are you willing to pay $3.5 million for that and move the buses there?" Alterio asked. "I want to know if you are willing to do that." "We will be here every month until you assure us you will vote no to relocating the buses," she said.
++ Any activity from the City should have applications to agencies seeking approvals. The CBYD markings indicate that some activity is planned on taking place. I have not seen nor heard of any applications however. ++
Resident Pat Fazio said the property should be made into a city park since it was purchased for open space. The Wiacek family's farming tradition should be showcased, she said, and displays could highlight the wildlife that inhabits the spot. It could be a popular destination for school trips and scouting projects, she said.
++ Please refer to the CC presentation regarding possible municipal needs that could be satisfied in use of the property ++
Wiacek is a property that was acquired by the City via eminent domain process. Please read my earlier blog comments here and here. The City had long valued the property for municipal purposes. The City targeted the property for acquisition and attempted negotiation with the owners. The City could not come to agreement and pursued eminent domain proceedings. The City paid a value to the court based on proffessional appraisals of the property taken. The court determined the City was in the right to take the eminent domain course of action. The court determined that extra value was needed as compensation to the previous owners based on comparison of competing appraisals and the court's knowledge and understanding. I only re-iterate this because public comments were again bringing up these issues.
The parcel was highlited as part of a presentation from the CC to the BOA on 2004/Jan/7. The CC spoke of potential for multiple municipal uses for the parcel.
An article last month discussed this issue. Please read my blog entry on that article as it contains links to online video of speakers at the BOA mtg, and links to mtgs where decisions were made regarding the parcel's purchase.
The CtPost article this morning covers last nights speakers on the bus parking issues. I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11900741
Neighbors oppose Shelton bus lot idea
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer
SHELTON -- For the second month in a row, residents of the Summerfield Gardens condominiums turned out for the Board of Aldermen's monthly meeting Thursday, and vowed to be there every month until they get assurances from the board that the school bus parking lot won't be moved next to their homes.
"I want you all to go down to where the buses are parked now on Riverdale Avenue and see what it looks like," Summerfield Garden Association president Diane Alterio told the board, "and then drive in our neighborhood and along Independence Drive. "I'm sure all of you sitting up there live in very nice homes," she said, "and if this were happening in your neighborhood, tell me you wouldn't be standing here in my place."
"This" is the prospect of the school bus lot moving to city-owned property off Meadow Street, the site of the former Wiacek Farm. Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has said that, if needed, the school buses could be parked there, though there are no immediate plans for that. Lauretti did not attend Thursday's aldermen meeting.
++ Speaking from my experience as CC chair and managing co-ordination of trails construction on City Open Space, any project (private or public) must go thru a process to be approved. If there is sub-surface disturbance there must be a call made to CBYD (call before you dig) which alerts all utilities and requires they locate and mark their infrastructure. If there is any depositing of materials, or disturbance to an area of wetlands or setback area to the wetlands, an application must be made to the IWC. If there is any change of use, an application must occur with the PZC. My understanding is that a CBYD call was made for this location. ++
The city took the 40-acre Wiacek Farm property by eminent domain several years ago, paying $2.5 million for the property. But a Superior Court judge has determined the fair market value was almost $1 million more than that, raising the price to about $3.5 million.
"Are you willing to pay $3.5 million for that and move the buses there?" Alterio asked. "I want to know if you are willing to do that." "We will be here every month until you assure us you will vote no to relocating the buses," she said.
++ Any activity from the City should have applications to agencies seeking approvals. The CBYD markings indicate that some activity is planned on taking place. I have not seen nor heard of any applications however. ++
Resident Pat Fazio said the property should be made into a city park since it was purchased for open space. The Wiacek family's farming tradition should be showcased, she said, and displays could highlight the wildlife that inhabits the spot. It could be a popular destination for school trips and scouting projects, she said.
++ Please refer to the CC presentation regarding possible municipal needs that could be satisfied in use of the property ++
279 Soundview Ave, CtPost on PZC 8-24 referral
The PZC had on their 2009/mar/10 agenda an item that caught my attention. Near the end of their meeting, under Other Business: "8-24 Referral: disposition of City property (Soundview Avenue)"
For those not used to certain references, "8-24" refers to the Ct Gen Statutes regarding municipal governing authorities (in our case the Board of Alderman) receiving advice from the planning authority (in our case the Planning & Zoning Commission) or vice versa (ie: when the BOA gave a favorable 8-24 referral to PZC when the Plan of Conservation & Development was approved. The PoC&D is the "master plan" to guide many of the City's decisions)
Knowing the various properties under City ownership, I was personally guessing that the likely location being referenced was 279 Soundview Ave, though the street address was not mentioned and thus not giving opportunity for notice to nearby residents to the property in question.
Such location would be a property recently purchased for Open Space. There was a house on the original parcel, which was subdivided by the previous owner before the City purchased it. If you want to see my comments on that parcel, search this blog using the query "soundview". It is likely that this is the property in question - a subdivided lot with the existing house within the acreage purchased.
I must emphasize that I'm guessing. I have not seen any proposal, application, or request come to the CC regarding this issue on the PZC agenda. I am upset with the lack of communication in City Hall causing me to just happenstance upon this item as you can see from an conversation thread of the CC on our public google group.
The City does have a process whereby real property (land) can be considered for sale. It is addressed under ordinance #782 It was recently modified on Feb11 after a public hearing on the changes on Jan27. You can put this query into a google search box to quickly find more:
site:cityofshelton.org 782 8-24
Simply look at the 2009/feb/11 BOA minutes on p.12 to see the rules.
1. A request must be received by the BOA.
2. The BOA must determine that the BOA has an interest in selling the property.
3. The request for opinion must come to the CC and PRC from the BOA.
4. The BOA must consider those inputs of opinion.
5. The BOA must determine whether to proceed, and if so then seek an 8-24 referral from PZC
The process has several steps from there which are not germain to this discussion, so I will not bother continuing with them. I do know after talking with the Mayor's office (see last msg on Mar11 of the conversation thread), that the request originated with them. I'll admit that I didn't catch that as being as incorrect process and then give question to the Mayor's office as to why this didn't go via the BOA. It was not until the BOA mtg last night where a speaker pointed out that the request must originate via the BOA process that I realized this was an invalid process being followed (thank-you Chris Panek). To his credit, BOA President John Anglace readily admited this action seemed to be done in error and stated publicly that corrective action would take place and any PZC decision already made would be null/void.
The CtPost had an article 2days ago, before last nights BOA mtg. Still, there is value in creating a record (CtPost doesn't retain archive of articles publicly), I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11889397
Sale of Shelton city-owned land debated
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer
Updated: 03/11/2009 09:50:29 PM EDT
SHELTON -- With the purchase of open space off Soundview Avenue just completed, city officials are considering selling a small parcel of the property.
++ The Mayor is considering this. The BOA have not considered this according to process they established last month on Feb11. ++
On Tuesday the Planning and Zoning Commission took up a request from the Board of Aldermen to report either favorably or unfavorably on the proposal to sell about an acre of the 14-acre piece that has a single-family home on it.
++ This is reported incorrectly. As I've discovered yesterday, the Mayor's office made the request to PZC, not the BOA. This is an incorrect, inproper, inappropriate , or an illegal request process - depending on your point of view. Bottom line: IT IS WRONG. ++
The commission reported favorably on the proposal, but just barely -- by a vote of 3-2.
++ The action by the PZC is null/void. The President of the BOA stated that they would correct the mistake of process ++
"You have a vacant house that serves no purpose for the city that is going to need maintenance and is off the tax rolls," said Commissioner Ruth Parkins. "Its sale can generate revenue to offset the purchase price and put it back on the tax rolls." In the current economic times, it's imperative the city look for ways to generate revenues, she said. "The city needs every way it can to increase revenue and decrease expenses," she said. "Every little bit helps.
++ I understand Commissioner Parkins concerns, just like any taxpayer would. However, the role as Commissioner is to give comment and decision for the request (disregarding for the moment that the request was improper) based solely on a perspective of planning as the Planning & Zoning Commission. The BOA is the sole fiscal authority, and that is not the PZC job ++
The dissenting votes came from the commission's two Democratic members, Chris Jones and Leon J. Sylvester.
"It just doesn't smell right," Jones said. "I didn't like the whole deal from the get go."
++ You can see my thoughts on this type of commentary in my blog entry of 2008/Mar/4 ++
The land had long been in the city's sites for open space, but when the former owners decided to sell, they were looking for a quick sale -- too fast for the city to be able to get the funding in place, city officials said. Instead a development group that included former Inland Wetlands Commission chairman Al DaSilva bought the property for $1.4 million.
But less than a year later the new owners sold the property to the city -- for $2.2 million, a profit of $800,000.
++ This is an incorrect conclusion. The parcel was purchased in raw land form as a single lot. Inland Wetland Commission applications were filed, pursued and approved. Planning & Zoning subdivision applications were filed, pursued and approved. Survey of the wetland soils by soil scientist, survey of the land area and design services of a landscape architect and/or civil engineer were employed. There was investment of resources by the new owner to transform the raw land parcel into an approved subdivision of unimproved building lots. To simply say saleA minus saleB = profit is not the full story. ++
Sylvester said he doesn't think selling the house in today's real estate market makes sense. It could be used for a better purpose, he said. "I think from a value point of view, we paid top dollar for that piece and to sell off a piece of the road frontage diminishes the value of the property, especially in this market," he said. "I don't see why they want to sell off the house and a good portion of the road frontage -- it doesn't make sense to me."
++ This type of commentary from a PZ Commissioner who has served for several decades, at times as Chairman of the PZC, simply blows me away. The value, cost or market conditions should have absolutely no bearing on the PZC decision. I don't question Commissioner Sylvestor's knowledge on the subject of real-estate market values, as his wife Barbara has been a real-estate agent for some time, but that should not enter into his decisions or comments. Shame on the PZC Chairman for not putting a stop to it. ++
While the city isn't in the business of being a landlord, it does have properties it rents, Sylvester said, which could be done with this house. "The house is in fine shape so why not do something creative with it," he said, such as renting it to a city employee who may not be making a large salary and needs affordable housing. "To me it's a no-brainer," he said. "I believe in the future this will be a very valuable part of the property."
++ Off the top of my head, the City has real property at various locations: Old Police Station downtown was recently used by the Valley Health Dept, Old house near Echo Hose firehouse was recently used by the Judge of Probate, house on Rte108/Nell's Rock Rd was acquired as part of BHC purchase and is used for City storage purposes, house on Perry Hill near the new Upper Elementary School has been rented as a dwelling unit by a tenant, structure on Huntington Wellfield property was leased to Cablevision for housing communication infrastructure. I agree that the City shouldn't be in the business of being a landlord, but at times it has properties that can be put to better utilization, at times generating revenue for the City. ++
The Parks and Recreation Commission and the Conservation Commission also will be asked to weigh in on the proposal, and the aldermen will hold a public hearing on it before making a decision.
++ As stated above, the BOA President has stated that the actions taken thus far will be negated and the ordinance and process will now be correctly followed ++
For those not used to certain references, "8-24" refers to the Ct Gen Statutes regarding municipal governing authorities (in our case the Board of Alderman) receiving advice from the planning authority (in our case the Planning & Zoning Commission) or vice versa (ie: when the BOA gave a favorable 8-24 referral to PZC when the Plan of Conservation & Development was approved. The PoC&D is the "master plan" to guide many of the City's decisions)
Knowing the various properties under City ownership, I was personally guessing that the likely location being referenced was 279 Soundview Ave, though the street address was not mentioned and thus not giving opportunity for notice to nearby residents to the property in question.
Such location would be a property recently purchased for Open Space. There was a house on the original parcel, which was subdivided by the previous owner before the City purchased it. If you want to see my comments on that parcel, search this blog using the query "soundview". It is likely that this is the property in question - a subdivided lot with the existing house within the acreage purchased.
I must emphasize that I'm guessing. I have not seen any proposal, application, or request come to the CC regarding this issue on the PZC agenda. I am upset with the lack of communication in City Hall causing me to just happenstance upon this item as you can see from an conversation thread of the CC on our public google group.
The City does have a process whereby real property (land) can be considered for sale. It is addressed under ordinance #782 It was recently modified on Feb11 after a public hearing on the changes on Jan27. You can put this query into a google search box to quickly find more:
site:cityofshelton.org 782 8-24
Simply look at the 2009/feb/11 BOA minutes on p.12 to see the rules.
1. A request must be received by the BOA.
2. The BOA must determine that the BOA has an interest in selling the property.
3. The request for opinion must come to the CC and PRC from the BOA.
4. The BOA must consider those inputs of opinion.
5. The BOA must determine whether to proceed, and if so then seek an 8-24 referral from PZC
The process has several steps from there which are not germain to this discussion, so I will not bother continuing with them. I do know after talking with the Mayor's office (see last msg on Mar11 of the conversation thread), that the request originated with them. I'll admit that I didn't catch that as being as incorrect process and then give question to the Mayor's office as to why this didn't go via the BOA. It was not until the BOA mtg last night where a speaker pointed out that the request must originate via the BOA process that I realized this was an invalid process being followed (thank-you Chris Panek). To his credit, BOA President John Anglace readily admited this action seemed to be done in error and stated publicly that corrective action would take place and any PZC decision already made would be null/void.
The CtPost had an article 2days ago, before last nights BOA mtg. Still, there is value in creating a record (CtPost doesn't retain archive of articles publicly), I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11889397
Sale of Shelton city-owned land debated
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer
Updated: 03/11/2009 09:50:29 PM EDT
SHELTON -- With the purchase of open space off Soundview Avenue just completed, city officials are considering selling a small parcel of the property.
++ The Mayor is considering this. The BOA have not considered this according to process they established last month on Feb11. ++
On Tuesday the Planning and Zoning Commission took up a request from the Board of Aldermen to report either favorably or unfavorably on the proposal to sell about an acre of the 14-acre piece that has a single-family home on it.
++ This is reported incorrectly. As I've discovered yesterday, the Mayor's office made the request to PZC, not the BOA. This is an incorrect, inproper, inappropriate , or an illegal request process - depending on your point of view. Bottom line: IT IS WRONG. ++
The commission reported favorably on the proposal, but just barely -- by a vote of 3-2.
++ The action by the PZC is null/void. The President of the BOA stated that they would correct the mistake of process ++
"You have a vacant house that serves no purpose for the city that is going to need maintenance and is off the tax rolls," said Commissioner Ruth Parkins. "Its sale can generate revenue to offset the purchase price and put it back on the tax rolls." In the current economic times, it's imperative the city look for ways to generate revenues, she said. "The city needs every way it can to increase revenue and decrease expenses," she said. "Every little bit helps.
++ I understand Commissioner Parkins concerns, just like any taxpayer would. However, the role as Commissioner is to give comment and decision for the request (disregarding for the moment that the request was improper) based solely on a perspective of planning as the Planning & Zoning Commission. The BOA is the sole fiscal authority, and that is not the PZC job ++
The dissenting votes came from the commission's two Democratic members, Chris Jones and Leon J. Sylvester.
"It just doesn't smell right," Jones said. "I didn't like the whole deal from the get go."
++ You can see my thoughts on this type of commentary in my blog entry of 2008/Mar/4 ++
The land had long been in the city's sites for open space, but when the former owners decided to sell, they were looking for a quick sale -- too fast for the city to be able to get the funding in place, city officials said. Instead a development group that included former Inland Wetlands Commission chairman Al DaSilva bought the property for $1.4 million.
But less than a year later the new owners sold the property to the city -- for $2.2 million, a profit of $800,000.
++ This is an incorrect conclusion. The parcel was purchased in raw land form as a single lot. Inland Wetland Commission applications were filed, pursued and approved. Planning & Zoning subdivision applications were filed, pursued and approved. Survey of the wetland soils by soil scientist, survey of the land area and design services of a landscape architect and/or civil engineer were employed. There was investment of resources by the new owner to transform the raw land parcel into an approved subdivision of unimproved building lots. To simply say saleA minus saleB = profit is not the full story. ++
Sylvester said he doesn't think selling the house in today's real estate market makes sense. It could be used for a better purpose, he said. "I think from a value point of view, we paid top dollar for that piece and to sell off a piece of the road frontage diminishes the value of the property, especially in this market," he said. "I don't see why they want to sell off the house and a good portion of the road frontage -- it doesn't make sense to me."
++ This type of commentary from a PZ Commissioner who has served for several decades, at times as Chairman of the PZC, simply blows me away. The value, cost or market conditions should have absolutely no bearing on the PZC decision. I don't question Commissioner Sylvestor's knowledge on the subject of real-estate market values, as his wife Barbara has been a real-estate agent for some time, but that should not enter into his decisions or comments. Shame on the PZC Chairman for not putting a stop to it. ++
While the city isn't in the business of being a landlord, it does have properties it rents, Sylvester said, which could be done with this house. "The house is in fine shape so why not do something creative with it," he said, such as renting it to a city employee who may not be making a large salary and needs affordable housing. "To me it's a no-brainer," he said. "I believe in the future this will be a very valuable part of the property."
++ Off the top of my head, the City has real property at various locations: Old Police Station downtown was recently used by the Valley Health Dept, Old house near Echo Hose firehouse was recently used by the Judge of Probate, house on Rte108/Nell's Rock Rd was acquired as part of BHC purchase and is used for City storage purposes, house on Perry Hill near the new Upper Elementary School has been rented as a dwelling unit by a tenant, structure on Huntington Wellfield property was leased to Cablevision for housing communication infrastructure. I agree that the City shouldn't be in the business of being a landlord, but at times it has properties that can be put to better utilization, at times generating revenue for the City. ++
The Parks and Recreation Commission and the Conservation Commission also will be asked to weigh in on the proposal, and the aldermen will hold a public hearing on it before making a decision.
++ As stated above, the BOA President has stated that the actions taken thus far will be negated and the ordinance and process will now be correctly followed ++
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Wiacek property - court valuation, NHRegister article
The dueling papers in town reported on the same subject today, court decision toward valuation. I commented on the CtPost article first, but the NHRegister has some more detail. Read the whole article, then come back to this link for a google spreadsheet document that explains comparisons more appropriately.
I encourage readers to go to the NHRegister article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2009/03/05/news/valley/b1-shlandruling.txt
Shelton told to pay $1M more for farm
Thursday, March 5, 2009 6:14 AM EST
By Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, Naugatuck Valley Bureau Chief
SHELTON — A Superior Court judge has ruled that the city should have paid $856,000 more than it did when it took 36 acres of the Wiacek Farm parcel by eminent domain four years ago.
Judge Bruce Levin, in a decision dated Feb. 23, concluded that the fair market value of the property taken by the city in April 2005 was about $3.36 million, or $856,000 more than the $2.5 million the city paid for it.Levin further ruled that the city owes $208,293 in interest on the difference, which brings the total judgment of damages to $1.06 million, according to the ruling, on file in Superior Court in Milford.Both the city and Wiacek Farms LLC had presented appraisals of the property.
+++ This works out to $178,215 per unimproved building lot within the acreage taken by the City under eminent domain proceedings, which is a portion of the overall parcel referred to as the Wiacek Farm +++
Assistant Corporation Counsel Ramon Sous said Wednesday he had no comment on the ruling, as he has yet to discuss it with the Board of Aldermen, which he plans to do next week. Sous said he hasn’t determined yet if the city will appeal.
The Board of Aldermen voted in late 2004 to acquire the property for open space and recreation, court documents show. The land is in the area of Meadow Street and Constitution Boulevard, neighboring Shelton High School. It had been a dairy farm, and was in the Wiacek family for about 85 years.
+++ Go to the next blog entry on this subject with the CtPost article to see all the hyperlinks for the CC presentation and the BOA votes on acquiring the property. You don't have to rely on "court" documents. +++
In March 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Wiacek family’s application to put a 24-lot single-family residential subdivision there. Shortly afterward, the owners began site development for the project, which also called for three roads, court documents show.
+++ On 2004/Jan/7, the CC made presentation that the parcel be purchased. The BOA authorized the Mayor to negotiate to do so. Such negotiations were unsuccessful. The BOA decided to enter eminent domain proceedings on 2004/Sep/30. They were berated for doing so by some speakers during the public session of their 2004/Oct/14 BOA mtg. +++
In January 2005, the city commenced its eminent domain action to take 36 acres of the overall 46-acre farm for $2.5 million, based on an appraisal obtained by the city.
+++ Don't know the meaning of "commenced" but the process of eminent domain started clearly months before that +++
The Wiacek family’s attorney, Jonathan Bowman, submitted paperwork to the court claiming the property was valued at nearly $3.7 million, and that the family should receive the difference, or $1.2 million, plus interest on that difference.
Walter Wiacek and Shawn Splan, who are cousins and own the property, asserted that the city has paid more for similar property, and the family had hoped for more money than allowed for in Levin’s ruling.
“I can’t say I’m totally disappointed, but I am a little disappointed with the ruling,” Wiacek said. “We had planned a high end subdivision there. The only time the city got interested in the land was when we decided to develop it.”
+++ That statement regarding the City's interest is absolutely not true +++
Wiacek noted that since the city bought the land, it is supposed to be used for open space. There have been recent discussions about potentially parking school buses there, a possibility that has earned the ire of residents at nearby Summerfield Gardens condominiums, who spoke against the idea at a recent Board of Aldermen meeting.
+++ The CC presentation did not advocate that the entire parcel be purchased solely for Open Space associated purposes, but recognized the possibility for other municipal purposes not normally associated with open space (school education area for example). The BOA motion for eminent domain was "Said taking is for City Open Space and recreational purposes consistent with such open space" +++
Wiacek Farms LLC also has a separate case still pending in Superior Court in Milford, filed in 2006 against the city, Mayor Mark Lauretti, Board of Aldermen President John Anglace, Zoning Enforcement Officer Thomas Dingle, and City Engineer Robert Kulacz.
That case seeks more than $15,000 in damages, and claims the defendants caused work to stop at the property, even though the owners had approval for the subdivision, interfering with their business expectations
+++ On the pending case's claim, I don't have anything further to offer at this time +++
I encourage readers to go to the NHRegister article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2009/03/05/news/valley/b1-shlandruling.txt
Shelton told to pay $1M more for farm
Thursday, March 5, 2009 6:14 AM EST
By Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, Naugatuck Valley Bureau Chief
SHELTON — A Superior Court judge has ruled that the city should have paid $856,000 more than it did when it took 36 acres of the Wiacek Farm parcel by eminent domain four years ago.
Judge Bruce Levin, in a decision dated Feb. 23, concluded that the fair market value of the property taken by the city in April 2005 was about $3.36 million, or $856,000 more than the $2.5 million the city paid for it.Levin further ruled that the city owes $208,293 in interest on the difference, which brings the total judgment of damages to $1.06 million, according to the ruling, on file in Superior Court in Milford.Both the city and Wiacek Farms LLC had presented appraisals of the property.
+++ This works out to $178,215 per unimproved building lot within the acreage taken by the City under eminent domain proceedings, which is a portion of the overall parcel referred to as the Wiacek Farm +++
Assistant Corporation Counsel Ramon Sous said Wednesday he had no comment on the ruling, as he has yet to discuss it with the Board of Aldermen, which he plans to do next week. Sous said he hasn’t determined yet if the city will appeal.
The Board of Aldermen voted in late 2004 to acquire the property for open space and recreation, court documents show. The land is in the area of Meadow Street and Constitution Boulevard, neighboring Shelton High School. It had been a dairy farm, and was in the Wiacek family for about 85 years.
+++ Go to the next blog entry on this subject with the CtPost article to see all the hyperlinks for the CC presentation and the BOA votes on acquiring the property. You don't have to rely on "court" documents. +++
In March 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Wiacek family’s application to put a 24-lot single-family residential subdivision there. Shortly afterward, the owners began site development for the project, which also called for three roads, court documents show.
+++ On 2004/Jan/7, the CC made presentation that the parcel be purchased. The BOA authorized the Mayor to negotiate to do so. Such negotiations were unsuccessful. The BOA decided to enter eminent domain proceedings on 2004/Sep/30. They were berated for doing so by some speakers during the public session of their 2004/Oct/14 BOA mtg. +++
In January 2005, the city commenced its eminent domain action to take 36 acres of the overall 46-acre farm for $2.5 million, based on an appraisal obtained by the city.
+++ Don't know the meaning of "commenced" but the process of eminent domain started clearly months before that +++
The Wiacek family’s attorney, Jonathan Bowman, submitted paperwork to the court claiming the property was valued at nearly $3.7 million, and that the family should receive the difference, or $1.2 million, plus interest on that difference.
Walter Wiacek and Shawn Splan, who are cousins and own the property, asserted that the city has paid more for similar property, and the family had hoped for more money than allowed for in Levin’s ruling.
“I can’t say I’m totally disappointed, but I am a little disappointed with the ruling,” Wiacek said. “We had planned a high end subdivision there. The only time the city got interested in the land was when we decided to develop it.”
+++ That statement regarding the City's interest is absolutely not true +++
Wiacek noted that since the city bought the land, it is supposed to be used for open space. There have been recent discussions about potentially parking school buses there, a possibility that has earned the ire of residents at nearby Summerfield Gardens condominiums, who spoke against the idea at a recent Board of Aldermen meeting.
+++ The CC presentation did not advocate that the entire parcel be purchased solely for Open Space associated purposes, but recognized the possibility for other municipal purposes not normally associated with open space (school education area for example). The BOA motion for eminent domain was "Said taking is for City Open Space and recreational purposes consistent with such open space" +++
Wiacek Farms LLC also has a separate case still pending in Superior Court in Milford, filed in 2006 against the city, Mayor Mark Lauretti, Board of Aldermen President John Anglace, Zoning Enforcement Officer Thomas Dingle, and City Engineer Robert Kulacz.
That case seeks more than $15,000 in damages, and claims the defendants caused work to stop at the property, even though the owners had approval for the subdivision, interfering with their business expectations
+++ On the pending case's claim, I don't have anything further to offer at this time +++
Wiacek - court valuation, CtPost article
The CtPost today reported on the court's final decision regarding valuation for an Open Space acquisition known as the Wiacek Farm by the City of Shelton.
One of the roles of myself and others on the CC is to advocate for land purchases we think are appropriate. The CC comments are purely advisory, and the only tool we have is the power of persuasion based on following consistent goals or directions (the Open Space Plan), and being persistent. (When I took over Chairmanship of the CC in 2004Nov, I quoted Calvin Coolidge as my guide to be persistant, and consistent).
The CC has no fiscal decision role in Shelton government. Though we may make suggestions and serve a supportive role regarding fiscal course of action (ie: giving presentations to explain a referendum question), finances are the realm of the BOA as the City's final fiscal authority.
While this CtPost news article deals mostly with fiscal issues, the public opinion of process as to how the City arrived at this parcel's state of affairs is important to me, and thus I clarify the article with my comments within the article below. Too that end, I published a google document spreadsheet that outlines all the values and ratios that I think should be the more appropriate comparisons, as I more fully describe below.
I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/valley/ci_11836579
Shelton to pay more for Wiacek property
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 03/04/2009 10:05:12 PM EST
SHELTON -- A Superior Court judge has determined that the Wiacek property the city took by eminent domain five years ago is worth almost a million dollars more than the city claimed.
+++ First, if you want to research the facts, you can see other comments I've made on this blog over the past several years where this was ever mentioned - use the search box at the top of this blog with "wiacek" for term. If you want to see any emails where the CC possibly discussed the subject try this discussion search link to our google group that publishes all our emails live to the public to satisfy FOI rules. If you want to see any City of Shelton agencies discussion over the parcel, visit this sample of a site restricted search to find it mentioned in the minutes of the IWC, PZC, BOA, or CC at the very least. Regarding the opening line: The CC made a presentation on 2004/Jan/7 advocating it be acquired. The BOA passed a motion to pursue eminent domain at their 2004/Sep/30 mtg. The "taking" due to eminent domain would have occured upon filing the paperwork which would likely have been within days of the BOA decision. +++
Last week, Judge Bruce Levin in Milford Superior Court ordered the city to pay about a million dollars more than the city's appraisal of the property, about 40 acres off Meadow Street next to Shelton High School.
The land was in the Wiacek family for about 85 years, according to attorney and Wiacek family member Shawn Splan. Splan and his cousin Walter Wiacek had just gotten land use board approvals for 24 lots on the property in 2004 when the city began the proceedings to take the property.
+++ The CC encouraged the City to consider buying this parcel (along with two other parcels during the same presentation). The BOA authorized the Mayor to negotiate with the owners (for all 3 parcels in the presentation) toward purchasing them. One of the Wiacek parcel owners stated among several public mingling at the end of the meeting that the only way the City would get the property is via eminent domain. The City still attempted to negotiate and the Mayor has stated he even had phone calls with the owners during his family vacation time. The owners pursued a development application for the parcel. The process was delayed in part due to errors from the owner's hired soil scientist expert who had mistakes while wetland flagging on the parcel. All regulatory agencies gave the application fair and standard treatment thru to approval. The approval of subdivision layout and subsequent qty of building lots allowed both parties to evaluate a realistic appraisal of value. +++
At the time the city's appraisal for the land came to about $2.5 million. The $2.5 million sale price works out to roughly $62,500 an acre.
+++ The City did indeed have an outside appraisal value the acreage it desired to acquire at apx. $2.5mil, with an acreage stated in the 2004/Sep/30 BOA motion being 39.7 acres. This was later corrected in the minutes of the 2004/Oct/14 minutes to be 35.99 acres as reflective of the legal description for the land area in the taking, and that is $69,463 per acre. However, that is not an appropriate metric upon which to compare with other areas. The subdivision approval map was the basis upon which the description for land taking was made, and it covered 20 of the 24 building lots which at that juncture were in an unimproved state. This works out to $125k per unimproved building lot. An unimproved building lot is one where subdivision approval exists, but there still is required from a developer the improvements such as roads, underground utilities and such, for building construction to take place. These improvements include City depts requiring bonds to ensure the proper construction standards are met before the City takes ownership and responsibility of areas such as a new City street. After certification by the City engineer, bonds can be released. Nobody should make the leap of thought comparing this to a personal dwelling sitting on an acre and being worth a hell of a lot more than $125k per lot or per acre. The comparison is not apples to oranges. At the time when the City took the property, the appraisal considered the status that the property was in. Some in the public tried to claim it should be valued at $8.2million (BOA 2004/oct/14 p.6: Gene Hope, p.18: Irving Steiner), something now determined by the courts to be far from reality. +++
The Wiacek family's appraisal came in about a million dollars higher. Last week a judge ordered the Wiacek family be reimbursed 85 percent of the difference, along with interest.
+++ Appraisals are done by proffessionals who certify their justifications by doing market comparisons. They can vary. If the Wiacek's appraisal came in at apx. $1mill more (I'm relying on the news report as I don't have access to real documents or exact numbers), and the judge approved of 85% of that valuation, that is $850k more than the $2.5mill of the City's appraisal for an apx. judge ordered valuation of $3.35 million. This is equiv to apx. $167.5k per unimproved building lot. +++
Splan said the city could have avoided the cost of going to court had it treated his family fairly, such as how it treated developer and former Inland Wetlands Commission chairman Al DaSilva.
+++ That statement is in direct opposition to the comment made in the presence of several people after the public presentation to the BOA where it was stated that the only way the City would get his property is by eminent domain. +++
The city paid $2.1 million, or about $150,000 an acre, for DaSilva's 14 acres off Soundview Avenue, which abuts the Wiacek property.
+++ The city purchase price was $2,124,500 for property at 279 Soundview Avenue, purchasing it from Huntington Development Group LLC, an entity where it is common knowledge that at least one of the members is Alvaro DaSilva, the former Chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission, having stepped down just shortly before this transaction agreement. That was after a "gift value" of $100k was discounted from the agreed contract value between the City and the seller. Thus the City had agreed to "value" the property at $2,224,500. The appraisal from the City for the 14 acres was $1.8mill, the appraisal from the owner was $2.2mill. I'm not part of the negotiation process, but the negotiated price and what was agreed to by the BOA and shown in their minutes was the $2.1 net purchase price (which was agreed to be spread out over several payments). At 11 lots approved for this parcel - that is $190,909 per lot. +++
Splan said five years ago it was a very different real estate market than it is today. "We always would have rather had the land and the opportunity to develop it during the golden age of real estate," he said. "We could have lived with it if they had paid us the same as they paid Al DaSilva -- when we went to market the property, the economic times were a lot better than they were in 2007" when DaSilva's purchase was done.
+++ Timing does need consideration. The difference is $23,409 per lot, a 14% increase from the time of the 2004 Wiacek acquisition (the court valuation is based on the time of the taking, even though they decided upon it in 2009) and the time of the 2008 Soundview purchase - a span of about 4 years. +++
Board of Aldermen President John Anglace said he hadn't yet seen the ruling but was not surprised by the outcome. "That's the process," he said. "That's what you do -- you see what the fair market value is for the property."
The board took criticism at the time of the action from some residents who said the city would end up having to pay far more than the $2.5 million -- some said that price would be as much as $8 million. "There is a big difference between this and what they said," Anglace said. "I said it wouldn't be anywhere near that."
The property is valuable to the city because of its proximity to Shelton High School, Anglace said. "It's part of the education complex up there."
+++ Anyone can see the CC presentation advocating reasons for acquiring the parcel. The BOA also made representations during the funding that it was for recreational uses and purposes associated with them. +++
The city will be able to pay whatever difference the court requires it to, Anglace said. The city has not done anything with the property yet, but Mayor Mark A. Lauretti said if needed, the land could be used as a school bus lot in the future, which angered residents of the nearby Summerfield Condominiums. Those residents spoke at the last Board of Aldermen meeting against the prospect.
"That's a pretty expensive parking lot," Walter Wiacek said.
+++ To think that the only use of the entire acreage of the property would be for parking school busses is simply short sighted. I have made a separate blog comment on the recent article regarding use of the property as a bus parking area. +++
The Wiacek family has another lawsuit against the city that is ongoing over the way the eminent domain process was carried out, Splan said.
+++ The first case was whether the City had the right to use eminent domain - court said yes. Next up was the valuation the City used and put in escrow, was it appropriate - court said no, pay more (which caused this article). Still to be decided, a case against public officials brought by the Wiacek's regarding actions taken during the approvals and permit to construct process. That will likely be decided during the summer. +++
One of the roles of myself and others on the CC is to advocate for land purchases we think are appropriate. The CC comments are purely advisory, and the only tool we have is the power of persuasion based on following consistent goals or directions (the Open Space Plan), and being persistent. (When I took over Chairmanship of the CC in 2004Nov, I quoted Calvin Coolidge as my guide to be persistant, and consistent).
The CC has no fiscal decision role in Shelton government. Though we may make suggestions and serve a supportive role regarding fiscal course of action (ie: giving presentations to explain a referendum question), finances are the realm of the BOA as the City's final fiscal authority.
While this CtPost news article deals mostly with fiscal issues, the public opinion of process as to how the City arrived at this parcel's state of affairs is important to me, and thus I clarify the article with my comments within the article below. Too that end, I published a google document spreadsheet that outlines all the values and ratios that I think should be the more appropriate comparisons, as I more fully describe below.
I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/valley/ci_11836579
Shelton to pay more for Wiacek property
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 03/04/2009 10:05:12 PM EST
SHELTON -- A Superior Court judge has determined that the Wiacek property the city took by eminent domain five years ago is worth almost a million dollars more than the city claimed.
+++ First, if you want to research the facts, you can see other comments I've made on this blog over the past several years where this was ever mentioned - use the search box at the top of this blog with "wiacek" for term. If you want to see any emails where the CC possibly discussed the subject try this discussion search link to our google group that publishes all our emails live to the public to satisfy FOI rules. If you want to see any City of Shelton agencies discussion over the parcel, visit this sample of a site restricted search to find it mentioned in the minutes of the IWC, PZC, BOA, or CC at the very least. Regarding the opening line: The CC made a presentation on 2004/Jan/7 advocating it be acquired. The BOA passed a motion to pursue eminent domain at their 2004/Sep/30 mtg. The "taking" due to eminent domain would have occured upon filing the paperwork which would likely have been within days of the BOA decision. +++
Last week, Judge Bruce Levin in Milford Superior Court ordered the city to pay about a million dollars more than the city's appraisal of the property, about 40 acres off Meadow Street next to Shelton High School.
The land was in the Wiacek family for about 85 years, according to attorney and Wiacek family member Shawn Splan. Splan and his cousin Walter Wiacek had just gotten land use board approvals for 24 lots on the property in 2004 when the city began the proceedings to take the property.
+++ The CC encouraged the City to consider buying this parcel (along with two other parcels during the same presentation). The BOA authorized the Mayor to negotiate with the owners (for all 3 parcels in the presentation) toward purchasing them. One of the Wiacek parcel owners stated among several public mingling at the end of the meeting that the only way the City would get the property is via eminent domain. The City still attempted to negotiate and the Mayor has stated he even had phone calls with the owners during his family vacation time. The owners pursued a development application for the parcel. The process was delayed in part due to errors from the owner's hired soil scientist expert who had mistakes while wetland flagging on the parcel. All regulatory agencies gave the application fair and standard treatment thru to approval. The approval of subdivision layout and subsequent qty of building lots allowed both parties to evaluate a realistic appraisal of value. +++
At the time the city's appraisal for the land came to about $2.5 million. The $2.5 million sale price works out to roughly $62,500 an acre.
+++ The City did indeed have an outside appraisal value the acreage it desired to acquire at apx. $2.5mil, with an acreage stated in the 2004/Sep/30 BOA motion being 39.7 acres. This was later corrected in the minutes of the 2004/Oct/14 minutes to be 35.99 acres as reflective of the legal description for the land area in the taking, and that is $69,463 per acre. However, that is not an appropriate metric upon which to compare with other areas. The subdivision approval map was the basis upon which the description for land taking was made, and it covered 20 of the 24 building lots which at that juncture were in an unimproved state. This works out to $125k per unimproved building lot. An unimproved building lot is one where subdivision approval exists, but there still is required from a developer the improvements such as roads, underground utilities and such, for building construction to take place. These improvements include City depts requiring bonds to ensure the proper construction standards are met before the City takes ownership and responsibility of areas such as a new City street. After certification by the City engineer, bonds can be released. Nobody should make the leap of thought comparing this to a personal dwelling sitting on an acre and being worth a hell of a lot more than $125k per lot or per acre. The comparison is not apples to oranges. At the time when the City took the property, the appraisal considered the status that the property was in. Some in the public tried to claim it should be valued at $8.2million (BOA 2004/oct/14 p.6: Gene Hope, p.18: Irving Steiner), something now determined by the courts to be far from reality. +++
The Wiacek family's appraisal came in about a million dollars higher. Last week a judge ordered the Wiacek family be reimbursed 85 percent of the difference, along with interest.
+++ Appraisals are done by proffessionals who certify their justifications by doing market comparisons. They can vary. If the Wiacek's appraisal came in at apx. $1mill more (I'm relying on the news report as I don't have access to real documents or exact numbers), and the judge approved of 85% of that valuation, that is $850k more than the $2.5mill of the City's appraisal for an apx. judge ordered valuation of $3.35 million. This is equiv to apx. $167.5k per unimproved building lot. +++
Splan said the city could have avoided the cost of going to court had it treated his family fairly, such as how it treated developer and former Inland Wetlands Commission chairman Al DaSilva.
+++ That statement is in direct opposition to the comment made in the presence of several people after the public presentation to the BOA where it was stated that the only way the City would get his property is by eminent domain. +++
The city paid $2.1 million, or about $150,000 an acre, for DaSilva's 14 acres off Soundview Avenue, which abuts the Wiacek property.
+++ The city purchase price was $2,124,500 for property at 279 Soundview Avenue, purchasing it from Huntington Development Group LLC, an entity where it is common knowledge that at least one of the members is Alvaro DaSilva, the former Chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission, having stepped down just shortly before this transaction agreement. That was after a "gift value" of $100k was discounted from the agreed contract value between the City and the seller. Thus the City had agreed to "value" the property at $2,224,500. The appraisal from the City for the 14 acres was $1.8mill, the appraisal from the owner was $2.2mill. I'm not part of the negotiation process, but the negotiated price and what was agreed to by the BOA and shown in their minutes was the $2.1 net purchase price (which was agreed to be spread out over several payments). At 11 lots approved for this parcel - that is $190,909 per lot. +++
Splan said five years ago it was a very different real estate market than it is today. "We always would have rather had the land and the opportunity to develop it during the golden age of real estate," he said. "We could have lived with it if they had paid us the same as they paid Al DaSilva -- when we went to market the property, the economic times were a lot better than they were in 2007" when DaSilva's purchase was done.
+++ Timing does need consideration. The difference is $23,409 per lot, a 14% increase from the time of the 2004 Wiacek acquisition (the court valuation is based on the time of the taking, even though they decided upon it in 2009) and the time of the 2008 Soundview purchase - a span of about 4 years. +++
Board of Aldermen President John Anglace said he hadn't yet seen the ruling but was not surprised by the outcome. "That's the process," he said. "That's what you do -- you see what the fair market value is for the property."
The board took criticism at the time of the action from some residents who said the city would end up having to pay far more than the $2.5 million -- some said that price would be as much as $8 million. "There is a big difference between this and what they said," Anglace said. "I said it wouldn't be anywhere near that."
The property is valuable to the city because of its proximity to Shelton High School, Anglace said. "It's part of the education complex up there."
+++ Anyone can see the CC presentation advocating reasons for acquiring the parcel. The BOA also made representations during the funding that it was for recreational uses and purposes associated with them. +++
The city will be able to pay whatever difference the court requires it to, Anglace said. The city has not done anything with the property yet, but Mayor Mark A. Lauretti said if needed, the land could be used as a school bus lot in the future, which angered residents of the nearby Summerfield Condominiums. Those residents spoke at the last Board of Aldermen meeting against the prospect.
"That's a pretty expensive parking lot," Walter Wiacek said.
+++ To think that the only use of the entire acreage of the property would be for parking school busses is simply short sighted. I have made a separate blog comment on the recent article regarding use of the property as a bus parking area. +++
The Wiacek family has another lawsuit against the city that is ongoing over the way the eminent domain process was carried out, Splan said.
+++ The first case was whether the City had the right to use eminent domain - court said yes. Next up was the valuation the City used and put in escrow, was it appropriate - court said no, pay more (which caused this article). Still to be decided, a case against public officials brought by the Wiacek's regarding actions taken during the approvals and permit to construct process. That will likely be decided during the summer. +++
Monday, March 02, 2009
Wildlife in Shelton
Another wild animal was sighted in Shelton, and it seems that the Bobcat has been identified. The Conservation Commission discussed this last week when we were alerted to it by Conservation Agent Teresa Gallagher, and the CtPost picked up on the story which has more information.
With reports of "mountain lions" (mis-reports) and other wild animals gaining close proximity to residential areas, I starte tracking this with a custom google map which I embed below. Red markers are confirmed sightings, blue markers are simply reports, and Purple Pins are whimsical.
View Larger Map
With reports of "mountain lions" (mis-reports) and other wild animals gaining close proximity to residential areas, I starte tracking this with a custom google map which I embed below. Red markers are confirmed sightings, blue markers are simply reports, and Purple Pins are whimsical.
View Larger Map
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
