This blog entry is a duplication of a publication posted on Google's "Group Service" used by the Conservation Commission to publish and communicate electronic communications:
Greetings Commissioners,
Last night was the Conservation Commission's turn to defend its budget in front of the Board of Apportionment & Taxation. I believe this was my third year of having to attend this process. As one might imagine, it was a bit of a love fest as everyone is pleased with what the CC does. There was however one SNAFU - and that acronym definately applies.
It isn't within our CC budget's line items, but the Open Space Trust Account (OSTA) is something the Open Space Ordinance calls for us to report on, and is obviously important for us to monitor activity within. Similar to us catching developers not paying their required fee-in-lieu of payments into the account which resulted from subdivision applications, I have caught that the Mayor's proposed budget shows a zero allocation to the OSTA instead of the amount required by ordinance: $250,000.
I was neither given the courtesy of a heads-up for this by the Mayor despite having a chance encounter twice in the past 2 weeks at the local diner - one when Vice Chair Bill Dyer was dining with me, or at two planned meetings that occured during the past month for unrelated staff sessions in his office. The Mayor also did not attach an explanation for such a substantial change to his Proposed Budget as he is required to do by Charter (see p.28 of hyperlink for Sec.7.2 item a) "...and indicating any major changes from the current fiscal year, together with the reasons for such changes,..."). I found out about this when several different people started asking me about it (an Aldermen, and persons on BoA&T). This issue occurred pretty quickly and subsequent to our last CC mtg, so I had to act simply as Chairman administering this.
When I was finished answering the BoA&T's two or three questions for our standard budget items, I turned the tables in asking about why this OSTA budget item was zero instead of the required $250k. I assume nobody, other than those who contacted me as mentioned above, knew what I was talking about because nobody spoke up with an answer. I gave the budget line item number for the OSTA and pointed out this was a violation of existing ordinance. Everyone seemed unaware of the ordinance, as nobody said anything and were looking rather dumb-founded, thumbing thru pages of printouts to find the item I was talking about. Alderman Finn, Olin, Papa and Simonetti were present at this meeting (Anglace arrived after I was finished speaking) and nobody had an answer as to why the change.
I explained that there were known expenditures from contracts/agreements that would occur in fiscal year 08/09 toward Open Space purchases (Soundview Ave payment #2 and #3 motion by the BOA from 2008Feb14) and Development Rights (PDR of JFF Homestead Acres bonding payment) that could rightly and correctly come from the OSTA. Surely those 2 known expenditure items were budgeted somewhere else in the Mayor's proposal. Nobody had that answer either.
I suggested that the Ordinance be followed with money budgeted, appropriated within 45days of the fiscal year, and then expended from the OSTA toward either of the two items mentioned above which everyone knows will exceed $250k. This would not increase spending in anyway, merely adjust between budget line items as sourcing for which known expenditures are required to occur in the coming FY. It finally seemed to sink in, (especially when they realized I wasn't actually asking for any more money to be EXPENDED) and the BoA&T chairman asked me to send him the documentation.
During a bathroom break from the meeting, I spoke with 2 Aldermen who understood my explanation and saw no problem with taking that direction. I attempted to reach the Mayor in advance of this meeting with no success. I did reach him after the meeting via phone during which we had a "vigorous" 6 minute discussion of the subject. The merits of my explanation were not accepted and his rebuttal devolved into recounting his past expenditures and what he has done for open space previously. Before he terminated our conversation (rather abruptly), he indicated that we will now see a future item on the BOA agenda to modify the OSTA Ordinance.
I'm pretty upset about this. I wish I didn't have to publish "dirty laundry" in are usual public forum, but when the Ordinance says to do something, and the Charter says to do something, and the Mayor blatantly violates both - I unfortunately have to bring it to everyone's attention on the BoA&T for correction just as we did for the missing fee-in-lieu of payments with P&Z. As you can imagine, there was a reporter in the audience, and I expect this storyline will spin into a politicized mess. Given other questions I've been getting and having to respond to regarding the recent Soundview Ave purchase (I was asked to speak during the P&Z mtg this week when they gave the 8-24 referral - unanimously), my greater concern is in regard to the effect on the public's perception about Open Space preservation efforts, and possible setbacks towards future acquisitions we have been working toward and are all aware about on CC which I obviously won't reveal here.
My experience has been that a reporter's notes, and presentation of the facts is challenged to fully explain the subject when confined to a paper's collumns and word count (I did answer some reporter questions asked of me outside the auditorium). Trying to clarify the full story is one reason why I'm using a public venue besides what was obviously a public meeting already. I don't have the time to say the same responses to 3 different reporters asking questions for the same story. I instead offer this data source which they can refer to.
I worked for months, spending a tremendous amount of personal time with Alderman Anglace to prepare the OSTA Ordinance and remove ambiguity of what could be expected for the future. You will recall in the process that the motion was given a "non-approval" (veto) letter by the Mayor, and after modification was passed again (hyperlink has BOA segment of their meeting on 2006Sep14). The ordinance was followed in FY 06/07 ($50k, though appropriated late) and 07/08 ($250k). I did have to bird-dog the finance department for the proper timely allocation both years as nobody had told them what the ordinance was requiring.
I take great issue with the amount of time and work I put into such activities, and then seeing it negated by officials with deliberate ignorance under the guise that they meet the "intent". It is disheartening and causes me to question if I am best serving this avocation in my current position.
Note: By nature of a special email address, this message is simultaneously appearing in my Chairman's Media Blog in addition to being published in our Google Group.
Thomas Harbinson
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Shelton Canal filling - letter to editor rebuttal
A recent letter to the editor endorsed filling in the Shelton Canal out of safety concerns. With a recent car in a segment of the canal (unrelated to the proposed fill-in area), it is easy to understand such a conclusion, but I would submit it is an incorrect one.
The City of Shelton owes it's current economic power in part to it's location on the Housatonic River and the business leaders of years ago who built the Ousatonic Dam and a canal to use the subsequent water power for running factory machines. There is still one company remaining that uses water from the canal for their manufacturing operation. In 1986, the owner of this infrastructure (McCallum Enterprises) received a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to take water generated electricity from the river. That process of building a new hydro plant blocked off the canal from any navigable use and made the locks non-purposeful (though they still are there). The license also required that the company prepare a fish ladder to allow migration up river beyond the impediment of the dam. This was never completed, apparently due to the financial cost.
With exciting changes coming to the character of Canal Street due to the residential developments being proposed, McCallum, seeing new possibilities, has investigated their options and begun pursuit of approvals to fill-in the canal from the locks up to the hydro plant (apx. 2.5 acres) for the purposes of real-estate development under the premise of using gains from the activity toward funding a fish ladder construction. There have been no serious safety issues with this area of the canal. The DEP has a recreational lease upon the area that allows public access for fishing and other passive enjoyment of the broad vistas up the Housatonic River. The area was hoped to be a feature destination when the downtown Riverwalk undergoes expansion.
There are many nuances to this process with applications to FERC, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Ct DEP. Also, as a waterbody, the City's own Inland Wetlands Agency has some jurisdictional aspects to address. The Shelton Conservation Commission is very concerned with this concept. We are non-regulatory, but in our role as the environmental conscience of the community we have attempted to bring public awareness by creating a webpage of photos, satelite images, links to various agencies with application documents and instruction for the manner in which the public can make constructive and impacting comments on them (some of which have deadlines). Simply google search "Shelton Canal" and you should see it in the top results. The Housatonic River, and the canal with it's locks are a regional resource, so I would encourage more than just a Shelton resident to offer their comments.
The area represents a heritage that is valued highly by the community and was recently featured in a watercolor cover for the City of Shelton's 2007 Annual Report. The early constructors of the Dam thought well enough of the public good to give some property to the City creating Riverview Park (the City's first park) which overlooks this canal area. Perhaps it is time again for the current owners to think of the greater public good.
Thomas Harbinson
Shelton Conservation Commission - Chairman
This email is being simultaneously sent to the CtPost editor, and this media blog
Editor: This may be too long for you to include, but it is important as the address to the page the conservation commission has created to promote public awareness:
http://sheltonopenspace.googlepages.com/sheltoncanal
The City of Shelton owes it's current economic power in part to it's location on the Housatonic River and the business leaders of years ago who built the Ousatonic Dam and a canal to use the subsequent water power for running factory machines. There is still one company remaining that uses water from the canal for their manufacturing operation. In 1986, the owner of this infrastructure (McCallum Enterprises) received a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to take water generated electricity from the river. That process of building a new hydro plant blocked off the canal from any navigable use and made the locks non-purposeful (though they still are there). The license also required that the company prepare a fish ladder to allow migration up river beyond the impediment of the dam. This was never completed, apparently due to the financial cost.
With exciting changes coming to the character of Canal Street due to the residential developments being proposed, McCallum, seeing new possibilities, has investigated their options and begun pursuit of approvals to fill-in the canal from the locks up to the hydro plant (apx. 2.5 acres) for the purposes of real-estate development under the premise of using gains from the activity toward funding a fish ladder construction. There have been no serious safety issues with this area of the canal. The DEP has a recreational lease upon the area that allows public access for fishing and other passive enjoyment of the broad vistas up the Housatonic River. The area was hoped to be a feature destination when the downtown Riverwalk undergoes expansion.
There are many nuances to this process with applications to FERC, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Ct DEP. Also, as a waterbody, the City's own Inland Wetlands Agency has some jurisdictional aspects to address. The Shelton Conservation Commission is very concerned with this concept. We are non-regulatory, but in our role as the environmental conscience of the community we have attempted to bring public awareness by creating a webpage of photos, satelite images, links to various agencies with application documents and instruction for the manner in which the public can make constructive and impacting comments on them (some of which have deadlines). Simply google search "Shelton Canal" and you should see it in the top results. The Housatonic River, and the canal with it's locks are a regional resource, so I would encourage more than just a Shelton resident to offer their comments.
The area represents a heritage that is valued highly by the community and was recently featured in a watercolor cover for the City of Shelton's 2007 Annual Report. The early constructors of the Dam thought well enough of the public good to give some property to the City creating Riverview Park (the City's first park) which overlooks this canal area. Perhaps it is time again for the current owners to think of the greater public good.
Thomas Harbinson
Shelton Conservation Commission - Chairman
This email is being simultaneously sent to the CtPost editor, and this media blog
Editor: This may be too long for you to include, but it is important as the address to the page the conservation commission has created to promote public awareness:
http://sheltonopenspace.googlepages.com/sheltoncanal
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Bobcat in region photographed
The numerous sightings of a bobcat have failed to have a photographic evidence to confirm the claim - until now.
Spotted on Poverty Hollow Road in Eason/Redding area is a bobcat. While it can't be claimed to be the same one from Shelton, it does show that they can be in our area.
Spotted on Poverty Hollow Road in Eason/Redding area is a bobcat. While it can't be claimed to be the same one from Shelton, it does show that they can be in our area.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Airsoft bio-degradable BB's
Similar to the paintball activity, there is a new game that many kids have hooked onto called "airsoft". You shoot these tiny pellets, or BBs as we call them. Conservation Agent Teresa G. has encountered some areas on Shelton Open Space where the typical teenager hang-out debris occurs, along with this airsoft residue.
In WalMart they sell the equipment, and both the plastic BBs along with bio-degradable BBs. It is reasonable to assume that users are not going around to pick up their shot BBs. Even when on private property it has an effect on ecology with wildlife, so this is not just an "on open space" issue. Rather than have more plastic in the environment / ecosystem, perhaps the State could consider mandating that the biodegradable version be used since it is already available. For example.
plastic airsoft BBs:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=6527843
biodegradable airsoft BBs:
http://www.amazon.com/Cybergun-5000ct-Biodegradable-Airsoft-BBs/dp/B000OYH9EM/ref=sr_1_7/102-1849596-7216116?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1193875968&sr=1-7
In WalMart they sell the equipment, and both the plastic BBs along with bio-degradable BBs. It is reasonable to assume that users are not going around to pick up their shot BBs. Even when on private property it has an effect on ecology with wildlife, so this is not just an "on open space" issue. Rather than have more plastic in the environment / ecosystem, perhaps the State could consider mandating that the biodegradable version be used since it is already available. For example.
plastic airsoft BBs:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=6527843
biodegradable airsoft BBs:
http://www.amazon.com/Cybergun-5000ct-Biodegradable-Airsoft-BBs/dp/B000OYH9EM/ref=sr_1_7/102-1849596-7216116?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1193875968&sr=1-7
On 10/31/07, Kate Ramunni wrote:
Hi Tom,
I saw on the message board something about you
requesting Larry Miller introduce legislation about
BBs -- was wondering what that's about. Thanks!
kate
Thursday, October 25, 2007
CRRA Xfer liability and Closure Plan
Response to question from CtPost reporter Kate Rumani on 2007/Oct25
As a resident of the area, I would hope that there are safeguards in place to ensure that whoever assumes management will maintain the gas recovery operation properly. Once in the past when the CRRA delegated duties, a contractor (forget the name) was charged with running the methane extraction operation and it turned out they hadn't replaced filters anywhere near the periodic schedule and the system then clogged, leading to methane migration and the most recent methane event a few years ago. At that time, the head of the CRRA attended an informational meeting at Long Hill School (along with other CRRA staff and some City leadership) to lay out the corrective plans to prevent that happening again (which included replacing the contractor), and at a subsequent informational meeting (I was at both) a "Closure Plan" was presented which has yet to be followed thru on.
While the landfill does have areas of contamination that were shown to be sequestered far from any proposed public use, the site is a substantial area with existing access roads that reach the waterfront and an inlet near the confluence of the Far Mill River. The Closure Plan presented involved improvements to the entrance at Rte110 with stone walls replacing the existing chainlink fence, parking areas for users and a location for canoes to put into the lagoon area that opens to the Housatonic River, and decorative plantings. Hiking trails were shown on maps that would allow passive recreation to observe the significant wildlife on the site as it continues reverting to a more natural setting. I have personally observed deer, coyote's and numerous birdlife from the adjacent Sports Center.
The Housatonic River is a mighty natural resource for the region. If the former landfill site can be put to use in providing passive enjoyment of that resource, I believe that would be beneficial and should be pursued. Since that has been presented for several years as the plan by the CRRA, it should be completed in a timely manner or explained to the community as to why a different direction or delay has taken place. I believe the Closure Plan as previously illustrated was a good thing for the community, and any permitting or safety issues that may be holding back it's implementation should be addressed.
The development projects proposed in recent years along both sides of the Housatonic (marina, sports ctr, residential development, golf course), have to various degrees taken away potential areas for public enjoyment of the river. If this site will have no future opportunity to balance that aspect, it would alter my personal viewpoint when analyzing future Shelton development proposals in that river corridor.
As a resident of the area, I would hope that there are safeguards in place to ensure that whoever assumes management will maintain the gas recovery operation properly. Once in the past when the CRRA delegated duties, a contractor (forget the name) was charged with running the methane extraction operation and it turned out they hadn't replaced filters anywhere near the periodic schedule and the system then clogged, leading to methane migration and the most recent methane event a few years ago. At that time, the head of the CRRA attended an informational meeting at Long Hill School (along with other CRRA staff and some City leadership) to lay out the corrective plans to prevent that happening again (which included replacing the contractor), and at a subsequent informational meeting (I was at both) a "Closure Plan" was presented which has yet to be followed thru on.
While the landfill does have areas of contamination that were shown to be sequestered far from any proposed public use, the site is a substantial area with existing access roads that reach the waterfront and an inlet near the confluence of the Far Mill River. The Closure Plan presented involved improvements to the entrance at Rte110 with stone walls replacing the existing chainlink fence, parking areas for users and a location for canoes to put into the lagoon area that opens to the Housatonic River, and decorative plantings. Hiking trails were shown on maps that would allow passive recreation to observe the significant wildlife on the site as it continues reverting to a more natural setting. I have personally observed deer, coyote's and numerous birdlife from the adjacent Sports Center.
The Housatonic River is a mighty natural resource for the region. If the former landfill site can be put to use in providing passive enjoyment of that resource, I believe that would be beneficial and should be pursued. Since that has been presented for several years as the plan by the CRRA, it should be completed in a timely manner or explained to the community as to why a different direction or delay has taken place. I believe the Closure Plan as previously illustrated was a good thing for the community, and any permitting or safety issues that may be holding back it's implementation should be addressed.
The development projects proposed in recent years along both sides of the Housatonic (marina, sports ctr, residential development, golf course), have to various degrees taken away potential areas for public enjoyment of the river. If this site will have no future opportunity to balance that aspect, it would alter my personal viewpoint when analyzing future Shelton development proposals in that river corridor.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Ideas on how to enjoy Open Space this Fall
This was emailed to editorial dept of CtPost, HuntHrld and ShltnWkly on WedOct3.
People will soon come to our region to witness the landscape's foliage color change of fall. In Shelton, some will experience those vistas while picking pumpkins and apples, enjoying haunted hayrides and corn mazes, or buying cider, wines and ice-cream on our local farms. A large part of this activity is made possible by the value our residents have endorsed being invested into open space, particularly in those lands preserved for agricultural use, but perhaps less known are the many of opportunities for the public to enjoy the variety of open space lands conserved for passive recreation in Shelton.
On SatOct6 at Indian Well State Park, the New Haven Rowing Club is hosting the 13th annual "Head of the Housatonic" regatta that has 600 entries with athletes from various Northeast schools competing all morning on the Housatonic River. The City of Shelton has purchased much of the property along the ridge lines near the park to preserve the vista of the river's corridor. You can get a birds-eye view of the staging area from Riverview Park, Shelton's first preserved park space. If you want to experience the river for yourself (downstream), you can launch a cayak from Southbank Park and enjoy a picnic at it's pavilion.
On SunOct7 at downtown Shelton, the Shelton/Derby Rotary is conducting "Shelton Day" with all their exciting activities. It puts on display the value of our downtown with the riverwalk and park areas on the river to enjoy, and which will be expanded upon with the on-going plans for downtown re-development. Check out the Shelton Land Conservation Trust's booth to see how they operate independently from the City government toward preserving lands in Shelton.
On TueOct9 at the Shelton Lakes Greenway area, the Shelton High Cross Country Team hosts their last home meet of the year against Amity and Cheshire on the RecPath and Turkey Trot Trails. How inspiring to see the school's education campus utilize the forested areas surrounding it for such passive recreation use, just as we envisioned when it was purchased. There are roughly 400 acres with 10 miles of trails in this area for anyone in the public to hike during the day.
Looking for something to do with the kids off school? Spice up a hike with a bit of adventure. On Open Space in Shelton there are hidden 23 letterboxes and 36 geocaches to find. The sheltontrails.org website also has nature guides for items to be aware of and keep kids learning about their surroundings (and despite recent news reports, there are NO mountain lions to worry about).
The City is grateful for the work of volunteers and groups to make these opportunities possible. The SHS Cross Country team helped do maintenance on the Turkey Trot Trail with the hard working Trails Committee of the Shelton Conservation Commission, the Girl Scouts Troop 363 is cleaning the Huntington Wellfield while Troop 512 cleaned up around the Far Mill River in Pine Rock Park. Last weekend and this, there are volunteers taking macroinvertabrae samples on the Far Mill River to help the DEP study its water quality.
Enjoy the fall weather and land preserved in the community, by the community, and for the community.
People will soon come to our region to witness the landscape's foliage color change of fall. In Shelton, some will experience those vistas while picking pumpkins and apples, enjoying haunted hayrides and corn mazes, or buying cider, wines and ice-cream on our local farms. A large part of this activity is made possible by the value our residents have endorsed being invested into open space, particularly in those lands preserved for agricultural use, but perhaps less known are the many of opportunities for the public to enjoy the variety of open space lands conserved for passive recreation in Shelton.
On SatOct6 at Indian Well State Park, the New Haven Rowing Club is hosting the 13th annual "Head of the Housatonic" regatta that has 600 entries with athletes from various Northeast schools competing all morning on the Housatonic River. The City of Shelton has purchased much of the property along the ridge lines near the park to preserve the vista of the river's corridor. You can get a birds-eye view of the staging area from Riverview Park, Shelton's first preserved park space. If you want to experience the river for yourself (downstream), you can launch a cayak from Southbank Park and enjoy a picnic at it's pavilion.
On SunOct7 at downtown Shelton, the Shelton/Derby Rotary is conducting "Shelton Day" with all their exciting activities. It puts on display the value of our downtown with the riverwalk and park areas on the river to enjoy, and which will be expanded upon with the on-going plans for downtown re-development. Check out the Shelton Land Conservation Trust's booth to see how they operate independently from the City government toward preserving lands in Shelton.
On TueOct9 at the Shelton Lakes Greenway area, the Shelton High Cross Country Team hosts their last home meet of the year against Amity and Cheshire on the RecPath and Turkey Trot Trails. How inspiring to see the school's education campus utilize the forested areas surrounding it for such passive recreation use, just as we envisioned when it was purchased. There are roughly 400 acres with 10 miles of trails in this area for anyone in the public to hike during the day.
Looking for something to do with the kids off school? Spice up a hike with a bit of adventure. On Open Space in Shelton there are hidden 23 letterboxes and 36 geocaches to find. The sheltontrails.org website also has nature guides for items to be aware of and keep kids learning about their surroundings (and despite recent news reports, there are NO mountain lions to worry about).
The City is grateful for the work of volunteers and groups to make these opportunities possible. The SHS Cross Country team helped do maintenance on the Turkey Trot Trail with the hard working Trails Committee of the Shelton Conservation Commission, the Girl Scouts Troop 363 is cleaning the Huntington Wellfield while Troop 512 cleaned up around the Far Mill River in Pine Rock Park. Last weekend and this, there are volunteers taking macroinvertabrae samples on the Far Mill River to help the DEP study its water quality.
Enjoy the fall weather and land preserved in the community, by the community, and for the community.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Animal sightings in Shelton
Update Sep26: One of the people who saw the "mountain lion" has confirmed to the papers with a photo that what she saw was a large pit bull dog. However, a couple of days ago Dean Cawthra (the City of Shelton Tree Warden, and Superintentendent of the Parks & Recreation Staff) said he saw a bobcat on Rte110 just west of the White Hills shopping center. Dean is an outdoorsman, and said he definately noted a bobbed tail on the catlike creature. Although there is no photographic evidence - I tend to give his account high credibility.
End of update
There have been 3 instances reported in the news where at least 6 people have reported seeing an animal that some think is a Mountain Lion. This is likely incorrect identification. There has been no photographic evidence of the animal in question.
A Mountain Lion would have a very significant length tail. A bobcat is possible and would have a very short length tail. A coyote will be much more doglike and mangy.
The people who maintain the Shelton Trails website have a page devoted to this subject with reference photos and videos to help the public determine what they witness.
As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I have created a map that locates animal sightings in Shelton. BLUE marks are for unconfirmed animals, RED marks are confirmed animals, PURPLE pins are whimsical. Although the map has a bit of whimsy, the subject of sightings is of serious concern and should be immediately reported to the Police Department. See this excerpt from the NHRegister of ThuSep13:
Sgt Ahern said the police believe the animal is "afraid of people." Ahern said people should go about their lives as usual, but be aware of their surroundings. If they see the animal, folks shouldn’t try to corner or capture it.If they can get a picture safely, that would be great, Ahern said. If anyone sees the mystery animal, they are asked to call police at 924-1544 or (860) 424-3333
View Larger Map
End of update
There have been 3 instances reported in the news where at least 6 people have reported seeing an animal that some think is a Mountain Lion. This is likely incorrect identification. There has been no photographic evidence of the animal in question.
A Mountain Lion would have a very significant length tail. A bobcat is possible and would have a very short length tail. A coyote will be much more doglike and mangy.
The people who maintain the Shelton Trails website have a page devoted to this subject with reference photos and videos to help the public determine what they witness.
As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I have created a map that locates animal sightings in Shelton. BLUE marks are for unconfirmed animals, RED marks are confirmed animals, PURPLE pins are whimsical. Although the map has a bit of whimsy, the subject of sightings is of serious concern and should be immediately reported to the Police Department. See this excerpt from the NHRegister of ThuSep13:
Sgt Ahern said the police believe the animal is "afraid of people." Ahern said people should go about their lives as usual, but be aware of their surroundings. If they see the animal, folks shouldn’t try to corner or capture it.If they can get a picture safely, that would be great, Ahern said. If anyone sees the mystery animal, they are asked to call police at 924-1544 or (860) 424-3333
View Larger Map
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Mayflower Lane, Paugusset Blue Dot Trail
On TueMay22, I was interviewed by Isabel Senes of the Shelton Weekly regarding this subject for about 45 minutes. This is a summary of the issue for the public, which was held until her story reaches publication to protect her competitive interests with other local news outlets. (frankly I forgot about this draft waiting to be published for some months)
+++
Mayflower Lane is located off Meadow Street near Shelton High School. It was created in 1997 via a subdivision application known as "Far Hill Estates". The subdivision mechanism used was a PRD or "Planned Residential Development" zone. In such an application, the underlying "as of right" subdivision is shown on a drawing with appropriate open space dedication and infrastructure for drainage, septics, wells, etc. This was R1 zoned land, which in simple summary means 1 acre, 1 lot. A PRD application then takes that underlying subdivision layout, and gives a bonus of more lots (partly by sizing them smaller) for the consideration of more Open Space dedication. It is a mechanism welcomed by the City of Shelton and used by developers in areas where extra open space is desired. The Far Horizon's subdivision was in such an area.
Mayflower Lane is situated on the crest of a ridge that lies in Shelton's Housatonic River Greenway. There are four such Major Greenways in town (Shelton Lakes, Far Mill River, Means Brook and Housatonic River) called out in the City of Shelton Open Space Plan which was last formally revised in 1992. Since that time, Shelton has also recognized several Minor Greenways that serve to link Major Greenways (Long Hill Ave is one such example with apx. 100 acres preserved). The Open Space Plan (a supplemental planning document) is undergoing an update as called for in the Plan of Conservation and Development (a "Master Plan" which was approved in 2006 by the P&Z Commission and endorsed by the BOA) as a task to be completed by the Conservation Commission .
Mayflower Lane's application was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission with a large area of land (2004 Open Space Map# OS77) dedicated as Public Open Space. One of the express purposes of the Open Space parcel's unique layout and configuration, was to facilitate the reconnection of the Paugussett Trail, part of the blue-dot trail system.
Blue-dot trails are a statewide network of trails that follow ancient or historic footpaths. They are maintained by volunteers with the Connecticut Forest and Parks Association. They can be rugged hiking trails, not the easy walking trails one is accustomed to seeing on other Shelton Open Space. They contain no formalized surface, can traverse rocky ledges or footpath along the edge of a meadow, and are only marked with a small distinct blue blaze (paint mark) as waypoints. There are few if any signs, kiosks and parking areas normally associated with them due to their rustic character. They are utilized by the more adventuresome hiker looking for a challenge with perhaps some rock scrambling, not the usual resident out for a casual stroll or walk. The trail in Shelton does not completely traverse publicly owned "in-fee" land, and at certain locations there is only a pedestrian easement to allow crossing of privately owned land. Thus, the areas that are solely a blue dot trail are pedestrian only, no mountain bikes and obviously like none of the City Open Space, no motorized vehicles.
The City has obtained parcels of land as Public Open Space between the Open Space subdivision dedication on Mayflower Lane and the area of Indian Well State Park. The first parcel acquired was termed "The Overlook" as it was on the rocky bluff along Rte 110 overlooking the Housatonic River and the entrance to Indian Wells State Park. The second parcel acquired was just above the first parcel, so that was referenced as "Above The Overlook". A third parcel was next to the first, so that was referenced as "Aside The Overlook". It should be said that the 2nd and 3rd parcel owners came to the City despite the ability to sell their property to developers because they saw the greater good of what their properties could contribute to a larger assemblage of Public Open Space. The Ct. DEP saw the value of our goals and contributed to our efforts with funds from the Open Space Land Acquisition Grant Program toward the acquisition costs.
In 2006, the Conservation Commission was invited to attend a function at the The Connecticut Forest and Park Association, the oldest private nonprofit environmental organization in Connecticut. The Commissioner of the Ct DEP, Gina McCarthy, spoke on a new initiative being supported by the CFPA: "No Child Left Inside". The idea being that the State parks and Open Spaces that are in our area could and should provide opportunity for children to enjoy the outdoors with the ancillary benefits of exercising, being aware of the environment at an early age, etc. The CFPA maintains the "Blue-dot" trails scattered around the State and was encouraging the hiking component of the DEP initiative. The CFPA was also looking for areas where the existing blue-dot network could be expanded. Naturally all of us on the Conservation Commission thought of our long followed plans to attempt integrating an extension of the Paugussett Trail (a Blue-dot trail) toward the hiking trails in Shelton that are quite extensive in the Shelton Lakes Greenway area, and hopefully on toward Stratford in the future.
Such a desire or plan to expand the Paugussett trail should come as no surprise to the residents of Mayflower Lane whose properties abut the City of Shelton Open Space that was outlined for such a purpose. Letters were sent to the owners in 2002, followed up with a personal visit in one of the homes with numerous residents of the neighborhood. A letter was sent in 2005 to several owners who had constructed sheds and gardens or installed playscapes on the City Open Space property. In 2007 all the owners were contacted to be aware of Trails Commitee volunteers being in the area during coming months to analyze the field aspects of preparing for such a trail. It was this letter that led to quite a bit of misunderstandings between the homeowners and what the Conservation Commission was trying to implement from all the plans and efforts prepared and outlined over the past years.
I understand the concerns of the homeowners, and there are compromises that can be made to hopefully accomodate those concerns while still meeting the goals of the trail's expansion. The consideration of the issue is ongoing with no actions having taken place to date.
+++
Mayflower Lane is located off Meadow Street near Shelton High School. It was created in 1997 via a subdivision application known as "Far Hill Estates". The subdivision mechanism used was a PRD or "Planned Residential Development" zone. In such an application, the underlying "as of right" subdivision is shown on a drawing with appropriate open space dedication and infrastructure for drainage, septics, wells, etc. This was R1 zoned land, which in simple summary means 1 acre, 1 lot. A PRD application then takes that underlying subdivision layout, and gives a bonus of more lots (partly by sizing them smaller) for the consideration of more Open Space dedication. It is a mechanism welcomed by the City of Shelton and used by developers in areas where extra open space is desired. The Far Horizon's subdivision was in such an area.
Mayflower Lane is situated on the crest of a ridge that lies in Shelton's Housatonic River Greenway. There are four such Major Greenways in town (Shelton Lakes, Far Mill River, Means Brook and Housatonic River) called out in the City of Shelton Open Space Plan which was last formally revised in 1992. Since that time, Shelton has also recognized several Minor Greenways that serve to link Major Greenways (Long Hill Ave is one such example with apx. 100 acres preserved). The Open Space Plan (a supplemental planning document) is undergoing an update as called for in the Plan of Conservation and Development (a "Master Plan" which was approved in 2006 by the P&Z Commission and endorsed by the BOA) as a task to be completed by the Conservation Commission .
Mayflower Lane's application was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission with a large area of land (2004 Open Space Map# OS77) dedicated as Public Open Space. One of the express purposes of the Open Space parcel's unique layout and configuration, was to facilitate the reconnection of the Paugussett Trail, part of the blue-dot trail system.
Blue-dot trails are a statewide network of trails that follow ancient or historic footpaths. They are maintained by volunteers with the Connecticut Forest and Parks Association. They can be rugged hiking trails, not the easy walking trails one is accustomed to seeing on other Shelton Open Space. They contain no formalized surface, can traverse rocky ledges or footpath along the edge of a meadow, and are only marked with a small distinct blue blaze (paint mark) as waypoints. There are few if any signs, kiosks and parking areas normally associated with them due to their rustic character. They are utilized by the more adventuresome hiker looking for a challenge with perhaps some rock scrambling, not the usual resident out for a casual stroll or walk. The trail in Shelton does not completely traverse publicly owned "in-fee" land, and at certain locations there is only a pedestrian easement to allow crossing of privately owned land. Thus, the areas that are solely a blue dot trail are pedestrian only, no mountain bikes and obviously like none of the City Open Space, no motorized vehicles.
The City has obtained parcels of land as Public Open Space between the Open Space subdivision dedication on Mayflower Lane and the area of Indian Well State Park. The first parcel acquired was termed "The Overlook" as it was on the rocky bluff along Rte 110 overlooking the Housatonic River and the entrance to Indian Wells State Park. The second parcel acquired was just above the first parcel, so that was referenced as "Above The Overlook". A third parcel was next to the first, so that was referenced as "Aside The Overlook". It should be said that the 2nd and 3rd parcel owners came to the City despite the ability to sell their property to developers because they saw the greater good of what their properties could contribute to a larger assemblage of Public Open Space. The Ct. DEP saw the value of our goals and contributed to our efforts with funds from the Open Space Land Acquisition Grant Program toward the acquisition costs.
In 2006, the Conservation Commission was invited to attend a function at the The Connecticut Forest and Park Association, the oldest private nonprofit environmental organization in Connecticut. The Commissioner of the Ct DEP, Gina McCarthy, spoke on a new initiative being supported by the CFPA: "No Child Left Inside". The idea being that the State parks and Open Spaces that are in our area could and should provide opportunity for children to enjoy the outdoors with the ancillary benefits of exercising, being aware of the environment at an early age, etc. The CFPA maintains the "Blue-dot" trails scattered around the State and was encouraging the hiking component of the DEP initiative. The CFPA was also looking for areas where the existing blue-dot network could be expanded. Naturally all of us on the Conservation Commission thought of our long followed plans to attempt integrating an extension of the Paugussett Trail (a Blue-dot trail) toward the hiking trails in Shelton that are quite extensive in the Shelton Lakes Greenway area, and hopefully on toward Stratford in the future.
Such a desire or plan to expand the Paugussett trail should come as no surprise to the residents of Mayflower Lane whose properties abut the City of Shelton Open Space that was outlined for such a purpose. Letters were sent to the owners in 2002, followed up with a personal visit in one of the homes with numerous residents of the neighborhood. A letter was sent in 2005 to several owners who had constructed sheds and gardens or installed playscapes on the City Open Space property. In 2007 all the owners were contacted to be aware of Trails Commitee volunteers being in the area during coming months to analyze the field aspects of preparing for such a trail. It was this letter that led to quite a bit of misunderstandings between the homeowners and what the Conservation Commission was trying to implement from all the plans and efforts prepared and outlined over the past years.
I understand the concerns of the homeowners, and there are compromises that can be made to hopefully accomodate those concerns while still meeting the goals of the trail's expansion. The consideration of the issue is ongoing with no actions having taken place to date.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Mill Rate revaluation math explained
I have already posted an entry regarding my take on the upcoming rate increase It is obvious from all my discussions with news media and friends, that there is a vast chasm of knowledge for what affects their tax bill in Shelton. This is my feeble attempt to offer explanation.
First some groundwork understandings: On May 15th, the Board of Aldermen set the mill rate for fiscal year 2007/2008 - your tax bill due to be paid by Jul/07 and Jan/08. A mill rate is a tax rate per thousand dollars (thus the "mill") in assessed value for both real property (land, buildings) and personal property (auto, business equipment, etc). Assessment value is 70% of market value. The market value is determined by the assessor's office thru careful analysis of much data such as sales, physical inspections, etc. (assessment value for autos is set at a fixed schedule by the state of Ct, for example a 1980 Volvo in Greenwich is the same valuation if it were located in Windsor). The entire value of all property in the City is referred to as the "Grand List".
The Assessor's office is reqd by state law to carry out a re-valuation of all property every certain number of years (the law changed recently I believe from every 10yr to a 5yr period). Shelton has just experienced such "revaluation" and all property values are fixed to a 2006 valuation (last valuation was 2001). Understandably property value has increased in that 5yr span, but not equally across the entire town. An area attracting real-estate interest and market desirability will show a greater increase % in value than a less desirable area. Similarly, the personal property of businesses (computers, machinery, office equipment) depreciates in value over time (depreciation for balance sheets, a company's "books", is a different schedule than that used for property tax assessement). This fluid mix of numbers that make up the Grand List lead to confusion for what the new mill rate means to an individual's tax burden.
I received my new valuation statement from the assessor's office, just like all residents, in 2006. As expected, my property value has increased and I divided the assessed value by 70% to obtain what was the City thought to be my home's market value. I agreed it was fair and reasonable.
My earlier post on the subject was pro-forma with the Mayor's proposed budget and resulting mill rate. Now that the actual budget and resulting mill rate have been adopted, I can report that my street of typical 1950 era ranch style homes (on which I have lived since 1965) has an average tax increase of 24.26%. There are currently 3 school age children in my neighborhood of 21 homes.
A more recent PRD subdivision from 1998 such as Mayflower Lane has calculated to a tax increase of 11.65% increase. There are 41 school age children in that neighborhood of 24 homes.
My neighborhood is gentrified with several residents in their retirement, and thus few students contributing to costs of the school system. About 8yrs after my neighborhood was constructed (my house was 1958) the area was filled with school kids and led to the construction of Long Hill Elementary School. After the kids grew and parents stayed around, the demand on the school diminished and now is able to handle capacity for kids from as far away as Meadow Street near the High School. A new subdivision (within past 8yrs) is experiencing that same cycle.
My end of town has been undervalued, or perhaps more accurately "under appreciated" as people and realtors focused on the "Huntington" or "White Hills" monicker for adding some cachet to those areas. Now with an understanding that the Long Hill or Pine Rock area of town can easily access the commercial corridor of Bpt Ave, the Rte 8 and Merrit Parkway, as well as open space nearby for hiking or recreation such as the Public Boat Launch and the Sports Center with ice rink and driving range - all have focused some new developments to be built (Waterview Landing, Rivers Edge, Pinecrest, Marina). Thus our property values have appreciated at a brisk pace, and resultingly our taxes based upon them.
Regardless to these market conditions, the Planning & Zoning Commission (elected body) must make firm decisions toward proper planning of Shelton's land base for development. A balanced community requires a good commercial corridor of high yielding tax/acre to counter the deficit of tax vs service that residential development has illustrated for years.
First some groundwork understandings: On May 15th, the Board of Aldermen set the mill rate for fiscal year 2007/2008 - your tax bill due to be paid by Jul/07 and Jan/08. A mill rate is a tax rate per thousand dollars (thus the "mill") in assessed value for both real property (land, buildings) and personal property (auto, business equipment, etc). Assessment value is 70% of market value. The market value is determined by the assessor's office thru careful analysis of much data such as sales, physical inspections, etc. (assessment value for autos is set at a fixed schedule by the state of Ct, for example a 1980 Volvo in Greenwich is the same valuation if it were located in Windsor). The entire value of all property in the City is referred to as the "Grand List".
The Assessor's office is reqd by state law to carry out a re-valuation of all property every certain number of years (the law changed recently I believe from every 10yr to a 5yr period). Shelton has just experienced such "revaluation" and all property values are fixed to a 2006 valuation (last valuation was 2001). Understandably property value has increased in that 5yr span, but not equally across the entire town. An area attracting real-estate interest and market desirability will show a greater increase % in value than a less desirable area. Similarly, the personal property of businesses (computers, machinery, office equipment) depreciates in value over time (depreciation for balance sheets, a company's "books", is a different schedule than that used for property tax assessement). This fluid mix of numbers that make up the Grand List lead to confusion for what the new mill rate means to an individual's tax burden.
I received my new valuation statement from the assessor's office, just like all residents, in 2006. As expected, my property value has increased and I divided the assessed value by 70% to obtain what was the City thought to be my home's market value. I agreed it was fair and reasonable.
My earlier post on the subject was pro-forma with the Mayor's proposed budget and resulting mill rate. Now that the actual budget and resulting mill rate have been adopted, I can report that my street of typical 1950 era ranch style homes (on which I have lived since 1965) has an average tax increase of 24.26%. There are currently 3 school age children in my neighborhood of 21 homes.
A more recent PRD subdivision from 1998 such as Mayflower Lane has calculated to a tax increase of 11.65% increase. There are 41 school age children in that neighborhood of 24 homes.
My neighborhood is gentrified with several residents in their retirement, and thus few students contributing to costs of the school system. About 8yrs after my neighborhood was constructed (my house was 1958) the area was filled with school kids and led to the construction of Long Hill Elementary School. After the kids grew and parents stayed around, the demand on the school diminished and now is able to handle capacity for kids from as far away as Meadow Street near the High School. A new subdivision (within past 8yrs) is experiencing that same cycle.
My end of town has been undervalued, or perhaps more accurately "under appreciated" as people and realtors focused on the "Huntington" or "White Hills" monicker for adding some cachet to those areas. Now with an understanding that the Long Hill or Pine Rock area of town can easily access the commercial corridor of Bpt Ave, the Rte 8 and Merrit Parkway, as well as open space nearby for hiking or recreation such as the Public Boat Launch and the Sports Center with ice rink and driving range - all have focused some new developments to be built (Waterview Landing, Rivers Edge, Pinecrest, Marina). Thus our property values have appreciated at a brisk pace, and resultingly our taxes based upon them.
Regardless to these market conditions, the Planning & Zoning Commission (elected body) must make firm decisions toward proper planning of Shelton's land base for development. A balanced community requires a good commercial corridor of high yielding tax/acre to counter the deficit of tax vs service that residential development has illustrated for years.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
HuntHrld 2007apr4 article on Aspen Ridge
As background, I have talked in an ealier posted entry regarding the subject development in reference to an article that appeared in the CtPost.
http://sheltoncc.blogspot.com/2006/09/ct-post-2006sep13-article-on-aspen.html
An article in the Huntington Herald from Wednesday April 4 was brought to my attention as I had not read it (it was not in their online publication, only paper). As is my custom of commenting to/on the media and their reporting - I post it here with my comments in red.
++++++
By KATE RAMUNNI
Over the objection of the City Engineer, the Planning and Zoning Commission last week signed off on the detailed development plans for a controversial Bridgeport Avenue condominium development.
++ Here are the minutes of the PZC as posted on the City's website:
http://cityofshelton.org/gengov/meetings/pdf/plnzoning/pdf2007/March2707m.pdf
The commission approved Lava Real Estate’s development plans to build a dozen condominiums on 2.5 acres along the Far Mill River behind Blockbuster Video. Earlier it approved changing the zoning on the property from Light Industrial to a Planned Development District.
++ The process toward approval of the proposal was multi-part. First was a zoning component to apply a "Special Development Area" or SDA overlay. Next was to apply for a "Planned Development District" or PDD within the SDA (yes applicants typically do them concurrently with the assumption that the SDA will be approved, and the P&Z has historically received them concurrently). Unlike an "R1" type zoning to which standard rules apply, a PDD is unique unto itself (ie: the PDD for Shelton Square has qualifications just for that development which would be different from the PDD for RD Scinto's office complex). Some will say that is spot zoning, and I'm not here to debate that. The PDD has brought both success and distress to Shelton. The underyling zone of the subject land is "Light Industrial Park" or LIP.
In a letter to the commission, City Engineer Bob Kulacz said he supports the Conservation Commission’s contention that the condominiums will be built too close to the river. Kulacz also cited traffic problems as the basis for his objections. “I do not endorse this application for approval,” he told the zoning commission.
++ You can read directly the CC's comments on the application from our 2006May3 meeting.
The location of the development is a transitional district between residences and developer Bob Scinto’s corporate office park, Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said. Before the commission approved changing the zoning to a Planned Development District, the property was zoned for light industrial use, Schultz said, which he said could have resulted in a more intensive development than the condominiums.
++ I do not subscribe to swallowing wholesale the claim by the applicants attorney that if this was not approved, the alternative was a more intensive development of an industrial nature (which is regurgitated in the above quote) Yes, an LIP zone would allow development under those LIP regulations, but it would be demanding to meet traffic requirements, etc. I don't want to digress down this rabbit trail, but summarily - it is important to define that "could have resulted" infers probability - which in this case from my admitadely limited experience of 10 years would be next to nill.
During the commission’s public hearing on the application, several residents spoke out against the plans, including members of the Shelton Land Trust and the Conservation Commission.
One resident, Gil Pastore, brought a bag of garbage he said he collected in his backyard which also is along the river to illustrate the trash that flows down the river from developments along it.
++ At one point I thought that video was online. Mr. Pastore has lived in Pine Rock Park along the Far Mill River for many years. He has documented with video and physical trash bags brought to various public meetings, the intensity of the impact personally witnessed from the way the community as a whole has treated the Far Mill River. He was understandably concerned about the approval of this applications.
The Land Trust was especially passionate about its opposition to the project because it owns property next to the site. It has filed an appeal to the approval that is pending in Superior Court.
++ The Shelton Land Conservation Trust is a non-profit entity that holds land in trust for public benefit. It owns property abutting the development both upstream and downstream. Three members of the Conservation Commission also happen to be members of the Shelton Land Trust Board, and recused themselves from asking questions or voting as a member of the Conservation Commission during it's meetings. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a lifetime membership to the Land Trust, but have never served on any of it's boards or committees. I have purposely kept myself un-apprised of the LandTrust's efforts during the review process, so I can't offer commentary on what they are doing in court.
Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester said he was uncomfortable voting for an application that the City Engineer opposes. ‘This is the second time we have been here lately where the City Engineer doesn’t endorse a development,” he said. “I have great respect in the City Engineer’s background, ability and education and I am uncomfortable when the City Engineer says he doesn’t endorse [the application].”
++ While Mr. Sylvester may have been "uncomfortable" about voting in opposition to the City Engineer's opinion, he doesn't say what made him uncomfortable, and in the end voted for it anyway. Read my earlier blog post referenced at the top of this post to understand what I think about saying one thing and voting another.
But Zoning Consultant Tony Panico said he wasn’t sure that what Kulacz is objection to are issues he should be addressing. “[The commission] has to conclude if these concerns are really the purview of the City Engineer,’ he said.
++ The City Engineer signs off on the development infrastructure being appropriate for the community. If he feels that the FEMA 100yr flood map lines are of a concern - it is his obligation to bring them to everyone's attention. He is unable to give an endorsement of the plan. He has a proffessional certification to uphold as a licensed engineer. I see nothing of substance in the PZC minutes that counter his comments regarding his concerns.
“I think it may be more of a personal opinion,” commission chairman Allen J. Cribbins said.
Panico said that as far as he is concerned, Kulacz’s objections are not valid. “I don’t understand how he came to these conclusions,” Panico said. “What he is saying isn’t based on valid information.”
++ Wouldn't a simple phone call or letter of clarification or an email or some COMMUNICATION between departments solve the "I don't understand..." question of Mr. Panico?
Attorney Dominick Thomas, who represents Lava Real Estate, said that the location of the units to the river isn’t something with which the City Engineer should be concerned. “That is not within his purview whatsoever,” he said.
++ The Inland Wetlands Commission does review the development for activities in regulated areas, and approved it by a slim margin, but the infrastructure such as appropriate turn-around or access for emergency vehicles, etc - is under the City Engineer's office. It is his proffessional review that minimizes the City's liability against infrastructure failures such as water or sewer lines and roads not constructed or being appropriately designed to a standard. His comments have authority and are within his purview.
Regardless of that, the development is bad for the city, commission alternate Karen Tomko-McGovern said. “I sat through the whole [application] procedure hoping the Open Space Committee or the Conservation Commission would come forward a lot sooner,” she said.
“This particular property could have brought the community together as a park,” she said. “It would have made a beautiful park with a gazebo and walkways and somewhere to sit at lunchtime." “I was against it then and I’m against it now,” she said.
++ Karen was a representative from the Planning & Zoning Commission to the Open Space Committee. She seldom attended however, and the article implies that she has forgotton how it operates. First, the Open Space Committee was disolved and it's duties rolled into the Conservation Commission's when the Open Space Trust Account Ordinance was passed in 2006. Next, the Conservation Commission deals with property acquisition issues in executive session (non-public) so as to not jeapordize a negotiating position of the City. Until all options are completed, I can not reveal the Conservation Commission's thoughts, but they were very publicly transmitted to the Board of Alderman after a request by three of the Aldermen for review of the parcel toward possible acquisition.
During the zone change application process, Sylvester and Commissioner Daniel Orazietti both suggested that the city purchase the property as open space. Sylvester said he was especially interested in obtaining property along the river. The city has not been proactive in protecting such pieces, he said.
++ Oh, contrare. The City has been very active in attempting to protect parcels along the Far Mill River Greenway. I would refer anyone to City Open Space Maps that document that. Traditionally, the effort toward protection has been with raw, or undeveloped land parcels. In recent years, that has been turned on it's head. Development is occuring in "tear-down" fashion with oversized lots which have a home being knocked down, and then subdivided. The Ramia family (Mr Ramia works at Shelton High School as Headmaster) apparently had no fondness for their house and chose to work an agreement with the adjacent property owner (which also had a house) to combine into a parcel suitable for development application. Mr. Sylvester has served this community for many years as both Superintendent of Schools and on Planning & Zoning, and I don't disagree with every comment or decision he has made over all that time, but I am extremely disappointed by the public posturing and comments made to the news media regarding the Conservation Commission's work regarding this parcel while having full knowledge that any aquisition activity would be held in executive session.
But, Cribbins said, this property is surrounded by open space. “The rest of the property around it – 70 acres – is owned by the city,” he said.
++ True, there is property nearby on the FarMill River owned by the City, further upstream there is a pull-off area for parking, the "Gristmill Trail" and opportunity for passive enjoyment of this space such as fishing. The Shelton Land Trust as a private entity has worked with the City of Shelton to facilitate it's Open Space Plan of protecting Greenway Corridors, such as this area at Far Mill River. Dedication of property, preserved as Open Space would help further those goals.
The commission voted 4-1 to approve the detailed development plans, with McGovern, who was sitting in for Orazietti, voting against it.
++ I thank Karen for voting in line with her comments.
http://sheltoncc.blogspot.com/2006/09/ct-post-2006sep13-article-on-aspen.html
An article in the Huntington Herald from Wednesday April 4 was brought to my attention as I had not read it (it was not in their online publication, only paper). As is my custom of commenting to/on the media and their reporting - I post it here with my comments in red.
++++++
By KATE RAMUNNI
Over the objection of the City Engineer, the Planning and Zoning Commission last week signed off on the detailed development plans for a controversial Bridgeport Avenue condominium development.
++ Here are the minutes of the PZC as posted on the City's website:
http://cityofshelton.org/gengov/meetings/pdf/plnzoning/pdf2007/March2707m.pdf
The commission approved Lava Real Estate’s development plans to build a dozen condominiums on 2.5 acres along the Far Mill River behind Blockbuster Video. Earlier it approved changing the zoning on the property from Light Industrial to a Planned Development District.
++ The process toward approval of the proposal was multi-part. First was a zoning component to apply a "Special Development Area" or SDA overlay. Next was to apply for a "Planned Development District" or PDD within the SDA (yes applicants typically do them concurrently with the assumption that the SDA will be approved, and the P&Z has historically received them concurrently). Unlike an "R1" type zoning to which standard rules apply, a PDD is unique unto itself (ie: the PDD for Shelton Square has qualifications just for that development which would be different from the PDD for RD Scinto's office complex). Some will say that is spot zoning, and I'm not here to debate that. The PDD has brought both success and distress to Shelton. The underyling zone of the subject land is "Light Industrial Park" or LIP.
In a letter to the commission, City Engineer Bob Kulacz said he supports the Conservation Commission’s contention that the condominiums will be built too close to the river. Kulacz also cited traffic problems as the basis for his objections. “I do not endorse this application for approval,” he told the zoning commission.
++ You can read directly the CC's comments on the application from our 2006May3 meeting.
The location of the development is a transitional district between residences and developer Bob Scinto’s corporate office park, Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said. Before the commission approved changing the zoning to a Planned Development District, the property was zoned for light industrial use, Schultz said, which he said could have resulted in a more intensive development than the condominiums.
++ I do not subscribe to swallowing wholesale the claim by the applicants attorney that if this was not approved, the alternative was a more intensive development of an industrial nature (which is regurgitated in the above quote) Yes, an LIP zone would allow development under those LIP regulations, but it would be demanding to meet traffic requirements, etc. I don't want to digress down this rabbit trail, but summarily - it is important to define that "could have resulted" infers probability - which in this case from my admitadely limited experience of 10 years would be next to nill.
During the commission’s public hearing on the application, several residents spoke out against the plans, including members of the Shelton Land Trust and the Conservation Commission.
One resident, Gil Pastore, brought a bag of garbage he said he collected in his backyard which also is along the river to illustrate the trash that flows down the river from developments along it.
++ At one point I thought that video was online. Mr. Pastore has lived in Pine Rock Park along the Far Mill River for many years. He has documented with video and physical trash bags brought to various public meetings, the intensity of the impact personally witnessed from the way the community as a whole has treated the Far Mill River. He was understandably concerned about the approval of this applications.
The Land Trust was especially passionate about its opposition to the project because it owns property next to the site. It has filed an appeal to the approval that is pending in Superior Court.
++ The Shelton Land Conservation Trust is a non-profit entity that holds land in trust for public benefit. It owns property abutting the development both upstream and downstream. Three members of the Conservation Commission also happen to be members of the Shelton Land Trust Board, and recused themselves from asking questions or voting as a member of the Conservation Commission during it's meetings. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a lifetime membership to the Land Trust, but have never served on any of it's boards or committees. I have purposely kept myself un-apprised of the LandTrust's efforts during the review process, so I can't offer commentary on what they are doing in court.
Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester said he was uncomfortable voting for an application that the City Engineer opposes. ‘This is the second time we have been here lately where the City Engineer doesn’t endorse a development,” he said. “I have great respect in the City Engineer’s background, ability and education and I am uncomfortable when the City Engineer says he doesn’t endorse [the application].”
++ While Mr. Sylvester may have been "uncomfortable" about voting in opposition to the City Engineer's opinion, he doesn't say what made him uncomfortable, and in the end voted for it anyway. Read my earlier blog post referenced at the top of this post to understand what I think about saying one thing and voting another.
But Zoning Consultant Tony Panico said he wasn’t sure that what Kulacz is objection to are issues he should be addressing. “[The commission] has to conclude if these concerns are really the purview of the City Engineer,’ he said.
++ The City Engineer signs off on the development infrastructure being appropriate for the community. If he feels that the FEMA 100yr flood map lines are of a concern - it is his obligation to bring them to everyone's attention. He is unable to give an endorsement of the plan. He has a proffessional certification to uphold as a licensed engineer. I see nothing of substance in the PZC minutes that counter his comments regarding his concerns.
“I think it may be more of a personal opinion,” commission chairman Allen J. Cribbins said.
Panico said that as far as he is concerned, Kulacz’s objections are not valid. “I don’t understand how he came to these conclusions,” Panico said. “What he is saying isn’t based on valid information.”
++ Wouldn't a simple phone call or letter of clarification or an email or some COMMUNICATION between departments solve the "I don't understand..." question of Mr. Panico?
Attorney Dominick Thomas, who represents Lava Real Estate, said that the location of the units to the river isn’t something with which the City Engineer should be concerned. “That is not within his purview whatsoever,” he said.
++ The Inland Wetlands Commission does review the development for activities in regulated areas, and approved it by a slim margin, but the infrastructure such as appropriate turn-around or access for emergency vehicles, etc - is under the City Engineer's office. It is his proffessional review that minimizes the City's liability against infrastructure failures such as water or sewer lines and roads not constructed or being appropriately designed to a standard. His comments have authority and are within his purview.
Regardless of that, the development is bad for the city, commission alternate Karen Tomko-McGovern said. “I sat through the whole [application] procedure hoping the Open Space Committee or the Conservation Commission would come forward a lot sooner,” she said.
“This particular property could have brought the community together as a park,” she said. “It would have made a beautiful park with a gazebo and walkways and somewhere to sit at lunchtime." “I was against it then and I’m against it now,” she said.
++ Karen was a representative from the Planning & Zoning Commission to the Open Space Committee. She seldom attended however, and the article implies that she has forgotton how it operates. First, the Open Space Committee was disolved and it's duties rolled into the Conservation Commission's when the Open Space Trust Account Ordinance was passed in 2006. Next, the Conservation Commission deals with property acquisition issues in executive session (non-public) so as to not jeapordize a negotiating position of the City. Until all options are completed, I can not reveal the Conservation Commission's thoughts, but they were very publicly transmitted to the Board of Alderman after a request by three of the Aldermen for review of the parcel toward possible acquisition.
During the zone change application process, Sylvester and Commissioner Daniel Orazietti both suggested that the city purchase the property as open space. Sylvester said he was especially interested in obtaining property along the river. The city has not been proactive in protecting such pieces, he said.
++ Oh, contrare. The City has been very active in attempting to protect parcels along the Far Mill River Greenway. I would refer anyone to City Open Space Maps that document that. Traditionally, the effort toward protection has been with raw, or undeveloped land parcels. In recent years, that has been turned on it's head. Development is occuring in "tear-down" fashion with oversized lots which have a home being knocked down, and then subdivided. The Ramia family (Mr Ramia works at Shelton High School as Headmaster) apparently had no fondness for their house and chose to work an agreement with the adjacent property owner (which also had a house) to combine into a parcel suitable for development application. Mr. Sylvester has served this community for many years as both Superintendent of Schools and on Planning & Zoning, and I don't disagree with every comment or decision he has made over all that time, but I am extremely disappointed by the public posturing and comments made to the news media regarding the Conservation Commission's work regarding this parcel while having full knowledge that any aquisition activity would be held in executive session.
But, Cribbins said, this property is surrounded by open space. “The rest of the property around it – 70 acres – is owned by the city,” he said.
++ True, there is property nearby on the FarMill River owned by the City, further upstream there is a pull-off area for parking, the "Gristmill Trail" and opportunity for passive enjoyment of this space such as fishing. The Shelton Land Trust as a private entity has worked with the City of Shelton to facilitate it's Open Space Plan of protecting Greenway Corridors, such as this area at Far Mill River. Dedication of property, preserved as Open Space would help further those goals.
The commission voted 4-1 to approve the detailed development plans, with McGovern, who was sitting in for Orazietti, voting against it.
++ I thank Karen for voting in line with her comments.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Shelton Budget, Mill Rate, ReValuation.
It is always difficult to get accurate and unfiltered information regarding taxes, proposed budgets and mill rates, especially when it is a year of re-valuation. Recent newspaper articles variously report tax increases in excess of 10%, or maybe it is a budget increase of 10%, or maybe the number is 5% but would have only been 1% if we didn't have a revaluation. All of it is confusing giberish and shows a lack of depth in reporting the subject.
For example: NHRegister 2007/Feb/22 -SHELTON — Mayor Mark Lauretti unveiled a $102.86 million budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year Wednesday night. The plan represents a 10.9 percent increase in spending from this year’s $97.7 million budget. If approved, the plan would set the tax rate at 17.59 mills, a decrease of 6.72 mills from the current 24.31 tax rate, because of revaluation.
Simple math reveals $102.86 million is an increase over $97.7 million by $5.16 million, or 5.28%, not 10.9% as reported in the above article. This confusion is not a fault of reporters (excluding the NHReg math grade of "F") , but more often the unfortunate result from publishers that could and should allow more pages rather than simply a few paragraphs for a better telling of the story.
I have served on the Conservation Commission (CC) since 1998, and I have been Chairman of that advisory agency for a few years. I also served on the Plan Update Advisory Committee (PUAC) for several years, helping to prepare the Plan of Conservation and Development (PoCD). The PoCD is the "blueprint" document meant to guide basic decisions for a municipality, a document required by state law to be updated every 10 years. Our PUAC was organized by the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) to do the preparation of the plan on their behalf. The PUAC interviewed every department head, held public hearings, conducted public workshops, provided drafts of the plan once it neared final formulation, and finally recomended to the PZC a draft plan. The PZC held public hearings on it, forwarded it to the Board of Alderman (BoA) which held its own public hearings on it. Finally it was adopted in 2006 after over 2 years of my involvement with it. I feel a gratitude to have learned and experienced all I did in the PoCD coming together. It is from all this experience which I draw my comments regarding the proposed budget, tax rate, and re-valuation.
I recently received my re-valuation notice from the City Assessor office as did everyone in town. I've owned the same home for 15 years so I've seen these notices before as the State now requires revaluations to occur every 5 years. The assessment value is supposed to be 70% of it's market value. A quick calculation of what the Assessor office believed I could receive for my property was, I felt accurate.
The BoA recently received the Mayor's proposed Budget for fiscal year 2007/2008 (the City's fiscal year ends on June 30th). The Board of Apportionment & Taxation (BoAT) will review the proposition, and then forward a recomended budget to the BoA for them to adopt. Given that our Mayor has been doing a very decent job which has kept him in office for nearly 2 decades, the final outcome is likely to be close to that currently being proposed. I did some quick calculations: New Assessed Value multiplied by the Proposed Mill Rate = Likely Tax for Jun2007 and Dec2007 payments. My new 07/08 taxes were rising quite a bit (22.09%) so I thought it worth evaluating everyone on my street for comparison.
The average rise in property tax on my street will be 25.11%
The question immediately pops up: If the budget for expenses is only going up 5.28%, why are my taxes going up in excess of 20%?
The reality is that the BoA, led by our Mayor, indeed do a very good job of controlling expenses, but that is all they control. The revenue side of the equation is simple math of the Grand List multiplied by the Mill Rate. Thus the BoA is forced or backed into setting a Mill Rate by dividing the Grand List by the budget. While the Assessors office puts a value on the Grand List, it is the actions of the PZC over years which create the Grand List, and that is where my concern resides.
The Grand List is all the real property (land and buildings) and personal property (vehicles, office equipement, fixtures, etc) in the City. The real property portion has increased due to favorable market forces, just as it has been shown on my street and likely similarly with other land and building values in the community. The personal property value from companies equipment depreciates quickly however. For example - an office full of Windows98 computers doesn't have the same value as an office full of WindowsXP computers. Another debilitating example is when a building is vacant (for example several years of Index Corporation on Bpt Ave), and is not contributing the way it should be to the grand list as when it is fully occupied. All these assessed property values are accumulated into a residential total and a commercial total.
The ratio of residential vs. commercial in the Grand List is a factor relationship to keep an eye on. Unless attention is given to growing the commercial portion of the Grand List to balance a growth in the residential portion of the Grand List, the ratio will drop and a greater burden will be placed upon the residential portion. That shift is what has been happening in Shelton over the past years, yet you normally only feel the real impact after a revaluation period.
In order to grow the commercial side of the Grand List you need to have either raw land to develop, or revitalization of underutilized property. Shelton is in fact doing the latter very well, notably in the downtown Canal Street area through the leadership of the Shelton Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) and the Mayor's office. However, Shelton does have a limited amount of raw land zoned for commercial, and should not squander that resource with underutilizing development.
It may be nice to have a Bridgeport Avenue strip of eateries that could cover every unique day of the month, but when the traffic they generate and the underutilized land they have sucked up cause a lack of options for future decision makers - these concerns will not just come back to haunt us, it will be a nightmare.
The 2006/2007 tax rate was 24.31 per $1000 in assessed value.
The 2007/2008 proposed tax rate is 17.59 per $1000 in value.
I was surprised that several Aldermen didn't even know what their tax increase was going to be under the proposed budget and tax rate given their new assessments. I thus have created a spreadsheet that shows every Alderman and Zoning Commissioner's residence for assessed value and the possible tax increase (both dollar and percentage) under the proposed budget/millrate. (Note to reporters: this is all publicly available data, and took all of 20minutes to gather and prepare)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pP-srvG8cXQFGrM5ukSO1UA&gid=0
Some have said to me that we have had great "high-end" residential development occur in recent years, which results in less concern over the ability of the City to provide the services residential development demands. I disagree, and thus I have also done an analysis of a typical residential (R1) development that has been in place for a few years (apx5) and what the NET impact is of taxes generated (revenue) vs services provided by Shelton (and only the educational component of expenses at that). The result demonstrates that you need commercial development and its tax base to balance the demands on services created from residential development which can not possibly pay its own way. That arguement seems to have been lost on many of the decision makers, so I provide the hard data here for all to deal with.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pP-srvG8cXQFGrM5ukSO1UA&gid=1
If you are a resident reading this, I hope you hold both your Board of Alderman and Planning & Zoning Commission accountable for the decisions they make, as they impact you aggresively year after year.
If you are an Alderman reading this, realize that you only truly control the expenditure side of the fiscal process. The revenue side is based on a Grand List over which you have little control.
If you are a P&Z Commissioner reading this, I hope you realize the lasting impact of your decisions, and are more careful when evaluating the umpteenth restaurant being proposed on our Bridgeport Avenue "strip".
I have reserved this blog for publicly commenting to, or on, the media for conservation related items. Readers may be questioning how this entry relates to the theme. If the City is to preserve/conserve the parcels of land where it desires and needs to do so, it will require substantial funds to be accomplished. Simple laws of supply and demand dictate that a dwindling amount of raw land for development in the community will increase it's value. Despite the past success and likely continuation of partnering with other agencies regarding cost sharing or grants, the burden of acquisition is largely on the shoulders of the City, which are after all the most direct beneficiaries of such accomplishments. It is important to impress upon decision makers that our ability to make such maneuvers in the future is not squandered.
For example: NHRegister 2007/Feb/22 -SHELTON — Mayor Mark Lauretti unveiled a $102.86 million budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year Wednesday night. The plan represents a 10.9 percent increase in spending from this year’s $97.7 million budget. If approved, the plan would set the tax rate at 17.59 mills, a decrease of 6.72 mills from the current 24.31 tax rate, because of revaluation.
Simple math reveals $102.86 million is an increase over $97.7 million by $5.16 million, or 5.28%, not 10.9% as reported in the above article. This confusion is not a fault of reporters (excluding the NHReg math grade of "F") , but more often the unfortunate result from publishers that could and should allow more pages rather than simply a few paragraphs for a better telling of the story.
I have served on the Conservation Commission (CC) since 1998, and I have been Chairman of that advisory agency for a few years. I also served on the Plan Update Advisory Committee (PUAC) for several years, helping to prepare the Plan of Conservation and Development (PoCD). The PoCD is the "blueprint" document meant to guide basic decisions for a municipality, a document required by state law to be updated every 10 years. Our PUAC was organized by the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) to do the preparation of the plan on their behalf. The PUAC interviewed every department head, held public hearings, conducted public workshops, provided drafts of the plan once it neared final formulation, and finally recomended to the PZC a draft plan. The PZC held public hearings on it, forwarded it to the Board of Alderman (BoA) which held its own public hearings on it. Finally it was adopted in 2006 after over 2 years of my involvement with it. I feel a gratitude to have learned and experienced all I did in the PoCD coming together. It is from all this experience which I draw my comments regarding the proposed budget, tax rate, and re-valuation.
I recently received my re-valuation notice from the City Assessor office as did everyone in town. I've owned the same home for 15 years so I've seen these notices before as the State now requires revaluations to occur every 5 years. The assessment value is supposed to be 70% of it's market value. A quick calculation of what the Assessor office believed I could receive for my property was, I felt accurate.
The BoA recently received the Mayor's proposed Budget for fiscal year 2007/2008 (the City's fiscal year ends on June 30th). The Board of Apportionment & Taxation (BoAT) will review the proposition, and then forward a recomended budget to the BoA for them to adopt. Given that our Mayor has been doing a very decent job which has kept him in office for nearly 2 decades, the final outcome is likely to be close to that currently being proposed. I did some quick calculations: New Assessed Value multiplied by the Proposed Mill Rate = Likely Tax for Jun2007 and Dec2007 payments. My new 07/08 taxes were rising quite a bit (22.09%) so I thought it worth evaluating everyone on my street for comparison.
The average rise in property tax on my street will be 25.11%
The question immediately pops up: If the budget for expenses is only going up 5.28%, why are my taxes going up in excess of 20%?
The reality is that the BoA, led by our Mayor, indeed do a very good job of controlling expenses, but that is all they control. The revenue side of the equation is simple math of the Grand List multiplied by the Mill Rate. Thus the BoA is forced or backed into setting a Mill Rate by dividing the Grand List by the budget. While the Assessors office puts a value on the Grand List, it is the actions of the PZC over years which create the Grand List, and that is where my concern resides.
The Grand List is all the real property (land and buildings) and personal property (vehicles, office equipement, fixtures, etc) in the City. The real property portion has increased due to favorable market forces, just as it has been shown on my street and likely similarly with other land and building values in the community. The personal property value from companies equipment depreciates quickly however. For example - an office full of Windows98 computers doesn't have the same value as an office full of WindowsXP computers. Another debilitating example is when a building is vacant (for example several years of Index Corporation on Bpt Ave), and is not contributing the way it should be to the grand list as when it is fully occupied. All these assessed property values are accumulated into a residential total and a commercial total.
The ratio of residential vs. commercial in the Grand List is a factor relationship to keep an eye on. Unless attention is given to growing the commercial portion of the Grand List to balance a growth in the residential portion of the Grand List, the ratio will drop and a greater burden will be placed upon the residential portion. That shift is what has been happening in Shelton over the past years, yet you normally only feel the real impact after a revaluation period.
In order to grow the commercial side of the Grand List you need to have either raw land to develop, or revitalization of underutilized property. Shelton is in fact doing the latter very well, notably in the downtown Canal Street area through the leadership of the Shelton Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) and the Mayor's office. However, Shelton does have a limited amount of raw land zoned for commercial, and should not squander that resource with underutilizing development.
It may be nice to have a Bridgeport Avenue strip of eateries that could cover every unique day of the month, but when the traffic they generate and the underutilized land they have sucked up cause a lack of options for future decision makers - these concerns will not just come back to haunt us, it will be a nightmare.
The 2006/2007 tax rate was 24.31 per $1000 in assessed value.
The 2007/2008 proposed tax rate is 17.59 per $1000 in value.
I was surprised that several Aldermen didn't even know what their tax increase was going to be under the proposed budget and tax rate given their new assessments. I thus have created a spreadsheet that shows every Alderman and Zoning Commissioner's residence for assessed value and the possible tax increase (both dollar and percentage) under the proposed budget/millrate. (Note to reporters: this is all publicly available data, and took all of 20minutes to gather and prepare)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pP-srvG8cXQFGrM5ukSO1UA&gid=0
Some have said to me that we have had great "high-end" residential development occur in recent years, which results in less concern over the ability of the City to provide the services residential development demands. I disagree, and thus I have also done an analysis of a typical residential (R1) development that has been in place for a few years (apx5) and what the NET impact is of taxes generated (revenue) vs services provided by Shelton (and only the educational component of expenses at that). The result demonstrates that you need commercial development and its tax base to balance the demands on services created from residential development which can not possibly pay its own way. That arguement seems to have been lost on many of the decision makers, so I provide the hard data here for all to deal with.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pP-srvG8cXQFGrM5ukSO1UA&gid=1
If you are a resident reading this, I hope you hold both your Board of Alderman and Planning & Zoning Commission accountable for the decisions they make, as they impact you aggresively year after year.
If you are an Alderman reading this, realize that you only truly control the expenditure side of the fiscal process. The revenue side is based on a Grand List over which you have little control.
If you are a P&Z Commissioner reading this, I hope you realize the lasting impact of your decisions, and are more careful when evaluating the umpteenth restaurant being proposed on our Bridgeport Avenue "strip".
I have reserved this blog for publicly commenting to, or on, the media for conservation related items. Readers may be questioning how this entry relates to the theme. If the City is to preserve/conserve the parcels of land where it desires and needs to do so, it will require substantial funds to be accomplished. Simple laws of supply and demand dictate that a dwindling amount of raw land for development in the community will increase it's value. Despite the past success and likely continuation of partnering with other agencies regarding cost sharing or grants, the burden of acquisition is largely on the shoulders of the City, which are after all the most direct beneficiaries of such accomplishments. It is important to impress upon decision makers that our ability to make such maneuvers in the future is not squandered.
Caswell Cove, Dumping dredged materials in Shelton
The idea that the DEP could approve 3 different locations in the span of 1 week, where sediment dredged from a downstream marina's cove which are contaminated with heavy metals (ie mercury) could be deposited upstream of the location is ludicrous. Below is my letter to the editor sent to both the Ct.Post and NHRegister.
+++++++++
Attention: Letters to the Editor March 10, 2007
Re: Caswell Cove sediment plan still leaves questions
Dear Editor,
The Housatonic River is the largest natural resource in Shelton and provides extensive recreational opportunities for the region. The plans to dump sediment in Shelton that will be dredged from Caswell Cove Marina in Milford raises a number of questions that need more thorough answers than those provided thus far.
Captain Dave Phillips, Manager Caswell Cove Marina, wrote in a Ct. Post letter of March 9th that “sediments in Caswell Cove are carried from upriver and deposited there”. He also stated that during dredging of the cove in 1994, sediment was brought upriver to be processed, and that dredging is desperately needed again to maintain the cove as a recreational boating and fishing resource or it will disappear in a few short years.
I think we can all agree that sediments such as silt dumped upstream in the river can become suspended and eventually settle where the current takes it. The Housatonic is at times a mighty river and will follow nature’s course. Apparently its course is causing the Caswell Cove Marina to require dredging every 13 years or so. If this is to be a perpetual dilemma, perhaps a closer analysis should be given. If the sediment were possibly deposited downstream of this dredging operation rather than upstream, would the need to keep revisiting the issue be minimized? Why not allow it to again be processed if it is “clean” as alleged?
Mr. Phillip’s editorial makes some veiled allegations that marinas other than Caswell Cove have spilled oil along with other sources of pollution from boat storage and maintenance work which it does not conduct, and consequently testing has shown that sediment in the cove is “in fact cleaner than that upriver”. A March 6th Ct. Post article quotes Ct. DEP spokesman Dennis Schain as saying the Milford sediment is “no more contaminated” than sediment in Shelton. The New Haven Register article on March 10th quoted Mr. Brian Thompson, director of the Long Island Sound Programs of the Ct. DEP, that “Caswell Cove sediments have lower heavy metal concentrations than found in the sediments of Two Mile Island”
It would be a public service to make known the studies or test results of analyzed sediments. There are people eating fish caught in the river. There are people enjoying recreation along the shores of Two Mile Island. Are there traces or even “concentrations” of heavy metals such as mercury in these sediments? It would be better to end speculation and provide factual data.
There was no notice given to Shelton’s Conservation Commission, Inland Wetlands Commission, nor Mayor regarding this potential activity. Although it may be beyond these local agencies jurisdictional control, it would be courtesy to ask for comment or at the least give notice in advance. Nobody in Shelton knew about this until someone asked a tugboat operator what he was here for. That lack of local knowledge reveals a process which needs improvement.
The DEP must recognize that there is renewed interest in the Housatonic. Dwellings are locating along the banks and ridge lines forming the river’s valley. Marinas are looking to expand, and rundown riverfront factory buildings are being revitalized into residential condo units. This development interest is being balanced in Shelton with investment to the sewer treatment plant to improve the health of the river, acquisition of open space land where appropriate to maintain a view-shed or provide recreational opportunities, and creating a riverwalk pedestrian facility for public enjoyment of the river.
As recently as February 8th, the Shelton Board of Aldermen was presented with a report on the health of the river by a representative of the Housatonic Valley Association, the oldest watershed group in the country, in operation since 1941. They had over 50 volunteers recently survey streams leading into as well as the Housatonic River itself. It was reported that “the improvement over the last 20 years is dramatic”. Is dumping sediments which contain concentrations of heavy metals into an upstream location a step in the right direction? I would submit no.
Thomas Harbinson
Chairman Shelton Conservation Commission
Data notes for editor:
The above hyperlinked components of the letter to the editor show the various articles or meeting minutes being referred to.
The HVA has a Housatonic River Estuary guide that shows both Sunnyside and Caswell areas of the river as fishing locations:
http://www.hvatoday.org/publications/EstuaryGuide.pdf
To view the river and witness the vast recreational use of it, here is an 8minute video taken from a Kayak traveling from Derby to Shelton:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2748771014391552637&q=shelton+housatonic
+++++++++
Attention: Letters to the Editor March 10, 2007
Re: Caswell Cove sediment plan still leaves questions
Dear Editor,
The Housatonic River is the largest natural resource in Shelton and provides extensive recreational opportunities for the region. The plans to dump sediment in Shelton that will be dredged from Caswell Cove Marina in Milford raises a number of questions that need more thorough answers than those provided thus far.
Captain Dave Phillips, Manager Caswell Cove Marina, wrote in a Ct. Post letter of March 9th that “sediments in Caswell Cove are carried from upriver and deposited there”. He also stated that during dredging of the cove in 1994, sediment was brought upriver to be processed, and that dredging is desperately needed again to maintain the cove as a recreational boating and fishing resource or it will disappear in a few short years.
I think we can all agree that sediments such as silt dumped upstream in the river can become suspended and eventually settle where the current takes it. The Housatonic is at times a mighty river and will follow nature’s course. Apparently its course is causing the Caswell Cove Marina to require dredging every 13 years or so. If this is to be a perpetual dilemma, perhaps a closer analysis should be given. If the sediment were possibly deposited downstream of this dredging operation rather than upstream, would the need to keep revisiting the issue be minimized? Why not allow it to again be processed if it is “clean” as alleged?
Mr. Phillip’s editorial makes some veiled allegations that marinas other than Caswell Cove have spilled oil along with other sources of pollution from boat storage and maintenance work which it does not conduct, and consequently testing has shown that sediment in the cove is “in fact cleaner than that upriver”. A March 6th Ct. Post article quotes Ct. DEP spokesman Dennis Schain as saying the Milford sediment is “no more contaminated” than sediment in Shelton. The New Haven Register article on March 10th quoted Mr. Brian Thompson, director of the Long Island Sound Programs of the Ct. DEP, that “Caswell Cove sediments have lower heavy metal concentrations than found in the sediments of Two Mile Island”
It would be a public service to make known the studies or test results of analyzed sediments. There are people eating fish caught in the river. There are people enjoying recreation along the shores of Two Mile Island. Are there traces or even “concentrations” of heavy metals such as mercury in these sediments? It would be better to end speculation and provide factual data.
There was no notice given to Shelton’s Conservation Commission, Inland Wetlands Commission, nor Mayor regarding this potential activity. Although it may be beyond these local agencies jurisdictional control, it would be courtesy to ask for comment or at the least give notice in advance. Nobody in Shelton knew about this until someone asked a tugboat operator what he was here for. That lack of local knowledge reveals a process which needs improvement.
The DEP must recognize that there is renewed interest in the Housatonic. Dwellings are locating along the banks and ridge lines forming the river’s valley. Marinas are looking to expand, and rundown riverfront factory buildings are being revitalized into residential condo units. This development interest is being balanced in Shelton with investment to the sewer treatment plant to improve the health of the river, acquisition of open space land where appropriate to maintain a view-shed or provide recreational opportunities, and creating a riverwalk pedestrian facility for public enjoyment of the river.
As recently as February 8th, the Shelton Board of Aldermen was presented with a report on the health of the river by a representative of the Housatonic Valley Association, the oldest watershed group in the country, in operation since 1941. They had over 50 volunteers recently survey streams leading into as well as the Housatonic River itself. It was reported that “the improvement over the last 20 years is dramatic”. Is dumping sediments which contain concentrations of heavy metals into an upstream location a step in the right direction? I would submit no.
Thomas Harbinson
Chairman Shelton Conservation Commission
Data notes for editor:
The above hyperlinked components of the letter to the editor show the various articles or meeting minutes being referred to.
The HVA has a Housatonic River Estuary guide that shows both Sunnyside and Caswell areas of the river as fishing locations:
http://www.hvatoday.org/publications/EstuaryGuide.pdf
To view the river and witness the vast recreational use of it, here is an 8minute video taken from a Kayak traveling from Derby to Shelton:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2748771014391552637&q=shelton+housatonic
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Shelton Weekly 2007/jan/12 - UI Buddington Road Blakeman proposal
The following are my comments on the Shelton Weekly article published this Fri 2007/Jan/12 regarding the proposal of Blakeman Construction to the City of Shelton's purchase of property from United Illuminating Co. along Buddington Road. My comments are in red and preceeded by a ++ The article may not be archived for reference in the future, thus I cut/paste it here with my comments. The hyperlink to it's current location is:
http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17696341&BRD=1648&PAG=461&dept_id=11784&rfi=8
Buddington Road Lot purchase to be finalized Tuesday
By: Isabel Senés, Editor
01/12/2007
The city will be closing on the purchase of a 10.86-acre parcel of property along Buddington Road on Tuesday, officially passing on a land swap proposition from Monty Blakeman Construction.
++ There was an informal proposition by Blakeman Construction to the City of Shelton in 2005 asking it to not execute it's right of first refusal. Shelton did execute it's right. There was a formal proposition by Blakeman Construction to the City of Shelton in 2006 asking it to not complete it's closing on the purchase from United Illuminating Co. Shelton will execute a closing.
The city will be funding the $108,001 balance of the purchase from the city's Open Space Trust Account, after placing a 10 percent deposit on the property in December 2005. The original price of the land purchase is $120,001.The deadline for the land purchase is Feb. 1. The city is closing on the property on Jan. 16, said Tom Welch, corporation counsel.
++ Shelton is funding not only the purchase price but also purchase costs (typical closing costs of about $1k). The City had previously indicated it planned to close Jan15, but that is MLK day, thus the change to TueJan16.
Blakeman, who with his son James owns 12 acres of land that abuts the 10-acre parcel on either side, officially presented the city with a proposition last November, outlining the benefits to the city if Blakeman would be allowed to purchase the property.
++ To be picky, the formal proposition was received by the Mayor's office and is stamped as to the date received. It is made by Blakeman Construction, but contains no cover letter (it it did, it wasn't forwarded to the ConsComm). Legal entities have been swapped in the middle of development applications before by Mr. Blakeman, notably Split Rock on Bpt Ave originally by one entity and then allowed by the PZC to change to Huntington Woods LLC and not be considered a new applicant. It may seem petty to be particular, but is is an important principle.
By linking all three properties along Buddington Road, Blakeman would have been able to further develop the land, including the construction of 12 single family homes.
++ The more correct terminology is "make application to review boards for more intensly developing the land". There is no "ability" to develop without approvals.
Blakeman said that his proposal would allow the city to keep the 10.86-acre open space parcel, along with an extra one acre of land, bringing the total open space acquisition for the city to 11.85 acres.
++ That is VIVIDLY incorrect. The land being purchased from UI as City Open Space would be bisected by a road that requires substantial fill to maintain grade and thus degrade the viewshed it would provide in it's current state. Simply saying 11.85 acres is better than 10.86 acres is not telling the whole story. The City is purchasing the property for appx. $11k/acre, a bargain in 2006 for Fairfield County. Conclusion: Proposal item not a benefit.
Additional benefits include the construction of approximately 4,600 lineal feet of recreation trail,
++ I'll pick this paragraph apart 1 by 1. The recreation path is given that term as it is an upgrade from simply a hiking trail. It is meant to be a firm surface multi-use pathway, apx. 6feet wide connecting downtown to Huntington Center. The proposition made no mention to what standard they would construct it, and the trails committee was not even contacted to determine where the next phase of it was expected to be completed. The cost to construct the Rec.Path can be paid for by LOCIP, a state reimbursement program resulting in no direct costs to Shelton taxpayers. The Local Capital Improvement Program is run by the Office of Policy and Management at Hartford, and managed through the Community Development office in Shelton City Hall. Conclusion: Proposal item not a financial benefit.
access through the new United Illuminating parcel,
++ As said previously, if the proposition were approved, the access through the area as it expands the Shelton Lakes Greenway toward the Far Mill River Greenway, would be hindered by another roadway crossing. Conclusion: Proposal item not a benefit.
reconstruction of a curve at the corner of Buddington Road and Kings Highway,
++ the road conditions are outside the purvue of the ConsComm, but it is worthy to ask the City Engineer's office if this is a location on the priority list for correction. A question to the Police Department should be posed as to the traffic incident's reported and attributed to this corner. Conclusion: Proposal item of questionable benefit.
and sewer and water main extenstion to the proposed project area.
++ Sewer and Water Main extensions to the project area cost the general City taxpayer nothing. The infrastructure improvements are paid for by the beneficiaries of them, namely the abutting property owners. The share of cost re-imbursement is established by a formula unique to each type of infrastructure, and using costs unique to each project. Conclusion: Proposal item not a financial benefit to the City (it would be a benefit to abutting property owners if the developer agreed to fund the total cost and not seek reimbursement).
According to Blakeman, the financial benefits to the city from the proposition would total $717,000."This should have been a no-brainer," said Blakeman. "That money for the city could have been spent elsewhere.
++ That total is incorrect as shown above. The City is expending $120k to buy this 10.86 acre parcel in 2006/2007. The City is not planning to install City water or sewers. The City is not planning to improve the road's bend, but if it did there would be reimbursement from the State. The City is planning on constructing a Rec.Path, but by it's own defined standards and location, and with reimbursement of cost from the State. To say that the City is passing up 3/4 of a million dollars in financial benefits is not only incorrect, it borders on fabrication.
Why is the city not accepting the offer if they will still get the real estate?"
++ I think I need to re-iterate, that we will not "still get the real-estate". The parcel will be utilized for access to increase development potential, will allow greater density to be created due to the extra acreage in the underlying application approval required for a PRD type development. All these circumstances would diminish the viewshed and vista provided in the parcel's current form which we are about to close upon in ownership.
According to John Anglace, Board of Alderman president, Blakeman's proposal "isn't off the table.""Our decision on whether or not to sell or swap the land is not contingent on closing on the property," said Anglace, who said there are too many unanswered questions on the proposal, but that the city had to move forward to gain ownership of the property in order to meet the Feb. 1 deadline.
++ The BOA didn't pass a motion to deny the proposition, so this proposition is not "closed". However, in the funding of the acquisition, moneys from the Open Space Trust Account have been used. These funds result from the co-mingling of budget amounts, grants, and fees in lieu of open space land dedications in subdivision approvals. The case could be made that lands purchased with these moneys should be restricted to remain as Open Space. That would need to be decided by review from Counsel.
"My responsibility is to examine the entire issue-economically, environmentally, and for quality of life issues," said Anglace.
++ From an economic standpoint, it doesn't stand up as shown above. From an environmental manner, it will cause increased disturbance to wetlands areas. From a quality of life issue, it will increase traffic, albeit incrementally, to a road that has had increased development on it in recent years (Huntington Pointe, Turkey Hill Estates, English Lane)
Tom Harbinson, chairman of the Conservation Commission, said that the purchase of the land for approximately $10,000 an acre by the city is a "wise and judicial use of city dollars."The purchase of the Buddington Road property by the city for open space was discussed at the Jan. 3 Conservation Commission meeting, and Harbinson said that the commission recommended that the city complete the acquisition of the parcel. "Our real concern is the viewshed or vista of that property, which would be blocked by further development," said Harbinson.
++ The proposition shows resulting lots with yards that with required clearing of vegetation for their construction, would dramatically infringe upon the viewshed in addition to the previously mentioned access way cutting accross it, whether that be a shared driveway or a City road as a permanent cul-de-sac.
http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17696341&BRD=1648&PAG=461&dept_id=11784&rfi=8
Buddington Road Lot purchase to be finalized Tuesday
By: Isabel Senés, Editor
01/12/2007
The city will be closing on the purchase of a 10.86-acre parcel of property along Buddington Road on Tuesday, officially passing on a land swap proposition from Monty Blakeman Construction.
++ There was an informal proposition by Blakeman Construction to the City of Shelton in 2005 asking it to not execute it's right of first refusal. Shelton did execute it's right. There was a formal proposition by Blakeman Construction to the City of Shelton in 2006 asking it to not complete it's closing on the purchase from United Illuminating Co. Shelton will execute a closing.
The city will be funding the $108,001 balance of the purchase from the city's Open Space Trust Account, after placing a 10 percent deposit on the property in December 2005. The original price of the land purchase is $120,001.The deadline for the land purchase is Feb. 1. The city is closing on the property on Jan. 16, said Tom Welch, corporation counsel.
++ Shelton is funding not only the purchase price but also purchase costs (typical closing costs of about $1k). The City had previously indicated it planned to close Jan15, but that is MLK day, thus the change to TueJan16.
Blakeman, who with his son James owns 12 acres of land that abuts the 10-acre parcel on either side, officially presented the city with a proposition last November, outlining the benefits to the city if Blakeman would be allowed to purchase the property.
++ To be picky, the formal proposition was received by the Mayor's office and is stamped as to the date received. It is made by Blakeman Construction, but contains no cover letter (it it did, it wasn't forwarded to the ConsComm). Legal entities have been swapped in the middle of development applications before by Mr. Blakeman, notably Split Rock on Bpt Ave originally by one entity and then allowed by the PZC to change to Huntington Woods LLC and not be considered a new applicant. It may seem petty to be particular, but is is an important principle.
By linking all three properties along Buddington Road, Blakeman would have been able to further develop the land, including the construction of 12 single family homes.
++ The more correct terminology is "make application to review boards for more intensly developing the land". There is no "ability" to develop without approvals.
Blakeman said that his proposal would allow the city to keep the 10.86-acre open space parcel, along with an extra one acre of land, bringing the total open space acquisition for the city to 11.85 acres.
++ That is VIVIDLY incorrect. The land being purchased from UI as City Open Space would be bisected by a road that requires substantial fill to maintain grade and thus degrade the viewshed it would provide in it's current state. Simply saying 11.85 acres is better than 10.86 acres is not telling the whole story. The City is purchasing the property for appx. $11k/acre, a bargain in 2006 for Fairfield County. Conclusion: Proposal item not a benefit.
Additional benefits include the construction of approximately 4,600 lineal feet of recreation trail,
++ I'll pick this paragraph apart 1 by 1. The recreation path is given that term as it is an upgrade from simply a hiking trail. It is meant to be a firm surface multi-use pathway, apx. 6feet wide connecting downtown to Huntington Center. The proposition made no mention to what standard they would construct it, and the trails committee was not even contacted to determine where the next phase of it was expected to be completed. The cost to construct the Rec.Path can be paid for by LOCIP, a state reimbursement program resulting in no direct costs to Shelton taxpayers. The Local Capital Improvement Program is run by the Office of Policy and Management at Hartford, and managed through the Community Development office in Shelton City Hall. Conclusion: Proposal item not a financial benefit.
access through the new United Illuminating parcel,
++ As said previously, if the proposition were approved, the access through the area as it expands the Shelton Lakes Greenway toward the Far Mill River Greenway, would be hindered by another roadway crossing. Conclusion: Proposal item not a benefit.
reconstruction of a curve at the corner of Buddington Road and Kings Highway,
++ the road conditions are outside the purvue of the ConsComm, but it is worthy to ask the City Engineer's office if this is a location on the priority list for correction. A question to the Police Department should be posed as to the traffic incident's reported and attributed to this corner. Conclusion: Proposal item of questionable benefit.
and sewer and water main extenstion to the proposed project area.
++ Sewer and Water Main extensions to the project area cost the general City taxpayer nothing. The infrastructure improvements are paid for by the beneficiaries of them, namely the abutting property owners. The share of cost re-imbursement is established by a formula unique to each type of infrastructure, and using costs unique to each project. Conclusion: Proposal item not a financial benefit to the City (it would be a benefit to abutting property owners if the developer agreed to fund the total cost and not seek reimbursement).
According to Blakeman, the financial benefits to the city from the proposition would total $717,000."This should have been a no-brainer," said Blakeman. "That money for the city could have been spent elsewhere.
++ That total is incorrect as shown above. The City is expending $120k to buy this 10.86 acre parcel in 2006/2007. The City is not planning to install City water or sewers. The City is not planning to improve the road's bend, but if it did there would be reimbursement from the State. The City is planning on constructing a Rec.Path, but by it's own defined standards and location, and with reimbursement of cost from the State. To say that the City is passing up 3/4 of a million dollars in financial benefits is not only incorrect, it borders on fabrication.
Why is the city not accepting the offer if they will still get the real estate?"
++ I think I need to re-iterate, that we will not "still get the real-estate". The parcel will be utilized for access to increase development potential, will allow greater density to be created due to the extra acreage in the underlying application approval required for a PRD type development. All these circumstances would diminish the viewshed and vista provided in the parcel's current form which we are about to close upon in ownership.
According to John Anglace, Board of Alderman president, Blakeman's proposal "isn't off the table.""Our decision on whether or not to sell or swap the land is not contingent on closing on the property," said Anglace, who said there are too many unanswered questions on the proposal, but that the city had to move forward to gain ownership of the property in order to meet the Feb. 1 deadline.
++ The BOA didn't pass a motion to deny the proposition, so this proposition is not "closed". However, in the funding of the acquisition, moneys from the Open Space Trust Account have been used. These funds result from the co-mingling of budget amounts, grants, and fees in lieu of open space land dedications in subdivision approvals. The case could be made that lands purchased with these moneys should be restricted to remain as Open Space. That would need to be decided by review from Counsel.
"My responsibility is to examine the entire issue-economically, environmentally, and for quality of life issues," said Anglace.
++ From an economic standpoint, it doesn't stand up as shown above. From an environmental manner, it will cause increased disturbance to wetlands areas. From a quality of life issue, it will increase traffic, albeit incrementally, to a road that has had increased development on it in recent years (Huntington Pointe, Turkey Hill Estates, English Lane)
Tom Harbinson, chairman of the Conservation Commission, said that the purchase of the land for approximately $10,000 an acre by the city is a "wise and judicial use of city dollars."The purchase of the Buddington Road property by the city for open space was discussed at the Jan. 3 Conservation Commission meeting, and Harbinson said that the commission recommended that the city complete the acquisition of the parcel. "Our real concern is the viewshed or vista of that property, which would be blocked by further development," said Harbinson.
++ The proposition shows resulting lots with yards that with required clearing of vegetation for their construction, would dramatically infringe upon the viewshed in addition to the previously mentioned access way cutting accross it, whether that be a shared driveway or a City road as a permanent cul-de-sac.
Friday, January 05, 2007
HuntHrld 2007Jan5 UI Buddington Road proposal
The Huntington Herald does not retain articles for archive purposes, for benefit of my commentary (shown in ++ and red within it), I cut/paste the article here. The original article can be found at: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17674701&BRD=1346&PAG=461&dept_id=434928&rfi=6
Year-old land swap proposal still on table
ED HARRIS, Editor
January 05, 2007
The Board of Aldermen has appropriated funds to purchase a parcel of land on Buddington Road owned by United Illuminating Co. But it has not turned down a proposed land swap with Blakeman Construction.
++ I don't mean to be picky, but the Board of Aldermen "appropriate" money to the Open Space Trust Account via the budget process. Appropriate comes from the Latin "appropriare" meaning to set apart for specific purpose. The vote of the BOA on Dec14 was to "fund" the purchase from the Open Space Trust Account.
It appears a make-or-break decision on the land swap might come later this month during a Conservation Commission meeting.
++ The Jan3 CC meeting resulted in a consistent opinion to that which we have held regarding this parcel going back to the Open Space Plan of 1992. It is a valuable piece of property as an addition to the City's Open Space inventory.
Aldermanic President JohnAnglace said the aldermen asked the Conservation Commission to be their agent. "They'll explore what [Blakeman] is willing to do for the city," he said.
++ You can personally view a walk thru of the property and understand what we are evaluating. The video online and pictures online include occasional cuts to a map for orientation.
The land in question is the 10.85-acre UI property. The city exercised its right of first refusal a little more than a year ago when the Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to purchase the property as open space.
The city already paid a holding fee of $12,000 to UI Dec. 8 and must close on the deal before February. Corporation Counsel Tom Welch drew up paperwork to close even sooner in an effort to avoid any potential setbacks due to the holidays.
++ Again, to be picky, the parcel is 10.96 acres. The $12,000 was a deposit made on Dec 7 (ck#207822 if you want to be really detailed). The closing is set (as I write this on Jan5) for MonJan15.
The money for the purchase is coming out of the open space trust account. City officials first entertained the land swap proposal from Blakeman Construction LLC, which wanted to purchase the land to develop it, last September. The site lies between two Blakeman-owned parcels, a 3.9-acre plot to the north and a 6.74-acre plot to the south.
++ The informal request from Blakeman Construction was for Shelton to not execute it's right of first refusal. Currently being considered is a formal proposition, that is much the same as what was stated informally in the past. Blakeman Construction is asking that Shelton not complete its purchase of the property from UI.
If the city were to go through with the swap, Blakeman would donate 11.85-acres, from pieces of all three parcels, as open space, free of charge. However, this land would incorporate more wetlands than the acreage the city would acquire without the swap. Blakeman plans to propose a planned residential district with 12 single-family homes on the site.
++ Basically correct, although without drawings in front of me, I couldn't state what any subdivision application would require for open space dedication under the regulations. I don't recall if there were any wetland flags done on the property, that usually requires access permission and a soil scientist - two components that I don't think have been pursued. That should not infer any dilution on the sincerity with which Blakeman Construction is making the proposition.
Neither James Blakeman nor Monty Blakeman returned calls for comment.
The Conservation Commission pushed to purchase the land last year. However, Chairman Tom Harbinson scheduled time last month to revisit the issue, correctly assuming the aldermen would request additional comment.
The commission failed to receive a memo Blakeman handed out to the aldermen during a mid-December meeting, necessitating a second review. The memo outlines six direct benefits Blakeman believes the proposal would provide for the city. According to the memo, it would offer a financial benefit of $717,000.
++ The ConsComm had the Blakeman memo, but had not been requested by the BOA to review it (formally). Thus we deferred to discuss it from our Dec6 meeting. At the Jan3 ConsComm meeting, we felt it would be possibly damaging to allow any process to progress without our comments. Thus, dispite not receiving formal request to do so, we gave our comments in the form of a letter. The financial benefits to the City are questionable, and I'll let the letter speak for itself other than to say the Conservation Commission is consistent in it's actions.
The monetary allocation includes the reimbursement cost to purchase the UI property, extend sewer and water mains to the area and construct a recreation path."He's raised the issue," Anglace said. "It's something we should explore."
The only noticeable difference between Blakeman's recent proposal and one from September 2005 is the improvement of about 4,600 lineal feet of a nearby hiking trail to make it handicapped accessible.
++ The hiking trail mentioned is what will become the main backbone access to enjoyment of the Shelton Lakes Greenway corridor - the Shelton Lakes Recreation Path. The first segment fully constructed is from Meadow Street to the Intermediate School campus. There are other segments in various stages of completion from simple hiking trail, to cleared 12ft wide path corridor. This is a long term project that has involved various grants contributing toward its completion. The proposition proposes improving the segment within the Huntington Woods subdivision from it's current walking trail to a foot-path of 6ft wide crushed stone. No construction standards however are presented.
Members of Shelton's Trails Committee said there already was a wooded hiking trail through the property. They said the Blakemans had offered to assist in converting it from a walking trail to a recreation path. This would entail cutting and filling in portions of the existing trail. The committee has indicated there are other options to complete the trail, should the deal not go through.
++ Blakeman Construction developed the Huntington Woods subdivision. The RecPath location requirement greatly affected the open space dedication within the original application. Additionally, $50k was deposited with the Planning & Zoning Department to be used for Open Space needs in that vicinity, mainly RecPath design and construction. Parts of the RecPath have been improved by Eagle Scout projects, volunteer groups, Parks & Rec staff, and outside contractors. All were funded via a mix of budgets, donations, and grants.
Year-old land swap proposal still on table
ED HARRIS, Editor
January 05, 2007
The Board of Aldermen has appropriated funds to purchase a parcel of land on Buddington Road owned by United Illuminating Co. But it has not turned down a proposed land swap with Blakeman Construction.
++ I don't mean to be picky, but the Board of Aldermen "appropriate" money to the Open Space Trust Account via the budget process. Appropriate comes from the Latin "appropriare" meaning to set apart for specific purpose. The vote of the BOA on Dec14 was to "fund" the purchase from the Open Space Trust Account.
It appears a make-or-break decision on the land swap might come later this month during a Conservation Commission meeting.
++ The Jan3 CC meeting resulted in a consistent opinion to that which we have held regarding this parcel going back to the Open Space Plan of 1992. It is a valuable piece of property as an addition to the City's Open Space inventory.
Aldermanic President JohnAnglace said the aldermen asked the Conservation Commission to be their agent. "They'll explore what [Blakeman] is willing to do for the city," he said.
++ You can personally view a walk thru of the property and understand what we are evaluating. The video online and pictures online include occasional cuts to a map for orientation.
The land in question is the 10.85-acre UI property. The city exercised its right of first refusal a little more than a year ago when the Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to purchase the property as open space.
The city already paid a holding fee of $12,000 to UI Dec. 8 and must close on the deal before February. Corporation Counsel Tom Welch drew up paperwork to close even sooner in an effort to avoid any potential setbacks due to the holidays.
++ Again, to be picky, the parcel is 10.96 acres. The $12,000 was a deposit made on Dec 7 (ck#207822 if you want to be really detailed). The closing is set (as I write this on Jan5) for MonJan15.
The money for the purchase is coming out of the open space trust account. City officials first entertained the land swap proposal from Blakeman Construction LLC, which wanted to purchase the land to develop it, last September. The site lies between two Blakeman-owned parcels, a 3.9-acre plot to the north and a 6.74-acre plot to the south.
++ The informal request from Blakeman Construction was for Shelton to not execute it's right of first refusal. Currently being considered is a formal proposition, that is much the same as what was stated informally in the past. Blakeman Construction is asking that Shelton not complete its purchase of the property from UI.
If the city were to go through with the swap, Blakeman would donate 11.85-acres, from pieces of all three parcels, as open space, free of charge. However, this land would incorporate more wetlands than the acreage the city would acquire without the swap. Blakeman plans to propose a planned residential district with 12 single-family homes on the site.
++ Basically correct, although without drawings in front of me, I couldn't state what any subdivision application would require for open space dedication under the regulations. I don't recall if there were any wetland flags done on the property, that usually requires access permission and a soil scientist - two components that I don't think have been pursued. That should not infer any dilution on the sincerity with which Blakeman Construction is making the proposition.
Neither James Blakeman nor Monty Blakeman returned calls for comment.
The Conservation Commission pushed to purchase the land last year. However, Chairman Tom Harbinson scheduled time last month to revisit the issue, correctly assuming the aldermen would request additional comment.
The commission failed to receive a memo Blakeman handed out to the aldermen during a mid-December meeting, necessitating a second review. The memo outlines six direct benefits Blakeman believes the proposal would provide for the city. According to the memo, it would offer a financial benefit of $717,000.
++ The ConsComm had the Blakeman memo, but had not been requested by the BOA to review it (formally). Thus we deferred to discuss it from our Dec6 meeting. At the Jan3 ConsComm meeting, we felt it would be possibly damaging to allow any process to progress without our comments. Thus, dispite not receiving formal request to do so, we gave our comments in the form of a letter. The financial benefits to the City are questionable, and I'll let the letter speak for itself other than to say the Conservation Commission is consistent in it's actions.
The monetary allocation includes the reimbursement cost to purchase the UI property, extend sewer and water mains to the area and construct a recreation path."He's raised the issue," Anglace said. "It's something we should explore."
The only noticeable difference between Blakeman's recent proposal and one from September 2005 is the improvement of about 4,600 lineal feet of a nearby hiking trail to make it handicapped accessible.
++ The hiking trail mentioned is what will become the main backbone access to enjoyment of the Shelton Lakes Greenway corridor - the Shelton Lakes Recreation Path. The first segment fully constructed is from Meadow Street to the Intermediate School campus. There are other segments in various stages of completion from simple hiking trail, to cleared 12ft wide path corridor. This is a long term project that has involved various grants contributing toward its completion. The proposition proposes improving the segment within the Huntington Woods subdivision from it's current walking trail to a foot-path of 6ft wide crushed stone. No construction standards however are presented.
Members of Shelton's Trails Committee said there already was a wooded hiking trail through the property. They said the Blakemans had offered to assist in converting it from a walking trail to a recreation path. This would entail cutting and filling in portions of the existing trail. The committee has indicated there are other options to complete the trail, should the deal not go through.
++ Blakeman Construction developed the Huntington Woods subdivision. The RecPath location requirement greatly affected the open space dedication within the original application. Additionally, $50k was deposited with the Planning & Zoning Department to be used for Open Space needs in that vicinity, mainly RecPath design and construction. Parts of the RecPath have been improved by Eagle Scout projects, volunteer groups, Parks & Rec staff, and outside contractors. All were funded via a mix of budgets, donations, and grants.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
CtPost Dec17 Buddington Road, Former UI land, Blakeman proposal
The CtPost had an article regarding the proposal by Blakeman Construction to the City that deserves follow up and comment.
The CtPost does not maintain continuous links with their online articles, so I cut/paste and comment (my comments within text begin with ** and are colored red):
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4850676
Land sale would block new subdivision plan
KATE RAMUNNI, Correspondent
Article Last Updated:12/16/2006 12:54:23 AM EST
SHELTON — The city is forgoing almost $750,000 by purchasing land on Buddington Road, a prominent developer and owner of the adjacent property said. Monty Blakeman, of Blakeman Construction, said he doesn't understand why there is opposition to his proposal to buy the site owned by the United Illuminating Co.
** An immediate background of information is needed. The City is in the process to be purchasing a property of 10.96 acres for $120,001 from United Illuminating. According to regulations regarding the public utility disposing of excess property, the City had a right of last refusal to match any bid proposal it received and accepted for the parcel. The minimum bid acceptable by UI was $120k, Blakeman Construction met that with a bid of $1 more, and Shelton matched the bid's terms. The City is in process to acquire the parcel as City Open Space. There is no opposition to Blakeman Construction attempting to buy the site from UI, that is moot as it is no longer for sale by UI and is under agreement to be sold to the City of Shelton.
The Board of Aldermen on Thursday approved a $120,001 payment to the utility for the 10-acre tract, and the city is scheduled to close on the purchase within the next week.
** Technically, the BOA on ThuDec14 approved unanimously to fund the balance of costs for purchase (apx total is $109,000) from the Open Space Trust Account. They made a 10% deposit on 2005/Dec/7, or $12,000. The closing, by agreeing to match the bid, must be made by mid-February. To ensure no ambiguity, it is scheduled for MonJan15.
Blakeman and his son, James, own property bordering the utility parcel, at the intersection of Buddington Road and Old Kings Highway. James Blakeman owns about 8 acres that front Buddington Road, while the UI property is adjacent to the rear of that land. Monty Blakeman also owns several additional acres behind the UI property.
The Blakemans wanted the city to decline its right-of-first refusal to purchase the land and instead allow the construction company to purchase the property from the utility. In return, the Blakemans would give the city back more than 11 acres of the total piece, including their existing properties, and make a number of improvements that they say will benefit the city and the area.
** The City has no surety of an outcome if it were to step aside and allow a foreign party to acquire the UI parcel. That said, the proposition includes many improvements necessary for the development of the parcel which they seek to accomplish. Thus while the improvements would benefit the City, they would more vastly benefit the developer and thus are being made more as in investor and should not be interpreted as that of a benefactor.
"This is not a case of the city only helping the developer, but also of the developer helping the city," Blakeman said. That help includes extending sewer and water mains down Buddington Road, which he say will save the city, as well as the residents whose homes the line wouldservice, $157,000. In addition, Blakeman said he is prepared to spend $65,000 to fix a dangerous curve at Buddington Road and Old Kings Highway, which has been the site of a number of accidents.
** Though outside of the purvue of my concern, it should be asked from the appropriate department if this "dangerous curve" yielded numerous accidents, was scheduled by the City already for improvement on some sort of priority list, and if it is understood that the improvements being proposed involve taking land from adjacent property owners in order to lessen the radius of the corner.
Further, he would invest $375,000 to construct 4,600 feet of linear trail to expand the city's greenway. The path is now a dirt trail that would be transformed into a 6-foot-wide gravel trail, Blakeman said. It is work that the city had planned to do but never did, he said. "I can give them a timeframe, and the work could be done in a very short period of time," he said.
** The proposal does not make mention of design standards to which any Recreation Path construction would adhere. The developer's engineer has done much pro-bono work for trails in town that is much appreciated, however Blakeman Construction made no contact in reference to this proposal in advance regarding construction standards, or what phase the Trails Committee was projecting to accomplish next.
The city also wouldn't have to spend the $120,001 price tag for the United Illuminating property but would get even more open space at no cost, he said. "It is very clear in my eyes that this is simply an example of anti-development sentiment," he said, referring to the 12-lot subdivision he has planned for the property. "These numbers that are on the table are real taxpayers' money."
** For the City to acquire 11acres as Open Space for $120k in 2006, I believe that the taxpayer's money is being judiciously expended. That decision is pro-conservation, but not anti-development. There is an assumption being made that if the City were to not follow through on all the referrals, unanimous votes, and planning documents dating back to 1992 in regard to this parcel; Mr. Blakeman would: get a wetland approval, get an underlying subdivision approval, get a zone change to a Planned Residential District zone, get approvals to install both sewer and water from the benefiting property owners to which such infrastructure would abut and for which they would have to pay their appropriate share, get approval from the Engineer's office for planned road improvements and the City acquire the property required for such improvements if not by mutual agreement then via eminent domain proceedings. After all that would occur, then an Open Space dedication would be made for a quantity of land that is slightly larger than the current 10.96 acres in question, but would now be bi-sected with a roadway and encroached with building lots and homes, at least 6 of which would be visible and all combine to disrupt the current natural view-shed and vista providing for passive enjoyment of the corridor.
If the city goes ahead and buys the UI land, he and his son will develop the property they own, Blakeman said, albeit a smaller development than planned.
** That is fine, they have owned them both for several years, landbanking it in anticipation of acquiring this UI parcel in between. The parcel on Doe Place is owned by Monty Blakeman and although close to 4 acres, can only accomodate 1 home by regulations. The parcel on Buddington Road can accomodate several parcels, but is limited in development by lack of sewer, water and having high tension power lines crossing the property under which a building can not be constructed according to regulations. It should be noted that while the parcel in question is owned by UI, it contains no UI infrastructure (though a natural gas pipeline is buried within it). All the power lines are on an easement for the property owned by James Blakeman along Buddington Rd.
Last year, the Board of Aldermen declined a similar request from the developer and went ahead with plans to buy the property. It approved a $12,000 down payment for the deal. Blakeman said that he thinks that the closing has been moved up to this month in order to squash any possibility his proposal has to be approved.
** The informal request made last year requesting the City not purchase this parcel was in advance of the City committing to UI that it wanted to match the agreement made between Blakeman Construction and UI. The formal request made in 2006 was a proposition date stamped as being received by the Mayor's office. It was appropriately dealt with by the Board of Aldermen and they referred it to the Conservation Commission as would be customary. The Conservation Commission dealt with it fairly and openly, taking further sitewalks and providing digital video via the internet to all public and decision makers for review in understanding more fully the site. The closing has not been moved to attempt "squashing" any proposal Blakeman has made.
At a special Board of Aldermen meeting Dec. 5, Alderman Jack Finn made a motion to deny a resolution that would have allowed Blakeman to purchase the land, but that motion failed. Instead, board President John Anglace said he wanted to wait until he hears from other city land-use boards on the request before making a decision.
** Alderman Finn's motion was to "reject the proposal" and it failed. There was never a motion made during the meeting to accept the proposal, or more exactly "accept for review" before discussion took place. There was also never a motion made during the meeting to "refer for review to Conservation Commission's opinion". The Special meeting was called by the Mayor who did not attend. The developer himself only found out about the meeting that afternoon.
The Conservation Commission is scheduled to discuss the proposal at its Jan. 3 meeting.
"We aren't in the habit of selling land to benefit developers," Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson said.
** Similar debate ensued on a parcel along Frank Drive in 2005. The result was the same. The Conservation Commission must be persistant in it's pursuit of balance for our community through Open Space acquisition. It also must be consistent in its decisions toward that pursuit. Nothing can be found over the past 15 years that would illustrate any variance in opinion over this parcel in those regards.
The CtPost does not maintain continuous links with their online articles, so I cut/paste and comment (my comments within text begin with ** and are colored red):
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4850676
Land sale would block new subdivision plan
KATE RAMUNNI, Correspondent
Article Last Updated:12/16/2006 12:54:23 AM EST
SHELTON — The city is forgoing almost $750,000 by purchasing land on Buddington Road, a prominent developer and owner of the adjacent property said. Monty Blakeman, of Blakeman Construction, said he doesn't understand why there is opposition to his proposal to buy the site owned by the United Illuminating Co.
** An immediate background of information is needed. The City is in the process to be purchasing a property of 10.96 acres for $120,001 from United Illuminating. According to regulations regarding the public utility disposing of excess property, the City had a right of last refusal to match any bid proposal it received and accepted for the parcel. The minimum bid acceptable by UI was $120k, Blakeman Construction met that with a bid of $1 more, and Shelton matched the bid's terms. The City is in process to acquire the parcel as City Open Space. There is no opposition to Blakeman Construction attempting to buy the site from UI, that is moot as it is no longer for sale by UI and is under agreement to be sold to the City of Shelton.
The Board of Aldermen on Thursday approved a $120,001 payment to the utility for the 10-acre tract, and the city is scheduled to close on the purchase within the next week.
** Technically, the BOA on ThuDec14 approved unanimously to fund the balance of costs for purchase (apx total is $109,000) from the Open Space Trust Account. They made a 10% deposit on 2005/Dec/7, or $12,000. The closing, by agreeing to match the bid, must be made by mid-February. To ensure no ambiguity, it is scheduled for MonJan15.
Blakeman and his son, James, own property bordering the utility parcel, at the intersection of Buddington Road and Old Kings Highway. James Blakeman owns about 8 acres that front Buddington Road, while the UI property is adjacent to the rear of that land. Monty Blakeman also owns several additional acres behind the UI property.
The Blakemans wanted the city to decline its right-of-first refusal to purchase the land and instead allow the construction company to purchase the property from the utility. In return, the Blakemans would give the city back more than 11 acres of the total piece, including their existing properties, and make a number of improvements that they say will benefit the city and the area.
** The City has no surety of an outcome if it were to step aside and allow a foreign party to acquire the UI parcel. That said, the proposition includes many improvements necessary for the development of the parcel which they seek to accomplish. Thus while the improvements would benefit the City, they would more vastly benefit the developer and thus are being made more as in investor and should not be interpreted as that of a benefactor.
"This is not a case of the city only helping the developer, but also of the developer helping the city," Blakeman said. That help includes extending sewer and water mains down Buddington Road, which he say will save the city, as well as the residents whose homes the line wouldservice, $157,000. In addition, Blakeman said he is prepared to spend $65,000 to fix a dangerous curve at Buddington Road and Old Kings Highway, which has been the site of a number of accidents.
** Though outside of the purvue of my concern, it should be asked from the appropriate department if this "dangerous curve" yielded numerous accidents, was scheduled by the City already for improvement on some sort of priority list, and if it is understood that the improvements being proposed involve taking land from adjacent property owners in order to lessen the radius of the corner.
Further, he would invest $375,000 to construct 4,600 feet of linear trail to expand the city's greenway. The path is now a dirt trail that would be transformed into a 6-foot-wide gravel trail, Blakeman said. It is work that the city had planned to do but never did, he said. "I can give them a timeframe, and the work could be done in a very short period of time," he said.
** The proposal does not make mention of design standards to which any Recreation Path construction would adhere. The developer's engineer has done much pro-bono work for trails in town that is much appreciated, however Blakeman Construction made no contact in reference to this proposal in advance regarding construction standards, or what phase the Trails Committee was projecting to accomplish next.
The city also wouldn't have to spend the $120,001 price tag for the United Illuminating property but would get even more open space at no cost, he said. "It is very clear in my eyes that this is simply an example of anti-development sentiment," he said, referring to the 12-lot subdivision he has planned for the property. "These numbers that are on the table are real taxpayers' money."
** For the City to acquire 11acres as Open Space for $120k in 2006, I believe that the taxpayer's money is being judiciously expended. That decision is pro-conservation, but not anti-development. There is an assumption being made that if the City were to not follow through on all the referrals, unanimous votes, and planning documents dating back to 1992 in regard to this parcel; Mr. Blakeman would: get a wetland approval, get an underlying subdivision approval, get a zone change to a Planned Residential District zone, get approvals to install both sewer and water from the benefiting property owners to which such infrastructure would abut and for which they would have to pay their appropriate share, get approval from the Engineer's office for planned road improvements and the City acquire the property required for such improvements if not by mutual agreement then via eminent domain proceedings. After all that would occur, then an Open Space dedication would be made for a quantity of land that is slightly larger than the current 10.96 acres in question, but would now be bi-sected with a roadway and encroached with building lots and homes, at least 6 of which would be visible and all combine to disrupt the current natural view-shed and vista providing for passive enjoyment of the corridor.
If the city goes ahead and buys the UI land, he and his son will develop the property they own, Blakeman said, albeit a smaller development than planned.
** That is fine, they have owned them both for several years, landbanking it in anticipation of acquiring this UI parcel in between. The parcel on Doe Place is owned by Monty Blakeman and although close to 4 acres, can only accomodate 1 home by regulations. The parcel on Buddington Road can accomodate several parcels, but is limited in development by lack of sewer, water and having high tension power lines crossing the property under which a building can not be constructed according to regulations. It should be noted that while the parcel in question is owned by UI, it contains no UI infrastructure (though a natural gas pipeline is buried within it). All the power lines are on an easement for the property owned by James Blakeman along Buddington Rd.
Last year, the Board of Aldermen declined a similar request from the developer and went ahead with plans to buy the property. It approved a $12,000 down payment for the deal. Blakeman said that he thinks that the closing has been moved up to this month in order to squash any possibility his proposal has to be approved.
** The informal request made last year requesting the City not purchase this parcel was in advance of the City committing to UI that it wanted to match the agreement made between Blakeman Construction and UI. The formal request made in 2006 was a proposition date stamped as being received by the Mayor's office. It was appropriately dealt with by the Board of Aldermen and they referred it to the Conservation Commission as would be customary. The Conservation Commission dealt with it fairly and openly, taking further sitewalks and providing digital video via the internet to all public and decision makers for review in understanding more fully the site. The closing has not been moved to attempt "squashing" any proposal Blakeman has made.
At a special Board of Aldermen meeting Dec. 5, Alderman Jack Finn made a motion to deny a resolution that would have allowed Blakeman to purchase the land, but that motion failed. Instead, board President John Anglace said he wanted to wait until he hears from other city land-use boards on the request before making a decision.
** Alderman Finn's motion was to "reject the proposal" and it failed. There was never a motion made during the meeting to accept the proposal, or more exactly "accept for review" before discussion took place. There was also never a motion made during the meeting to "refer for review to Conservation Commission's opinion". The Special meeting was called by the Mayor who did not attend. The developer himself only found out about the meeting that afternoon.
The Conservation Commission is scheduled to discuss the proposal at its Jan. 3 meeting.
"We aren't in the habit of selling land to benefit developers," Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson said.
** Similar debate ensued on a parcel along Frank Drive in 2005. The result was the same. The Conservation Commission must be persistant in it's pursuit of balance for our community through Open Space acquisition. It also must be consistent in its decisions toward that pursuit. Nothing can be found over the past 15 years that would illustrate any variance in opinion over this parcel in those regards.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Jones PDR - results CtPost article
The CtPost had a follow up article today regarding the referendum turnout. It deserves a follow up comment:
CtPost articles don't maintain a continous link, so I cut/paste and comment:
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4629607
Jones development rights purchase OK'd - ANNE M. AMATO
SHELTON — The city's proposal to purchase development rights at Jones Family Farms was overwhelmingly supported Tuesday. The referendum — approved 5,558 to 1,832 — asked city residents to OK bonding $4.3 million needed to buy an easement protecting 132 acres at the farm from development.
** It should be said that is not the first time the residents overwhelmingly voted to affirm the direction the elected and appointed leaders were making in a land acquisition:
NOVEMBER 7, 2006 $4.3 million Yes: 5558 (75.2%), No: 1832 (24.8%) = 7390
NOVEMBER 2, 2004 $3 million Yes: 8166 (78.3%), No: 2260 (21.7%) = 10426
NOVEMBER 4, 2003 $2 million Yes: 6123 (72.3%), No: 2344 (27.7%) = 8467
JUNE 3, 1997 $6,672,500 Yes: 5159 (89.5%), No: 607 (10.5%) = 5766
The above results are readily available at the secretary of state's website.
(update 2007/1/9) hyperlinks to the above results data is overlayed on the dates
The Jones family would continue to own the land, pay property taxes on it and work it as a farm.
"We were very moved by the enormous support the community showed in approving this," said Terry Jones, the family spokesman. "We knew it was a good proposal and one that would serve the city well for the future, but we also know there's a lot on the plate for taxpayers these days."
The $4.3 million will be combined with a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's farm protection program.
** Other entries in my blog have repetively documented the actual amounts (if rounding, $900k is more appropriate as far as the grant)
Jones said the money will be placed in an endowment that will fund care of the farmland, continue educational programs, and pay for the maintenance of historic buildings at the farm.
"This was a statement by residents of the direction they want us to follow," said Tom Harbinson, the Conservation Commission chairman. "The vote resulted in a 3-1 margin." "Seldom has any issue found the entire community behind it to that degree." Harbinson called the outcome "a victory for Shelton and an example to other farmers."
** Its an example to other communities and I have spoken at Seymour and Orange and Monroe regarding our efforts.
But Mayor Mark A. Lauretti Wednesday expressed some doubts about the purchase.
"This was a tough one for me because there is no public use of the space and [$4.3 million] is a big number," the mayor said. "It weighs on me. Now we have to deal with financing it."
** The USDA grant only applies to conservation easements. The USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service will not contribute to in-fee acquisitions. They recognize that a farmer will have a soil conservation plan, rotation of crops, long term investment in irrigation, drainage tiles, field improvements, prevention against invasive species, etc. A farmer is a better steward of the land with their vested interest than a municipality.
He said it has become increasing difficult to choose which properties to keep undeveloped.
"I'm just not sure this was a good decision," the mayor said.
** I'm sure the Mayor has been misunderstood. Regarding this issue, the Board of Alderman voted unanimously on 3 occassions, the Planning & Zoning unanimous in its 8-24 referral, and the Conservation Commission led the way with championing this unanimously. Additionally, the public has on the 4 occassions listed above voiced their opinion strongly that this is the correct direction they want for their community.
A week ago, Danny Orazietti, a Planning & Zoning Commission member, raised concern that residents might believe the land was being purchased by the city for open space use.
Orazietti said many people may not "realize we are just buying the building rights," adding that the question needed to be "spelled out better."
** look at previous blog entries on Dan's comments. I won't repeat them here.
But proponents of the action said that by preventing sale of the land to a housing developer, it would save the city money in the long run.
** Yes that is true, and I might cover that empircally in future blog entry. However this action was more about ensuring balance, not preventing homes. The farming generation of this family today may be passionate about continuing the farm, but that may not be the case with the next. A family disaster such as death or divorce, and the unknown future nuances regarding estate taxes, could cause the end of using the property for agriculture if it were not protected. This ensures against those possibilities, and gives example to other farmers who have significant unprotected lands, that this is a direction that the community supports and they may want to also consider this as a course of action for their future viability.
CtPost articles don't maintain a continous link, so I cut/paste and comment:
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4629607
Jones development rights purchase OK'd - ANNE M. AMATO
SHELTON — The city's proposal to purchase development rights at Jones Family Farms was overwhelmingly supported Tuesday. The referendum — approved 5,558 to 1,832 — asked city residents to OK bonding $4.3 million needed to buy an easement protecting 132 acres at the farm from development.
** It should be said that is not the first time the residents overwhelmingly voted to affirm the direction the elected and appointed leaders were making in a land acquisition:
NOVEMBER 7, 2006 $4.3 million Yes: 5558 (75.2%), No: 1832 (24.8%) = 7390
NOVEMBER 2, 2004 $3 million Yes: 8166 (78.3%), No: 2260 (21.7%) = 10426
NOVEMBER 4, 2003 $2 million Yes: 6123 (72.3%), No: 2344 (27.7%) = 8467
JUNE 3, 1997 $6,672,500 Yes: 5159 (89.5%), No: 607 (10.5%) = 5766
The above results are readily available at the secretary of state's website.
(update 2007/1/9) hyperlinks to the above results data is overlayed on the dates
The Jones family would continue to own the land, pay property taxes on it and work it as a farm.
"We were very moved by the enormous support the community showed in approving this," said Terry Jones, the family spokesman. "We knew it was a good proposal and one that would serve the city well for the future, but we also know there's a lot on the plate for taxpayers these days."
The $4.3 million will be combined with a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's farm protection program.
** Other entries in my blog have repetively documented the actual amounts (if rounding, $900k is more appropriate as far as the grant)
Jones said the money will be placed in an endowment that will fund care of the farmland, continue educational programs, and pay for the maintenance of historic buildings at the farm.
"This was a statement by residents of the direction they want us to follow," said Tom Harbinson, the Conservation Commission chairman. "The vote resulted in a 3-1 margin." "Seldom has any issue found the entire community behind it to that degree." Harbinson called the outcome "a victory for Shelton and an example to other farmers."
** Its an example to other communities and I have spoken at Seymour and Orange and Monroe regarding our efforts.
But Mayor Mark A. Lauretti Wednesday expressed some doubts about the purchase.
"This was a tough one for me because there is no public use of the space and [$4.3 million] is a big number," the mayor said. "It weighs on me. Now we have to deal with financing it."
** The USDA grant only applies to conservation easements. The USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service will not contribute to in-fee acquisitions. They recognize that a farmer will have a soil conservation plan, rotation of crops, long term investment in irrigation, drainage tiles, field improvements, prevention against invasive species, etc. A farmer is a better steward of the land with their vested interest than a municipality.
He said it has become increasing difficult to choose which properties to keep undeveloped.
"I'm just not sure this was a good decision," the mayor said.
** I'm sure the Mayor has been misunderstood. Regarding this issue, the Board of Alderman voted unanimously on 3 occassions, the Planning & Zoning unanimous in its 8-24 referral, and the Conservation Commission led the way with championing this unanimously. Additionally, the public has on the 4 occassions listed above voiced their opinion strongly that this is the correct direction they want for their community.
A week ago, Danny Orazietti, a Planning & Zoning Commission member, raised concern that residents might believe the land was being purchased by the city for open space use.
Orazietti said many people may not "realize we are just buying the building rights," adding that the question needed to be "spelled out better."
** look at previous blog entries on Dan's comments. I won't repeat them here.
But proponents of the action said that by preventing sale of the land to a housing developer, it would save the city money in the long run.
** Yes that is true, and I might cover that empircally in future blog entry. However this action was more about ensuring balance, not preventing homes. The farming generation of this family today may be passionate about continuing the farm, but that may not be the case with the next. A family disaster such as death or divorce, and the unknown future nuances regarding estate taxes, could cause the end of using the property for agriculture if it were not protected. This ensures against those possibilities, and gives example to other farmers who have significant unprotected lands, that this is a direction that the community supports and they may want to also consider this as a course of action for their future viability.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Jones PDR - referendum vote results
updated 2006/nov/20 for results:
It is interesting to note that out of all the municipalities in the state, few were looking to have the voters approve monies for Open Space acquisition:
Mansfield - $1million 4063 yes (71.8%), 1593 no (28.2%) = 5656 cast
Tolland - $2million 4344 yes (72.8%), 1626 no (27.2%) = 5970 cast.
Wethersfield - $4million 6136 yes (58.8%), 4291 no (41.2%) = 10427 cast.
Shelton - $4.3million 5558 yes (75.2%), 1832 no (24.8%) = 7390 cast
http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/election_results/2006_Nov_Election/2006BallotQuestAndReturns.pdf
I had a number of people say to me they didn't see the ballot question (it was at the very top of machine). A quick review of how many votes were cast for govornor should indicate close to how many votes were cast overall = 14239 That is to say that roughly only 51% of those casting a vote, bothered to even vote on the referendum question. Some might not have seen it, some might not be sure what it was about and decided not to vote either way.
Note that Shelton was seeking the most bonding commitment to open space in dollars this year than any other municipality. Shelton also had the highest affirmative percentage. The bottom line is that an overwhelming majority of those who voted on the issue were affirmative for this direction to continue. A 3-1 margin.
A victory for Shelton residents. Thanks to all who agreed with this direction and voted Yes.
It is interesting to note that out of all the municipalities in the state, few were looking to have the voters approve monies for Open Space acquisition:
Mansfield - $1million 4063 yes (71.8%), 1593 no (28.2%) = 5656 cast
Tolland - $2million 4344 yes (72.8%), 1626 no (27.2%) = 5970 cast.
Wethersfield - $4million 6136 yes (58.8%), 4291 no (41.2%) = 10427 cast.
Shelton - $4.3million 5558 yes (75.2%), 1832 no (24.8%) = 7390 cast
http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/election_results/2006_Nov_Election/2006BallotQuestAndReturns.pdf
I had a number of people say to me they didn't see the ballot question (it was at the very top of machine). A quick review of how many votes were cast for govornor should indicate close to how many votes were cast overall = 14239 That is to say that roughly only 51% of those casting a vote, bothered to even vote on the referendum question. Some might not have seen it, some might not be sure what it was about and decided not to vote either way.
Note that Shelton was seeking the most bonding commitment to open space in dollars this year than any other municipality. Shelton also had the highest affirmative percentage. The bottom line is that an overwhelming majority of those who voted on the issue were affirmative for this direction to continue. A 3-1 margin.
A victory for Shelton residents. Thanks to all who agreed with this direction and voted Yes.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Jones PDR - CtPost Nov3 Orazietti concerns
Today's CtPost had an article expressing concerns that A) the public wasn't aware of the details of the referendum, and B) that maybe the City should buy the property so we could "use it". As the CtPost online does not retain continuous hyperlinks for their archive, I cut/paste here with my comments in red.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4596345
CtPost, Nov3, Caution urged on Jones Farm bond vote
SHELTON — As a bar owner, Danny Orazietti is used to listening to people talk, but what he has been hearing lately concerns him. Orazietti, who is also a Planning and Zoning Commission member, said some patrons at his Danny O's establishments do not understand the proposal for the city to buy development rights from the Jones Family Farm.
"A lot of people are asking me about it," Orazietti said of the referendum question on Tuesday's ballot, asking for residents' approval of bonding $4.2 million to buy development rights to 132 acres of the popular farm. "A lot of people think we are purchasing the land as open space," he said.
** I too had concern that people are not aware of the upcoming question on the ballot. Unfortunately, that is a statement on our society today that we can recite details of Tom Cruise's upcoming nuptial to Katie Holmes wearing an Armani wedding dress - yet do not know about a school vote or referendum question that directly affects our lives. This is due to A) lack of controversy regarding this subject and B) lack of in-depth reporting by local media outlets. I have done as much as I can or am allowed to do to promote the referendum (being restricted by State Election laws is a difficulty) both privately with a blog, and in my role as chairman of the ConsComm via a press conference.
But, if approved next week, the money will not buy the actual property, but instead a caveat protecting the 132 acres surrounding the Jones homestead from development.
The Jones family would continue to own the land, pay property taxes on it and work it as a farm.
"There are a lot of people who don't realize that we are just buying the building rights," Orazietti said. "I think the community should be informed a bit more on what we are doing."
** It should be outlined what development rights are, and how they are valued. When someone owns a property "in-fee" you own it entirely. There are portions of that value which you can legally define and transfer to another party. Some areas of the country have mineral or oil rights when those are under the ground. Places like NYC may value "air-rights" and allow a billboard company to span over the top of their building. In the Jones Family Farms example, as with other previous Shelton successes at farm preservation, the "development rights" are being purchased by the City which prevent the land from ever being developed and thus ensuring they continue forever remaining agricultural. In a suburban Fairfield County community, that is understandably the bulk of the value to the land.
Orazietti said he supports putting off the vote in order to hold meetings with residents to discuss the issue. "It needs to be spelled out better — that is a lot of money to be giving someone for building rights," he said.
** There have been numerous meetings held by the Conservation Commission, 1 meeting from Planning & Zoning, and 3 meetings of the Board of Alderman. Every single month since March this has been on at least one group/committee/commission agenda. The value of the purchase is above question. The appraisal for the property had to be done to a "Yellow Book" standard, and the appraiser had to also be a "yellow book" standard appraisor. These are the high standards required by the Federal Government grant we applied for. While considerably more costly to pay for such an appraisal because it is that much more thorough and certified, it is money well spent in light of the grant award of $910k which contributes toward the purchase.
Proponents of the action say that by preventing sale of the land to a housing developer, it would save the city money. Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson also said that purchasing the development rights is part of the city's Farm and Forest Protection Program, which has preserved thousands of acres citywide.
"The city is at a crossroads right now," Harbinson said. "Does it value the agricultural segment of the community?" If it does, it has to show its support through efforts such as the purchase of development rights, Harbinson said, or else live with the consequences.
** This vote is as I say, at a crossroads. Will the community illustrate its support for the next generation of farmers that are starting wineries (JamieJones), cidermills and orchards (DanBeardsly), and organic local grown vegetables (TomMonaghan). If they don't, the alternative is a final crop ala the FieldViewFarm in Orange. From my perspective as commissioner, this is about the Farm and Forest Protection Program. Will this vote be a statement that there is a future for that program? If it is not a direction valued by the community, that future generations of farming is not welcomed here - then it will accelerate any potential pace of development on the remaining unprotected lands as they depart from the agricultural facet to our community, and embark on contributing to our school system.
"Houses are the last crop the farm will give," he said, pointing to the example of Field View Farm in Orange. That town declined to purchase development rights for Field View, one of the longest continuously operating farms in the country, and now homes are being built there.
** It should be said that this process is not something new for Shelton to utilize. The Shelton Family Farm was purchased just a few years ago using the same process and grant program. The Stockmal farm and Beardsley Organic farm, and Pumpkinseed Hill were all farms protected via this mechanism with Shelton's involvement. Shelton serves as a model of success to the State.
Rejecting the purchase of development rights at Jones Farm equals the loss of about $2.6 million, Harbinson said. This is because the Jones family has taken $1.7 million off the property's assessed purchase price, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is contributing $910,000 toward the purchase.
While Orazietti said he has always supported preserving open space, he said that he questions the wisdom of the proposal. "I think the town should outright purchase it," he said. "In my opinion, we should buy it and let them continue to farm it."
** While a typical initial reaction, such a suggestion is short sighted for several reasons. First is financial. The City can preserve 130 acres as agricultural land via conservation easement for $4.3million in resident's taxpaying dollars, or follow Danny's suggestion of purchasing it "outright" which would mean the City of Shelton, on its own, spending the full value of $6.8million for development rights, plus it's residual agricultural value (another couple of milion) for a total FAR in excess of what is being asked for in this ballot. The outcome being the same of Danny's statement "let them continue to farm it". I would suggest it more prudent to follow the current path (vote YES) in comparison to "outright purchase it". The fiscal authority (Board of Alderman) have agreed on that subject (unanimously on 3 separate votes). A 2nd reason it is short sighted is the "continue to farm it" comment. A Christmas tree seedling planted this summer will not be harvested as a 7ft tall tree until 9 years from today. A strawberry field requires underground tiles and irrigation pipes to allow drainage and the ability to prevent freezing of buds in spring. What kind of lease could be suggested to encourage such investment and commitment long term to an eventual crop? A 3rd reason is that the USDA NRCS grant does not make awards to applications where municipalities are purchasing property outright. They have learned that a property under care and ownership of the person who has a long term interest in such care is where money is better spent. Thus, we would and could not use a grant program to participate with us if we sought to purchase the property outright.
While buying the development rights means the property stays open, it is not land that city residents can use, Orazietti said. "For that amount of money, we should be able to use it," he said."
** Now I get confused: "We should let them continue to farm it" from the previous paragraph, or "We should be able to use it" from this one? I'll start with noting that buying the development rights means the property stays undeveloped. The word "open" has ambiguous meaning. A wooded area or forest can act as a buffer to residential properties, or provide filter to allow rainwater to better percolate into the streams, brooks and acquifers. Some people may think of farm as only open fields or meadows, and that is poor land management, (our Grant to the US Dept of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service notes the land management plan for the farm's soil conservation). Next is the notion that city residents can't use the land. The Jones Family has always allowed public access to their lands for walking, even outside of the pick-your-own harvesting times, though with written agreement so an understanding exists as to a working farms activities and care that should be taken by visitors.
Residents need to know the facts before deciding, Orazietti said. "People need to realize what they are voting on," he said. "They look at it as buying open space, which it is not. "It should be open space, but we should purchase it so we have some control."
** I don't understand Danny's change of heart. Dan Orazietti is a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He was present at their meeting of 2006/May/9. He seconded the motion and voted in favor of, along with every other commissioner to make it unanimous, that this was the proper planning direction for the community. I cut/paste the following off the City's website:
The Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on May 9, 2006 in the Shelton City Hall, Room 303, 54 Hill Street, Shelton, CT.
……..
8-24 REFERRAL: JONES FARM USDA GRANT (HOMESTEAD ACRES/JONES FAMILY FARM) ISRAEL HILL RD.
Chairman Cribbins stated that this next item is a piece of the Jones Farm and through the grant they will have development rights. It is 140 acres and it is what is called for in the plan of development. We did the Shelton Family Farm right next-door, stated Richard Schultz.
Tom Harbinson stated that this is 140 acres and it will be called Homestead Acres. There will be a barn.
The activity could still be on going, stated Anthony Panico.
Richard Schultz stated that we are going to say that you found the approval consistent with the Open Space Plan and you authorized Staff to send a letter to the USDA.
On a motion made by Jason Perillo seconded by Daniel Orazietti it was unanimously voted to report favorably on the 8-24 Referral: Jones Farm USDA Grant (Homestead Acres/Jones Family Farm) Israel Hill Road.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4596345
CtPost, Nov3, Caution urged on Jones Farm bond vote
SHELTON — As a bar owner, Danny Orazietti is used to listening to people talk, but what he has been hearing lately concerns him. Orazietti, who is also a Planning and Zoning Commission member, said some patrons at his Danny O's establishments do not understand the proposal for the city to buy development rights from the Jones Family Farm.
"A lot of people are asking me about it," Orazietti said of the referendum question on Tuesday's ballot, asking for residents' approval of bonding $4.2 million to buy development rights to 132 acres of the popular farm. "A lot of people think we are purchasing the land as open space," he said.
** I too had concern that people are not aware of the upcoming question on the ballot. Unfortunately, that is a statement on our society today that we can recite details of Tom Cruise's upcoming nuptial to Katie Holmes wearing an Armani wedding dress - yet do not know about a school vote or referendum question that directly affects our lives. This is due to A) lack of controversy regarding this subject and B) lack of in-depth reporting by local media outlets. I have done as much as I can or am allowed to do to promote the referendum (being restricted by State Election laws is a difficulty) both privately with a blog, and in my role as chairman of the ConsComm via a press conference.
But, if approved next week, the money will not buy the actual property, but instead a caveat protecting the 132 acres surrounding the Jones homestead from development.
The Jones family would continue to own the land, pay property taxes on it and work it as a farm.
"There are a lot of people who don't realize that we are just buying the building rights," Orazietti said. "I think the community should be informed a bit more on what we are doing."
** It should be outlined what development rights are, and how they are valued. When someone owns a property "in-fee" you own it entirely. There are portions of that value which you can legally define and transfer to another party. Some areas of the country have mineral or oil rights when those are under the ground. Places like NYC may value "air-rights" and allow a billboard company to span over the top of their building. In the Jones Family Farms example, as with other previous Shelton successes at farm preservation, the "development rights" are being purchased by the City which prevent the land from ever being developed and thus ensuring they continue forever remaining agricultural. In a suburban Fairfield County community, that is understandably the bulk of the value to the land.
Orazietti said he supports putting off the vote in order to hold meetings with residents to discuss the issue. "It needs to be spelled out better — that is a lot of money to be giving someone for building rights," he said.
** There have been numerous meetings held by the Conservation Commission, 1 meeting from Planning & Zoning, and 3 meetings of the Board of Alderman. Every single month since March this has been on at least one group/committee/commission agenda. The value of the purchase is above question. The appraisal for the property had to be done to a "Yellow Book" standard, and the appraiser had to also be a "yellow book" standard appraisor. These are the high standards required by the Federal Government grant we applied for. While considerably more costly to pay for such an appraisal because it is that much more thorough and certified, it is money well spent in light of the grant award of $910k which contributes toward the purchase.
Proponents of the action say that by preventing sale of the land to a housing developer, it would save the city money. Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson also said that purchasing the development rights is part of the city's Farm and Forest Protection Program, which has preserved thousands of acres citywide.
"The city is at a crossroads right now," Harbinson said. "Does it value the agricultural segment of the community?" If it does, it has to show its support through efforts such as the purchase of development rights, Harbinson said, or else live with the consequences.
** This vote is as I say, at a crossroads. Will the community illustrate its support for the next generation of farmers that are starting wineries (JamieJones), cidermills and orchards (DanBeardsly), and organic local grown vegetables (TomMonaghan). If they don't, the alternative is a final crop ala the FieldViewFarm in Orange. From my perspective as commissioner, this is about the Farm and Forest Protection Program. Will this vote be a statement that there is a future for that program? If it is not a direction valued by the community, that future generations of farming is not welcomed here - then it will accelerate any potential pace of development on the remaining unprotected lands as they depart from the agricultural facet to our community, and embark on contributing to our school system.
"Houses are the last crop the farm will give," he said, pointing to the example of Field View Farm in Orange. That town declined to purchase development rights for Field View, one of the longest continuously operating farms in the country, and now homes are being built there.
** It should be said that this process is not something new for Shelton to utilize. The Shelton Family Farm was purchased just a few years ago using the same process and grant program. The Stockmal farm and Beardsley Organic farm, and Pumpkinseed Hill were all farms protected via this mechanism with Shelton's involvement. Shelton serves as a model of success to the State.
Rejecting the purchase of development rights at Jones Farm equals the loss of about $2.6 million, Harbinson said. This is because the Jones family has taken $1.7 million off the property's assessed purchase price, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is contributing $910,000 toward the purchase.
While Orazietti said he has always supported preserving open space, he said that he questions the wisdom of the proposal. "I think the town should outright purchase it," he said. "In my opinion, we should buy it and let them continue to farm it."
** While a typical initial reaction, such a suggestion is short sighted for several reasons. First is financial. The City can preserve 130 acres as agricultural land via conservation easement for $4.3million in resident's taxpaying dollars, or follow Danny's suggestion of purchasing it "outright" which would mean the City of Shelton, on its own, spending the full value of $6.8million for development rights, plus it's residual agricultural value (another couple of milion) for a total FAR in excess of what is being asked for in this ballot. The outcome being the same of Danny's statement "let them continue to farm it". I would suggest it more prudent to follow the current path (vote YES) in comparison to "outright purchase it". The fiscal authority (Board of Alderman) have agreed on that subject (unanimously on 3 separate votes). A 2nd reason it is short sighted is the "continue to farm it" comment. A Christmas tree seedling planted this summer will not be harvested as a 7ft tall tree until 9 years from today. A strawberry field requires underground tiles and irrigation pipes to allow drainage and the ability to prevent freezing of buds in spring. What kind of lease could be suggested to encourage such investment and commitment long term to an eventual crop? A 3rd reason is that the USDA NRCS grant does not make awards to applications where municipalities are purchasing property outright. They have learned that a property under care and ownership of the person who has a long term interest in such care is where money is better spent. Thus, we would and could not use a grant program to participate with us if we sought to purchase the property outright.
While buying the development rights means the property stays open, it is not land that city residents can use, Orazietti said. "For that amount of money, we should be able to use it," he said."
** Now I get confused: "We should let them continue to farm it" from the previous paragraph, or "We should be able to use it" from this one? I'll start with noting that buying the development rights means the property stays undeveloped. The word "open" has ambiguous meaning. A wooded area or forest can act as a buffer to residential properties, or provide filter to allow rainwater to better percolate into the streams, brooks and acquifers. Some people may think of farm as only open fields or meadows, and that is poor land management, (our Grant to the US Dept of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service notes the land management plan for the farm's soil conservation). Next is the notion that city residents can't use the land. The Jones Family has always allowed public access to their lands for walking, even outside of the pick-your-own harvesting times, though with written agreement so an understanding exists as to a working farms activities and care that should be taken by visitors.
Residents need to know the facts before deciding, Orazietti said. "People need to realize what they are voting on," he said. "They look at it as buying open space, which it is not. "It should be open space, but we should purchase it so we have some control."
** I don't understand Danny's change of heart. Dan Orazietti is a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He was present at their meeting of 2006/May/9. He seconded the motion and voted in favor of, along with every other commissioner to make it unanimous, that this was the proper planning direction for the community. I cut/paste the following off the City's website:
The Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on May 9, 2006 in the Shelton City Hall, Room 303, 54 Hill Street, Shelton, CT.
……..
8-24 REFERRAL: JONES FARM USDA GRANT (HOMESTEAD ACRES/JONES FAMILY FARM) ISRAEL HILL RD.
Chairman Cribbins stated that this next item is a piece of the Jones Farm and through the grant they will have development rights. It is 140 acres and it is what is called for in the plan of development. We did the Shelton Family Farm right next-door, stated Richard Schultz.
Tom Harbinson stated that this is 140 acres and it will be called Homestead Acres. There will be a barn.
The activity could still be on going, stated Anthony Panico.
Richard Schultz stated that we are going to say that you found the approval consistent with the Open Space Plan and you authorized Staff to send a letter to the USDA.
On a motion made by Jason Perillo seconded by Daniel Orazietti it was unanimously voted to report favorably on the 8-24 Referral: Jones Farm USDA Grant (Homestead Acres/Jones Family Farm) Israel Hill Road.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
