118 Armstrong Rd - withdrawal article

 An application for development was submitted to the P&Z Department for 118 Armstrong Rd.  The Conservation Commission submitted a letter for the record as to why the application should be denied. After the initial public hearing, the applicant withdrew the application.  

Below is an article in this 

+++

SHELTON — A proposed 41-unit townhouse condominium development on Armstrong Road is off the table, at least for now.

The developer, 118 Armstrong, LLC, had been seeking to change the 2.1-acre lot at 118 Armstrong Road from R-1 to a Planning Development District with plans to construct 40 condominiums, all with two bedrooms. In all, the plan included five structures, with attached dwellings in each.  

118 Armstrong LLC has listed as Member, Michael Gilberti from Trumbull.  Drawings were prepared by John Guedes Associates.

The single-family home already on site would have remained and was to be renovated into a three-bedroom condominium, bringing the project's total to 41 condos. The plans called for access to the townhouses from Armstrong Road and a total of 96 parking spaces.

96 Parking Spaces for a multi-family development require 10% be electric charging, no electric charging stations were shown on the drawings stored on the P&Z Dept Open Project Page.  Per Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 4b-77(c), as of 2023Jan1, each new construction needs to have at least 10% (in this case 9.6 rounded to 10) of parking spaces be electric charging.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14zFBMKRlp2ytp5jPFWAVxgoYIokYljRs

https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_060.htm#sec_4b-77

The Planning and Zoning Commission last month held a public hearing on this plan, which drew opposition from nearby residents. The commission canceled a second public hearing after the developer submitted a letter withdrawing the plan.

“My client will resubmit an amended application in the future,” stated attorney Dominick Thomas, who represents the developer, in a letter dated March 19.

My assumption is that this application is withdrawn.  Period.  There is no ability to amend a "withdrawn" application that I am aware of.  I think that technically, the client may amend their documents, and submit a new application.

Residents had voiced concerns about the development's density and if the location qualified as a Planned Development District under the city's zoning regulations.

Thomas told Hearst Connecticut Media that the withdrawal was due to “issues with the applicability of the PDD,” that forced the developer to reassess the zoning strategy.

Thomas said at the initial public hearing that the site is a transition location, fitting the PDD rules, as it abuts the United Illuminating substation, which abuts Eversource high-voltage transmission lines.

The Conservation Commission, in a letter submitted to Planning and Zoning prior to the withdrawal, stated that the site is “explicitly prohibited from PDD consideration” under the zoning regulations because it is “entirely surrounded by single family residential zones.”

The Conservation Commission has been consistently vocal regarding the usage of PDD (Planned Development District) regulations in an manner which is explicitly not allowed.

https://cityofshelton.org/Home/DownloadDocument?docId=90462d06-5609-471f-9d96-a60c7ef24ccb

Residents also raised concerns about necessary blasting, increased traffic, loss of green space, displacement of wildlife and potential damage to the underground aquifer, which helps to keep the homes’ wells operating.  

It should be noted that any blasting is managed under regulations that focus on foundations, but wells and the impact upon the aquifer from which they draw, is a valid point of concern for pre-blast surveys.

The Conservation Commission also stated that the project could negatively impact nearby Cranberry Bog and pond. The bog and pond is a rare "true floating sphagnum bog," according to a Yale University study, commissioners said. A sphagnum bog contains various acid-tolerant plants and tends to form peat deposits.

According to the Yale study, disturbance of the sulfide-bearing rocks  at the site could acidify runoff and release heavy metals detrimental to the bog, commissioners wrote.

The commission said the original proposal would have consisted of 80 percent impervious surfaces draining directly into the bog, along with additional road salt, lawn fertilizers and pesticides. 

The nearby development "Cranberry Estates" had a tortuous history from application to construction, including a denial of using the PDD mechanism, and an initial denial being appealed to the State Courts, where the P&Z Commission decision was upheld.  Why those were not referenced to by the City Planner, or City staff is concerning.  It took Conservation Commissioners who have served for several decades to dig through personal records to locate studies and references to the biological benefits of the Cranberry Bog.

Additionally, the Town of Stratford seems to have not been notified in a timely manner as required by State law since the application for a zone change occurred within 500 feet, and that would require such notification.  Chapter 124 Section 8-3b

https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_124.htm#sec_8-3b

+++

Shell Game - Shelton Herald Commentary

A recent commentary appeared in the Shelton Herald.  I would encourage readers to view the article at it's online location.  I cut/paste the commentary with my notations inserted.
http://sheltonherald.com/22430/commentary-lauretti-land-deal-an-example-of-citywide-shell-game/

I can't recall reading such a commentary filled with so many inaccuracies.
+++

Let’s discuss the latest accomplishments of our mayor while maintaining a low tax base for the city. While he touts low taxes, a given few have lined their pockets by very coyly using a shell game.

Example: Some time ago the property that Mayor Mark Lauretti just sold on River Road was offered to the city for much less than what the mayor paid for it.

+++

This above statement is not factual.  The property (assume this means 550 River Road) was never offered to the City of Shelton to my knowledge.  Any offer of sale would have been dealt with in executive session, but having served on the Conservation Commission for years previous when the property was owned by Emhart Fasteners, I never saw nor heard of any such offer.

+++

The open lands committee said it was not interested because the land did not connect to the property they were looking at, between downtown and the Huntington Green. It could not be connected to the path going from downtown to Huntington Center through the swamps of Shelton’s back woods (shell game).Example: Some time ago the property that Mayor Mark Lauretti just sold on River Road was offered to the city for much less than what the mayor paid for it.

They felt creating the path was more desirable than the pristine riverfront property, with its water views and what could have been a beautiful beach for residents.

+++

The Conservation Commission is the one that reviews Open Space potentials. At one time there was an "Open Space Committee" which developed a "Quality of Life" list of potential acquisition parcels.  This list of specific parcels did not include 550 River Road.  The list of parcels was not an exclusive list for acquisition, merely ones that required focus.  Potential acquisition parcels are typically along Greenway Corridors as outlined in the Open Space Plan document, but certain parcels were either at risk or offered timely opportunity to be acquired.

The path through the "swamps" that is referred to as a "shell game" is the Shelton Lakes Recreation Path, which was a consistent and persistent project of the Conservation Commission for 20 years, both in acquisition of parcels in the Shelton Lakes Greenway and Far Mill River Greenway, and the numerous grants, funding, volunteer work parties and contractor management to accomplish the RecPath's construction.

There was no contrast or comparison between a Shelton Lakes Rec Path in one end of town and a piece of property in another part of town.  Nothing was "more desirable" than a riverfront property, which was contaminated with metal hydroxide sludge from previous manufacturing activity, and offered no "beach" potential given the limited access pinch point next to a tidal lagoon.  The writer's portrayal of a "pristine riverfront property" is not accurate.

+++

Advising the public on this issue

I ask you, why weren’t the people of Shelton advised of this issue when it came up rather than after the fact (shell game)?

+++

The writer displays a complete non-understanding of the purchase of land process through municipal government (not just Shelton). I repeat, that the City of Shelton was never offered the property of 550 River Road previous to the Mayor's purchase, and if they had been offered it, the Conservation Commission would repeat consistency as it has done with other parcels offered, to avoid purchasing Open Space parcels that have environmental contamination.

+++

At the time of purchase, the mayor made a deal for a large part of the property to be subdivided because that portion was contaminated. The mayor did not want to have to deal with the expense of a cleanup.

+++

On this aspect, there is a discussion that should be had.  The division of 550 River Road into two separate parcels, one of which was land-locked and contained environmental contamination, has been termed by officials as an "inappropriate subdivision". The property was not "free split" and the property did not have a subdivision application, yet somehow became multiple parcels of land during a map filing.  How this can happen has not been explained to me.

+++

Oh, by the way, that’s the portion that the new owner will provide as a buffer. Keep in mind no citizen will be allowed to cross that property to the river because it is contaminated.

+++

The recently approved application by the Planning & Zoning Commission included an Open Space dedication in the form of a conservation easement, and public access in form of a pedestrian easement.  Neither involved the parcel of land which has a significant contamination area that is "capped" in place, and thus remains off-limits to any access by persons.  This contaminated parcel is immediately adjacent to the area being developed for residential living.

+++

Meanwhile, the zoning board just placed a roadblock for a developer by delaying a zone change on a Bridgeport Avenue property because the downtown development committee showed it would harm the plan for downtown improvements already in the works.

+++

While the Planning & Zoning "Commission" did not approve a recent application on Bridgeport Avenue that included a zone change for residential use in a commercial zone via a PDD (Planned Development District) method, saying that the Commission was "delaying" a zone change implies that they will be approving the zone change at a future date, which there has been no indication for, and which I personally hope will not occur in the future in any form, because I believe that to be a inappropriate direction for the City's long term health via providing for the ability to amply grow the tax base.

+++

How come we did not hear from this committee on the zone change for the mayor’s land?

+++

That sentence is not even remotely in touch with reality.  Do a google search on the query term "550 River Road" with the restriction of site:cityofshelton.org and you will find all the information regarding applications, zone changes, reviews, not only by the Planning & Zoning Commission, but the Inland Wetlands Commission, and the Conservation Commission.

+++

Fear of rocking the boat

People in this town will talk about these issues amongst each other but for some reason no one will come forward for fear of rocking the boat at City Hall, resulting in higher taxes.

Why the people of Shelton have allowed this shell game to get so bad is beyond explanation. It’s time people bring it out in the open and do what’s best for all in Shelton.

Mr. Mayor, you did what most land-grabbing politicians (excuse me, that should be “public servants”) do and you have come out smelling like a rose.

You made $1.6 million. And the city loses water access of any kind on a riverfront property, downtown revitalization suffers, and hopes of improved services for residents in return for taxes paid are dashed.

+++

The development application approved for 550 River Road includes a conservation easement and pedestrian easement that achieves access to the water by the public.  It includes protections on the buffer zone of the Butternut Hollow Brook, Ivy Brook, and Housatonic River.  Significant water access is provided by the nearby Open Space known as "Southbank" which is just south of the location, and which includes ample street level parking as well as a pavilion for shelter.

+++

Shelton citizens, there are more issues to this then just a low tax base.

People, please wake up and smell the skunk weed in this town or we will be overrun by the swamp land we have built our scenic walking trail on.

Allowing Residential in Commercial zone

The City has received a number of applications recently for residential development in the vicinity of Bridgeport Avenue, an area primarily a commercial or light industrial zoned area.  Approvals will have what I believe is a devastating effect on our City's future.  Let me explain in laymen's terms why I say this.

First, the guide to decisions by the Planning & Zoning Commission is our "Plan of Conservation & Development".  It contains reasoning for many interconnected aspects of a municipalities operations such as schools and enrollment projections, emergency response needs of fire and police, traffic and roads infrastructure, water collections systems and sewer treatment capabilities, etc.

The services required and demands on staff or equipment are impacted by decisions made by our PZC.  A development approval for an office complex may require road improvements with signalization at intersections.  A residential development may impact the school systems.  Both approval types may impact the sewer system and pumping station facilities.  Certainly, any decision for development increases the grand list upon which the mill rate multiplies to generate our property tax revenue to operate, and the impact can vary with the scale of the proposal being approved.

Second, a typical suburban residential development is a net cash flow negative for the City.  The property taxes generated by a house on an acre lot is far outstripped by the costs of City services such as roadway plowing, refuse pickup, police protection, and the most impacting component: education costs of children that such style of development typically attracts.  Empirical studies of Old Dairy Estates and Mayflower Lane subdivisions prove this without doubt.

There are styles of development such as condos, where the character of the building's design or neighborhood layout, is not attractive to families with children, and are target marketed toward empty-nesters or "active adult lifestyle" folks.  Typically, that is accomplished with a more dense building design that doesn't require leach fields or septic systems with reserve areas that eat up acreage.  These developments occur where there is access to the City's sewerage system, and also where there is access to City Water (which is a misnomer as it is a private company's water system not a municipal owned network - Aquarion Water Company, fka Bridgeport Hydraulic Company.)

Three, these systems of sewer and water are not available in significant portions of White Hills section of town.  These ares are defined by the Water Pollution Control Authority as a "non-sewered area" on their maps, and there is no plans to expand into that area, in fact it is an area that they are avoiding expanding into with such capacity demands they would bring.  There is significant acreage of raw land in that section of town, and while much of it is protected from development via Open Space acquisition (title is in public ownership) or Purchase of Development Rights (title remains in private ownership), there remains large tracts that have potential to impact the City's future if they were to change from their current natural character which has no guarantee of continuing in perpetuity.

Land in private ownership has the ability to be developed as of right's granted via that ownership.  Those abilities are molded by the zoning associated with the land parcel, what can be accomplished on land given such zoning regulations, and subdivision regulations that breaks the land into smaller parcels (by a developer) so that they can have construction of structures (by builders).

Result, Being knowledgeable in the aspects of residential subdivisions, including construction and sales of such real-estate, there is a network of participants that desire to have the economy of scale that comes with dense development that takes advantage of sewer capability. This has caused applications for residential component development in the Bridgeport Avenue corridor, however that region is zoned for commercial development.

Allowing zone changes to City plans and maps is appropriate in certain circumstances, however doing such a change in this corridor has several impacts:

1. It takes away grand list creation of the highest potential, weakening the municipalities capability in the future to address its costs via grand list increase instead of tax rate increase. (income is largely made from grand list or tax base multiplied by the mill rate or tax rate)
2. It introduces conflict of zoning types and subsequent uses.  A 24hr gas station or pharmacy can cause issues of public nuisance when in close proximity to residential living areas.
3. Current commercial corridors do not have provisions for pedestrian movement such as sidewalks or crosswalks, both of which can cause conflicts with vehicular corridors.
4. Infrastructure needs planned for (sewage treatment, roadways) or prepared for by utilities (water, electric, telecommunications) are impacted.

Conclusion the zoning regulations for the Bridgeport Avenue corridor should be adhered to for the future viability of the community.  Recent approvals of assisted living facilities or apartment type complexes, are not appropriate in my personal opinion.  

Recent applications for similar style development as those recently approved is a result from the encouragement that has been given to such applicants having witnessed the recent approvals via PDD methods (Planned Development Districts).

Development Proposal - CtPost

I encourage readers to go to the ConnPost 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 the content with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

Hearing Tuesday on townhouse proposal for Lauretti parcel
Anne M. Amato Published 10:14 p.m., Saturday, October 13, 2012

SHELTON -- A public hearing will take place Tuesday on a proposal by a Torrington developer to build 36 townhouses on River Road property owned by Mayor Mark A. Lauretti.

+++ Beating a dead horse with repeatedly pointing this out, but the property is not owned by Mark Lauretti.  It is owned by Housatonic Way LLC, an entity in which Mark Lauretti has made no secret to being an owner of.  That should be stated at the beginning of the article, not the end. +++

The 12-acre parcel has been at the center of controversy since the mayor purchased it in 2003 from Emhart Technologies for $235,000. It was the focus of an ethics complaint filed in 2004 by two former mayors, Michael Pacowta, and Eugene Hope, who cited a conflict of interest.

+++ The writer should state what the result of the ethics complaint was.  No conflict was found.  Spelling of Emhart's corporate name is incorrect. +++

Some residents wanted the city to keep the property as open space. However, the city's Conservation Commission twice has discussed that issue and twice has recommended the city not pursue purchasing the parcel.

+++ We discussed a certain parcel of land in 2005, see my recent post for a present day release of those documents.  We separately discussed a certain parcel of land in 2012 that had a different nuance given remediation activity that had recently taken place immediately adjacent to the parcel.  Somewhat similar, but not the same. +++

In a recent memo to the Board of Aldermen, the commission said the city has limited resources for purchasing open space; the property doesn't abut any open space; and the public access is somewhat restricted by two streams and a tidal basin.  Commissioners also said the city is in the process of acquiring other open space and "jumping this property ahead of those would defeat the long-range plans for property acquisitions."

"That's how things stand now," said Tom Harbinson, commission chairman. He said the memo "speaks for itself."  He said the commission doesn't send a memo to the aldermen on every parcel it reviews. But, he added, due to the public attention of this property -- because it's owned by a public official -- commissioners felt they should be as "open as we can."

+++ I was contacted on FriOct12 by the reporter for the above comments.  The minutes of our 2012Oct3 meeting can be found here.  The portion that pertains to this appears near the end and I excerpt it for continuity of this posting.

Commissioner McCreery MOVED to state that the Commission has considered the appropriateness of suggesting the BOA pursue the acquisition of 550 River Road for open space purposes for the City. We continue to stand on our original position that the City not pursue this property for open space for the following reasons: 1) The City does have limited resources for purchasing open space and we are in the process of acquiring additional open space for the Recreational Path, as we speak, which will be closing soon and the City will have to pay for that. Further, we have additional properties already in the pipeline that have been prioritized for acquisition, both in connection with the Recreational Path or other open space purposes. Jumping this property ahead of those would defeat the long-range plans for property acquisitions. 2) There now being a property division line that has purportedly been implemented to segregate the potentially contaminated site that abuts it does not address the concerns the Commission had when it originally recommended that the City not pursue this for open space because a property line does not prevent future potential migration of contamination. Whether the property is currently contaminated or not, we don’t think the City should incur the risk of acquiring the abutting land. 3) The property does not abut any

existing open space. 4) We feel the critical need to preserve the river and stream corridors that criss-cross this property and the unique tidal lagoon can be preserved by the land use agencies in town (Planning & Zoning Commission and Inland Wetlands Commission) by implementing appropriate restrictions on any development so as to preserve them. You don’t necessarily have to acquire the property to maintain those critical environmental features. 5) The public access is somewhat restricted by virtue of the co-joining of the two streams and the tidal lagoon, and finally, 6) In the past we’ve always historically had a co-partner in the acquisition being the landowner who has worked with the City to accept less than fair market value payment and or accept payments over time and we don’t perceive at this time that we have a willing seller. We have not been approached by the seller asking to sell the land to the City. By all the above mentioned reasons this Commission would not recommend pursing the acquisition of this property. SECONDED by Vice-

Chairman Dyer.

Discussion:

Commissioner Welsh said he knows we’re strapped because we’re buying a lot of land, and we’ve always done a good job. But to have that limit our aspirations for what might spring up, I think we might word it differently. The Commissioners agreed to modify the motion.  Commissioner McCreery amended the motion to eliminate the part where we don’t have the resources to buy it. SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Dyer.

All were in favor; MOTION PASSED.  Chairman Harbinson said to copy the Board of Aldermen on the motion.

+++

"Are we all sleeping?" said Aldermen John Anglace, board president, when asked if the aldermen would discuss the commission's decision.

"In 2005, the Conservation Commission took a position of no interest and the alderman took an action of no interest, " he said. "Why would anyone want to change those decisions seven years later, especially now that there's a contract on the property and the property value has escalated?"

+++ The character of any property could change over 7 years, but for all the reasons mentioned above (which does not include any aspects of who may or may not own the property, who may have contract to purchase the property, or what value of the property is since we have no appraisal) our decision speaks for itself +++

"It would be stupid," Anglace said.  He said why the parcel is an issue is "just plain and simple": "It's because it's the mayor's," he said.

In their ethics complaint, Pacowta, a Democrat, and Hope, a Republican, claimed Lauretti, a Republican, used his position as the city's economic development director to secure the "prime riverfront property." The former mayors and their supporters said Lauretti instead could have looked into having the city buy the land for open space.

+++ The filing of maps on the City land records, created a parcel that could be sold/purchased.  This has been termed an "inappropriate subdivision" by staff, and is something that I would hope the Planning and Zoning will address at a future date, but certainly in the course of the current applications for a zone change and for a development..+++

Lauretti has, at various times, considered building a banquet hall, condominiums and finally several homes on the property, but never pursued those plans, so the property remains undeveloped.

The mayor announced earlier this year that Country Club of CT LLC, of Torrington, was purchasing the property, which is under Housatonic Way LLC.  The company is seeking a zone change from residential to Planned Development District, which would allow the construction of a 36-unit cluster that would be called Blue Heron Cove.

+++ There are two reference names on title blocks of various drawings submitted with applications, some of which refer to this as "Blue Heron Cove". +++

The Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing on the plan is scheduled for 7 p.m. Tuesday in City Hall.  The proposal was on the Inland/ Wetlands Commission's Wednesday agenda, but the meeting was cancelled for lack of a quorum.

+++ The PZC public hearing was delayed because according to PZC staff, the Ct Post messed up the publishing of the public notice.  The IWC application was extended 45 days at the request of the applicant. +++

Lauretti could not be reached for comment.

aamato@ctpost.com; 203-330-6496; http://twitter.com/annemamato

x

Reviewing Land for Open Space - 2005 comments

The Conservation Commission has a regular process where potential open space preservation projects are reviewed.  In 2005, a unique situation developed that is not typical.  There was a public petition presented to the Board of Alderman requesting they examine a specific parcel for open space, and the the BOA turned it over to the Conservation Commission for comment.  See the minutes from our meeting of 2005Aug3, where we discussed land purchase issues in executive session.

The outcome was to write a letter to the Board of Alderman regarding a parcel on 550 River Road.

550 River Road was a property owned by an entity known as Housatonic Way LLC, and it was common knowledge that the Mayor was an owner of that entity.  Normally, we would address this information to the Mayor as would be the procedure.  Since the property owner and the Mayor created a conflict, I hand delivered the letter to the President of the Board of Alderman, John Anglace, during their public portion, and it was expressly stated that it was not to be shared with the property owner.  It was also not given to the BOA Clerk by me as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.  Now 7 years later, I have been asked by both the public and the Mayor (via the BOA Clerk) that they be allowed to see these documents.  Neither the Public nor Mark Lauretti as public citizen or Mayor has been given access to this before now.  I note the following from FOI exemption regarding such documents:

"The contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by an agency relative to the acquisition of property or to prospective public supply and construction contracts, until such time as all of the property has been acquired or all proceedings or transactions have been terminated or abandoned, provided the law of eminent domain shall not be affected by this provision;"

It could be characterized that the 2005 proceeding or consideration of a parcel as it existed in 2005 has been abandoned, and thus I am releasing both the letter and additionally a 5 page summary of details that went into review of the parcel.  The content of that is also released below, with some minor redaction of components that relate to potential future Open Space acquisitions of specific parcels outside of 550 River Road.

Letter to Aldermen
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.

August 4, 2005

Mr. John F. Anglace

President

Board of Aldermen

Shelton City Hall

54 Hill Street

Shelton, CT  06484

Subject:         Request to review property for potential acquisition

550 River Road

Executive Session: Only to be viewed by members of the Conservation Commission, and Board of Alderman until a FINAL conclusion is reached.  Due to ownership of the subject parcel, this EXCLUDES the Mayor.

At its regular meeting of July 6, 2005, the Shelton Conservation Commission received your July 5^th written request to review the subject parcel.  Our meeting resulted in asking for a copy of the public petition that initiated the request, and information regarding any environmental issues involving the property.  These were obtained July 7^th, and July 25^th respectively.  Maps of the area were reviewed and the topic discussed at our regular August 3^rd meeting.  The following is our response:

The Shelton Conservation Commission would welcome an opportunity to review a parcel that is free of environmental matters.  Currently we do not see such issues have been resolved, and therefore remain consistent with our long established policy of avoiding entangling the City in issues of contamination by declining interest in acquisition at this time.

Sincerely,

Shelton Conservation Commission

Thomas Harbinson, Co-Chairman

Cons.Comm.Aug03mtg/Commission:th

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End letter to Aldermen
Start 5 page report to Aldermen that accompanied letter

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Executive Session: Only to be viewed by members of the Conservation Commission, and Board of Alderman until a conclusion is reached.  Due to ownership of the subject parcel, this EXCLUDES the Mayor.

Conservation Commission review of open land parcel for possible acquisition

Subject:                        Property at 550 River Road.

Reason:                        Board of Alderman requested in response to public petition.

Date of Review:                        July 2005

Preface:

• This commentary is meant solely for illustration of our considerations regarding the acquisition of the subject parcel at this juncture and should not be construed for any other purpose.
• In a letter dated July 5^th 2005, the Chairman of The Board of Alderman, responding to receipt of a public petition to consider purchase of the subject property, solicited recommendation of The Conservation Commission.  This is a standard procedure.
• This letter was discussed at our Conservation Commission meeting of July 6^th 2005 under Agenda item #14 – Quality of Life.  This agenda item was held in executive session as are all issues related to possible land acquisition.  The outcome of that meeting was that further information should be gathered on the area, with specific attention to environmental issues.
• At this point, it should be recognized that normally, The Board of Alderman and The Mayor are often consulted or briefed regarding executive sessions that deal with land acquisition goals held by the Conservation Commission.  Mayor Lauretti is a party of ownership to this subject parcel.  Care should thus be taken by the Conservation Commission and Board of Alderman as to the executive session nature of these discussions not being shared with a party of interest until a conclusion is reached, and there is no longer a possible affect on the normal acquisition process.
• A copy of the public petition was requested by Tom H from John Anglace, faxed on July 7^th 2005.  The petition is ambiguous as to what parcel is being requested to review.  For this review, we scrutinized the general area rather than a specific parcel.  To reiterate the petition: “We, the undersigned electors of the City of Shelton, CT, hereby present this petition requesting the City of Shelton, CT pursue the purchase of riverfront property at 550 River Road, Shelton, CT for the purposes of preservation as open space for recreational use for the enjoyment of all residents of the City of Shelton, CT.”
• A request by Tom H from Mark Lauretti was made on or about July 22^nd for review of available environmental information to the property, which was received on July 27^th.

Meetings with the Mayor, February 13th, 20th, 27th – Jim, Harriet

Tom Harbinson, Terry Jones, Ed Conklin and Jim T. attended the three meetings with the Mayor. Harriet attended one of them. The topic of conversation was the purchase of open space.

At the meeting, several properties were discussed, one of which was the land that was purchased by the Mayor on the River Road. In response to inquiries about that land, Harriet read a statement as follows:

“The Conservation Commission did talk about the 14 acres at 550 River Road when it was brought to our attention several years ago. At that time we did not know the price of the land, but we did know it was contaminated. When we learned this, we were not interested, so we did not pursue its purchase.”

That is the Conservation Commission’s response to our part we played in that land.

In addition, Harriet stated they talked about several other properties. They were the Wiacek property, the Wabuda property, and the Tall property.

History of Practice:

• The Conservation Commission has consistently acted on property acquisition issues in concert with our Open Space Plan document rather than a “passion of the day”.  This planning document promotes the long-term goal of Greenway corridors containing conserved lands, primarily along the watercourses in town.  The Greenways are: Housatonic River Greenway, Far Mill River Greenway, Means Brook Greenway, and the Shelton Lakes Greenway.
• In addition to the four general Greenways, the Open Space Plan did note several select parcels for attention to acquisition.  These parcels were not meant to be exclusive.  Parcels that add to, extend, or potentially link conservation areas in the Greenways are given attention, as well as standalone parcels when the possibility of a “pocket park” creation exists or a buffering goal for neighborhoods and similar conservation goals can be met.
• The concept of identifying specific parcels was renewed with the Quality of Life list, the purpose of which was to help make property owners aware of the City’s goals with respect to open space that may involve their property, and establish a dialogue and relationship between the property owner and the City.
• The Housatonic River is arguably the most important to the region of all our Greenways.  It is the only Greenway that offers motorized vessel recreation.  Access to Long Island Sound is provided by the Housatonic River below the Ousatonic Dam.  The river above the dam (called Lake Housatonic, it is bounded to the north by Stevenson Dam holding back Lake Zoar) is an equally important resource, but for different reasons given its “lake” characteristic.
• The entire Housatonic River Greenway is an important scenic asset to our community that adds to the quality of life for the whole region.  Recreation opportunities and enjoyment of the river can be disrupted by development and the scars into the natural vegetation and topography of the banks and ridges that border it.
• The Conservation Commission takes very seriously the violation of a conservation easement or otherwise protected area in the vicinity of the Housatonic River, and has worked closely with both the Corporation Counsel and the Inland Wetlands Commission in regard to recent violations of this scope in this area.
• Certain areas of shoreline have topographic or historic features best left in their natural state and not disrupted by introducing activities.  These include parcels owned either by the State of Ct. or within the right-of-way for Rte.110. (rock outcroppings), and by the City of Shelton as open space. (Trolley Bridge abutments).  The Conservation Commission has recently advised the Board of Alderman not to dispose of open space parcels in these areas.
• In addition to the tidal areas that require Coastal Area Management Plans at the state level, extra care is given to Conservation Commission reviews of development for all areas including uplands that may impact the river; especially development that is not water dependent.

History of Environment for the lower Housatonic River (below the dam)

• The Housatonic River has been affected by both natural and man-made activities over many years.  Dredging, tidal flow and river currents make difficult and limit the areas of shore best suited for activities.  Significant erosion has occurred in many areas where the shore is composed of sand or silt, while certain shores are of a rocky nature and not subject to the same degree of erosion and de-stabilization.  These can be referred to as soft-shore or hard-shore areas.

• The soft-shore of the Sunnyside Boat Ramp area has required significant improvements and maintenance over the years to maintain its viability.  Coconut logs were installed by the Parks & Recreation Dept. to maintain the shore against erosion, and the boat ramp area has been rebuilt.  Erosion is occurring again at Sunnyside, and similar issues exist to a lesser degree at the South Bank open space parcel.  As boating activities increase on the river, erosion rates in soft-shore areas will increase due to the effect of wakes.
• Many industrial and commercial operations have been proximate to the river for its use as power generation, transportation, and waste disposal.  Many of these locations involve a myriad of complex issues such as environmental contamination, legacy liability, permitting of operations, etc.  Some examples are metal processing activities, the water pollution control and treatment plant, abandoned industrial complexes, quarry and material’s processing operations, marinas, landfills, underground storage tanks and chemical lagoons.  When these issues exist, they are costly to bring to a resolution before a property can be sold.

A selection of areas from the lower Housatonic River that may offer recreation expansion (excluding the subject property).

• As the region’s population grows more access will be needed to the river for both active and passive recreation opportunities, therefore access to the river is encouraged where best accomplished for both active and passive recreation.  Currently available are:
• Active:  The municipally maintained Sunnyside Boat Ramp is open to non-residents and strained to capacity use at peek demand (weekends).  Also available in Shelton to the general public is the boat ramp to Lake Housatonic at Indian Well State Park, a canoe launch at Southank (City open space) and a launch access area on Birchbank Road. (City open space).  There are two commercial marinas offering slips and winter storage of vessels.
• Passive: Riverfront passive recreation is available at Birchbank Rd, Indian Well State Park, the Canal Locks (on private land made open to the public), the Riverwalk downtown, the Sunnyside Boat Ramp park area (includes picnic areas), the Southbank open space parcel (includes picnic benches and a pavilion), and a pedestrian easement at the Shelton Sports Center (as part of it’s PDD Planned Development District approval, the owner is required to maintain a pedestrian access to the river).  While not riverfront, enjoyment of river vistas can be had at the Riverview Park in downtown.
• Although not in Shelton, recognition of the Housatonic River as a regional resource is given and to the fact that Derby has future prospects to open the O’Sullivan Island area to recreation opportunities that could serve the broader community.
• Under the Commodore Hull Bridge, an old area of wharfs or piers exists adjacent to the current northern terminus of the Riverwalk.  This has potential for a fishing pier allowing further passive enjoyment of the river.
• The area from the Commodore Hull Bridge to Lafayette School offers some promise for expansion of the Riverwalk, just as it is proposed to be expanded north beyond Bridge Street.
• ITEM REDACTED DURING 2012SEP RELEASE.
• ITEM REDACTED DURING 2012SEP RELEASE.
• ITEM REDACTED DURING 2012SEP RELEASE.
• ITEM REDACTED DURING 2012SEP RELEASE.
• There is ability to expand the Southbank open space picnic areas to the parcel’s northern boundary on area that is sparsely vegetated and buffers a private residence from the park activities.  This area was improved during the development of Nature’s Lane off Old Coram Road across the street and above the site.  Newly installed City sewers traversed the property and parking lot improvements along with a bank stabilization plan of vegetation (white pines) were made by the contractor at no cost to the City.
• The CRRA landfill is a state facility which is closed from accepting any further waste.  Toward the end of its use, it accepted ash from the trash burning facility in Bridgeport that served the region and is now “capped”.  Methane gas is collected from decomposing waste deposited during the many years it was used as a landfill.  As part of its closure plan, recreational improvements are proposed that are both passive (hiking trails around the lagoon that opens to the Housatonic) and active (boat launch area at lagoon).  This includes associated parking areas and offers a significant opportunity to answer these recreation needs for the future residents of the region at little or no cost to the City.

Subject property

• The area that was once a 14 acre parcel was given a cursory review by the Conservation Commission in November 2001.  Commission member Thomas Harbinson had personally reviewed it for possible purchase as a home-site.  He did not pursue it given his findings of environmental contamination at the site that was on the land records in the town clerk’s office.  As a courtesy to the Conservation Commission, he informed them that he had looked at it, but noted that it was not on our Quality of Life list.  The reasoning given for the 14 acre parcel’s omission from the Quality of Life list was that the Conservation Commission has a history of not recommending purchase as open space of contaminated property.

• The property has had significant discussion in the form of an ethics complaint to the Board of Ethics which was presented in part by the same party who presented the petition to the Board of Alderman to purchase it.  Given the amount of testimony involved in the ethics review which was made public, we find little need to reiterate it here.  In summation for our purposes, the “free split” of the parcel should not have been allowed, and the Planning & Zoning Department has stated that the property was “inappropriately subdivided”.  Any subdivision of land that is not a “free split” requires a set-aside of open space as called for in the subdivision regulations before a new lot map can be recorded in the Town Clerk’s office.  The property’s “inappropriate subdivision” yields an ambiguity regarding its legal status and the (1) the ability of the City to solely acquire a lot that has been split from a larger parcel that had environmental contamination with no environmental liability, (2) what area of open space can or should be set-aside from this subdivision of land.
• In addition to the Housatonic River, the property is bordered by Butternut (Buttermilk?) Hollow Brook and is traversed by Ivy Brook to its terminus.  We are unable to determine if the river’s status at this location would require a Coastal Area Management Plan submission to the State of Ct. Dept. of Environmental Protection.  Given the watercourses and significant wetland areas, any development on this site will receive scrutiny and review by the Inlands and Wetlands Commission as a regulatory agency, in addition to the advisory opinion from the Conservation Commission to the Planning & Zoning Commission for any set-aside of open space during a subdivision.
• Since this request originated via a public petition, the Conservation Commission feels called to provide a summary of our recommendation to the Board of Alderman that can be made public if they so choose, and will accompany this review report.  Please recognize that this is not the normal procedure of our Commission, but given the nature of the petition presenter and the property owner facing each other in the upcoming political arena, we felt this the best course of action to provide a balance between our decision process and public acknowledgement of the request.

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

End of 5 page report to Aldermen that accompanied letter

Recreation Path - A Celebration

**  These are the comments I had hoped to read during the event on Saturday September 6th., but I forgot my notes and had to wing it, and since the Mayor had showed up, be briefer than planned. **

I want to thank everyone for coming today and joining in this celebration.

First off, you are standing on a special place, the Shelton Lakes Greenway.  It is in the heart of our community, near our center of education, and these lands are protected forever from development.  Where we are today would not be possible without the hard work of many that followed a common direction.

This area could have become something far different than what you are enjoying now.  In 1965, a nearby parcel on Nells Rock Road of over 50 acres was purchased with an eye toward it's potential as a town incinerator site.  Two years later in 1967, a parcel of 50 acres was purchased that was subsequently developed as the Shelton High School campus in the early 1970's.  It was a logical assumption for Shelton to consider locating services in the geographic center of the city, such as a new Police Station, or Senior Center, or EMS facility.

In addition to municipal ideas on how to utilize all the available lands in this area, there were private enterprise ideas too.  Conceptual drawings were being drafted that showed a large development of homes strung among a 100's of units similar to Oronoque Village in Stratford, or Heritage Village in Southbury.  There was a gas station, convenience store, etc.  However, a different direction emerged than either of these public or private directions, one that saw value in the environment and it's potential for this area.

A significant amount of this area's acreage was owned by Bridgeport Hydraulic Company.  It was determined that certain lands were "Class 3" watershed property, in essence "excess" and could be sold off by the water utility.  Even the three former reservoirs were no longer needed.  A milestone moment was coming on the horizon, and as with most significant accomplishments, it required everyone to move in a common direction.

The legal parcel of land which includes this location on which we are standing, is 79 acres.  It is a significant size and covers a large area including the former reservoir on Nells Rock Road with it's dam and gatehouse from 1915.  A BHC employee names Douglass Stewart was instrumental in gaining the City's ownership of this property, and we informally refer to this Open Space parcel as "Stewarts Woods".  The City closed on the acquisition on October 28, 1983.  The price?  Zero.  It was a gift from BHC to the City and inspired others to share in the environmental direction.

After a good deal of preparation, an Open Space planning document was adopted in 1992 that recognized the benefit when several parcels come together and amalgamate to create corridors, or Greenways.  Such a corridor was identified in this location and referred to as "Shelton Lakes" due to the 3 reservoirs that were sprinkled through it's core.  In those days before satellite images on digital maps via mobile phones, assessors maps were cut apart and taped together again to create a larger picture that could be rolled out as a presentation for meetings - allowing easier examination of where parcels would need to be acquired in order to accomplish the vision.

The Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the vision of the Open Space Plan, as did the Board of Aldermen.  An Open Space Committee was formed with representatives from the PZC, BOA, IWC, public at large, and worked to identify open space targets here and elsewhere in town.  Subdivisions such as Toll Brothers on Independence Drive, or Blakeman Construction in Huntington Woods - had the Open Space set-aside called for in the subdivision regulations work to accomplish the vision.  Aldermen approved pursuit of acquisition for parcels, the public voted overwhelmingly to support costs via bonding, even obscure methods such as taking of property for delinquent taxes occurred with the City Attorney.  This collective work took persistence.

In that Open plan, there was referenced the idea of passive recreation and enjoyment of the environment, such as hiking trails, and those were created with many volunteers on the Trails Committee over the years, but there was an even greater vision in the wings.

Terry Jones was co-Chairman of the Conservation Commission at the time, and had been to Stowe Vermont where he saw their community's recreation path.  It was a firm surface level walking path, not unlike some of the rails-to-trails style paths in the region.  It connected their developed town area of Stowe with the countryside.  Perhaps such an amenity could be created in Shelton and connect the colonial Huntington Center area with the more urban downtown Shelton area via the countryside?  Yes but it would require even more partners following the same direction.

The Board of Education was constructing a new school campus, and the Building Committee incorporated the RecPath into the landscape's design.  Dam Spillways had to be crossed with bridges, and we worked with the town of Monroe to obtain a grant from the US Forest Service to accomplish that.  There were road crossings and ADA grades that we wanted to maintain, and we had help from private professionals who donated services to help prepare wetlands and zoning applications.  Accessory projects such as sign kiosks at entry points became Eagle Scout Projects.  The Shelton Land Trust constructed a large segment through their property on Lane Street.  When road signals were upgraded, the City Engineering Department worked with DOT to enable the pedestrian crossings, and on secondary roads the Police Department painted the pedestrian zone markings.  When summer activities for Parks and Recreation ended, they assisted with some initial clearing of the path, notably on the SIS school campus and Oak Valley Road.  The vision caught fire with outsiders via funding from the DEEP for Recreational Trails Grants, Iroquois Gas Company with their Community Grants.  Resident Basil Dikovsky joined the vision and donated a portion of his property to allow the RecPath to be accomplished at an accessible grade rather than meander awkwardly.  State Representative Richard Belden was able to obtain a few thousand dollars that we utilized to commission a design for our RecPath logo that allowed us to "brand" or set apart this as something unique among the general network of trails.  EVERYONE was moving in the same direction.

What began as a n seed of an idea in the 1990's is completed construction in 2012.  The Shelton Lakes Recreation Path germinated from witnessing a recreation path in Stowe VT (which happens to be near a similar referenced "Rte 108") that connected the urban and suburban landscape.

Substantial property was acquired through the years, notably the purchase of lands from the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company (now Aquarion) which was closed on formally in 1998.  Further land came from subdivision set-asides, taxes owed, outright purchases.  Grants were involved in some cases, deed restrictions put in place in most cases.  Hiking trails were constructed, timber bridges were put in place, contractors helped in heavy work - but most of the legwork was done by volunteers.

Trails Committee members held countless meetings for planning, attended physical work parties in the field or led guided hikes to illustrate where the routing was, and attended Shelton Day to drum up the promotion of the activity.

The Conservation Commission kept at the role of facilitating grant applications for land acquisition, bridge construction, trail construction, and an annual budget used for professional services of surveys, engineering studies, wetlands applications, and materials purchases.

The Planning & Zoning Board and Inland Wetlands Commission attended to various applications over the years for work that required permitting such as wetlands crossings and bridge construction.  The City Engineer assisted in design and co-ordination of structures such as bridge and weirs.

The Board of Alderman approved of our plans and direction from a general sense, and the funding or applications for grants from a detailed perspective.  Their authorization for land acquisitions was a footing upon which future work could take place.

Dean Cawthra and the Parks & Recreation Dept assisted in helping clear out the routing in several locations around the school campus.  Also as Tree Warden, Dean had perspective in defining what direction such areas of routing might take.

I want to next thank some folks who are professionals that donated services to this effort: Terrance Gallagher, Jim Tate, Jim Swift - all three as Engineers and Landscape Architects contributed considerable value from a professional perspective.

Finally, a very big thanks to Commissioner Bill Dyer who was a "Clerk of the Works" for the construction of this path for several years, interacting with contractors and city agencies.  Without his involvement and dedication to the task being completed, we wouldn't be here today.  Thank You Bill.

Buying Land - CtPost

I encourage readers to go to the ConnPost 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 the content with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.


Panel weighs buying mayor's riverfront land
Anne M. AmatoPublished 11:18 p.m., Wednesday, September 19, 2012

SHELTON -- The Conservation Commission will be considering the purchase of a 12-acre parcel on the Housatonic River where a Torrington developer wants to build 36 townhouses.

+++ The CC actively considers parcels for preservation throughout town all the time.  Our efforts are guided by a planning document (Open Space Plan) rather than reacting to a development or subdivision proposal of the moment.  The OSP focuses on Greenway Corridors, mainly watercourses in the City.  The Housatonic River is obviously one of those Greenways, and this parcel of land does lie within it.  In an effort to protect the negotiating interests of the City, the CC typically does not comment on specific parcels outside of "Executive Session" until an sales agreement has been reached, or if there are pressing circumstances that we feel warrant speaking out more publicly (reference BOA presentation made regarding 3 parcels at one time: Tall, Wiacek, Wabuda). +++

The land, at 550 River Road, is owned by Mayor Mark A. Lauretti, who purchased the property in 2003 from Emhart Technologies for $235,000.

+++ Technically, the parcel is owned by Housatonic Way LLC, an entity in which Mark Lauretti has ownership.  It is not owned by a "Mayor".  What the purchase price was 9 years ago is immaterial. +++

The commission, during a special meeting Wednesday, debated the matter for about an hour, weighing the pros and cons of buying the riverfront property.

+++ Typically, we do not discuss acquisition of parcels during public portion.  Given the public attention, and  knowledge from our recent site visit, the attributes of the property were discussed, both pros and cons, if it were to be Public Open Space.  While Public Open Space can be achieved via acquisition, it can also be done via conservation easements and pedestrian easements, such as may occur as part of a development of the property.  Full discussion as to whether acquisitions should take place are held in executive session. +++

Among the issues raised was the impact on the Housatonic River by the proposed development and the possibility that the land might be connected to other walkways or trails in the future.

+++ The parcel has no ability to expand or link with adjoining parcels on the Housatonic River, but there is a corridor up the Ivy Brook that may lend itself toward creation of hiking trails that would lead to the Housatonic as a destination. Such a trail would be interrupted by the Rte110 River Road.  Trails are traditionally created by volunteers on the Trails Committee.  +++
+++ Correction Sep28: There is a single parcel of land abutting this to the South that is currently vacant +++

"This is one of the last significant parcels on the river," said Edward McCreery, commission member. "When we walked the site it struck me, `Wow, the public won't be able to do what we're doing,' " if the land is developed, he said.

+++ I would disagree personally that it is the "last" significant parcel.  There are at several (more than 4) other parcels in the Housatonic River Greenway corridor that in my opinion are much more significant.  By significant, I refer in terms of public access or environmental value, but which are currently in private hands.  Some areas that we walked during a site visit would not be publicly accessible as shown in the proposal, and that is commented on in our letter to the PZC for the proposal +++

Commission member Joe Welch said the property would be good for hiking. "I also saw lots of fish activity there," he said.

Public access to the river, however, would be difficult and "a bridge would need to be built to access the river," said Jim Tate, commission member.

+++ Many public assume that since the parcel is on the river, it is accessible to simply walk to the waters edge, but that is not the case.  There is a barrier island/peninsula that is separated from the mainland by a tidal lagoon.  The available shoreline is dramatically impacted during the differential in elevation between low and high tide. +++

Concern was also raised that the property owner is a public official. The fact that the mayor owns the land "makes it awkward for everyone involved," said McCreery.

+++ This deserves clarification.  First, the application for development is dealt with as any other would be, with no special "breaks" or adversely, extra "scrutiny".  Secondly, any review of the parcel as potential acquisition for preservation is considered as any other would be, and the pros and cons are weighted for the parcel on it's own merit, and in light of other preservation projects that may be occurring.  The only aspect that is "awkward" as EdM puts it is "administration" of tasks associated with acquisition.  If that course of action is pursued (acquisition), then the administration of that process would be vexing with the owner (Mark Lauretti as owner of the LLC) also being the individual (Mayor's office as Chief Elected Official) historically assigned to negotiate such purchases on behalf of the City. Thus, if such course of action is chosen, rather than be communicated with the Mayor, it would be put in the lap of the Board of Alderman to administer. +++

"I think we should deal with it like any other parcel -- in executive session," said Tom Harbinson, commission chairman. Commission members agreed to add it to their next meeting agenda.

The commission had considered purchasing the property years ago, not long after Lauretti bought the land, but, at that time, there was some contamination attached to the parcel, which apparently has since been cleaned up.

"We decided the city shouldn't buy it at that time," said McCreery. `We thought it would be a liability," added Harbinson.

+++ I will shortly make a blog entry specific to the above three paragraphs, as the subject is more involved. +++

Lauretti could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

Country Club of CT LLC of Torrington is proposing the development, called Blue Heron Cove, and is seeking a zone change from residential to a Planned Development District, which would allow the construction of a 36-unit cluster.  The Planning & Zoning Commission is holding a public hearing on the proposal Wednesday at 7 p.m. in City Hall.

+++ The posting of legal notice for the public hearing was not done properly by the CtPost according to the PZ Administrator Rick Schultz, and has been rescheduled. +++

Lauretti had, at various times, considered building a banquet hall, condominiums and finally several homes on the property, but he never pursued those plans, and the property remained undeveloped.

Lauretti's purchase of the land prompted two former mayors to file an ethics complaint in 2004, citing a conflict of interest.  Former mayors Michael Pacowta, a Democrat, and Gene Hope, a Republican, claimed Lauretti, a Republican, used his position as the city's economic development director to secure the "prime riverfront property."  The former mayors and their supporters said Lauretti could have, instead, looked into having the city buy the land for use as open space.  The Ethics Commission denied the complaint in a 2-1 vote.

+++ As mentioned earlier, a blog entry specific to acquisition review done years ago, will be commented on within it's own blog post +++