Thursday, March 19, 2009

CtPost: Fence removal gives access to Derby Dam

An article appeared today regarding the FERC order to remove fence that McCallum Enterprises had installed which barred public from the recreational area and portage capability that is outlined and required as part of the license to take power away from the public resource of the Housatonic River.

The article covers areas I've already discussed (search this blog for FERC as a query item). The article does mention a separate subject matter (zoning) which involves an active court case, and I have stated that I will not be discussing legal items until they are resolved via the court process.

I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_11942638
Fence removal gives access to Derby Dam
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER

SHELTON -- The fence the owners of the Shelton Canal Company put up to keep residents out of the company's property has been taken down after a federal agency ordered it removed.

The public is once again able to fish at the Derby Dam, which has been closed off since late last summer when McCallum Enterprises put up the chain link fence.

Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said the cease and desist order the Planning and Zoning Commission issued to take down the fence has been lifted, but it wasn't that order that prompted McCallum to act -- it was the order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which also ordered the fence taken down. "They took the fence down so I lifted the cease and desist order because they complied with FERC," Schultz said.

McCallum managing partner Joseph Szarmach long maintained that his company was not bound by the conditions the commission set forth in its 1986 approval of the dam but only answerable to FERC.

That angered Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who was chairman of the zoning commission at the time and was instrumental in assuring that a portion of the riverfront site would remain accessible to residents. Sylvester was vocal in urging the commission to take the steps to keep the site open to the public, which led to its issuing the cease and desist order.

McCallum appealed the order to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which was set to act on the appeal Tuesday night. Then FERC issued its ruling denying McCallum a rehearing on its already denied request to relocate the public access, after which the fence was removed.

ZBA did not address the appeal at its meeting Tuesday because McCallum withdrew that appeal, ZBA chairman Gerald Glover said. "It's been withdrawn," he said before Tuesday's meeting.

Szarmach has not responded to requests for comment. McCallum had applied to FERC to modify the public access area at the canal. In its request, the company said the existing space set aside for public recreation presented a liability threat to the company, but FERC said there wasn't evidence to support that claim and denied the request to relocate the public area.

Szarmach has been critical of city officials and the Planning and Zoning Commission, which recently voted to rezone his property from R-4 to R-1, squashing the company's plans to fill in the unused canal and sell it for development. Under the new zoning designation, the land is much less valuable than it would have been under the multi-family zone. Szarmach had plans to build as many as 43 townhouses on the spot.

A sign on the outside gate of the property still advertises it as being for sale. Szarmach has said he is selling it to raise the funds to pay for a state Department of Environmental Protection-mandated fish ladder he must install at the dam at an estimated cost of $2 million.

Szarmach also had hoped the city would buy the land for open space, but Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has indicated the city is not interested.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Commentary on cases in court

One purpose for this blog is to communicate with reporters efficiently. There are a couple of matters involving Shelton subjects upon which I typically blog about, that are in court. An interesting article appears in the NYTimes about jurors doing research or commenting about court cases in which they are serving.

I am not a juror on any case at the moment (though I have performed that public service duty on a civil case in Milford where I was elected the jury foreman). The article focuses on the aspect of impartiality and only considering the facts vetted and presented via the court process. The article did make me reflect upon this blog and the communications it makes.

As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I have been called in the past to give testimony on our practices, and I am currently scheduled to give depositions in 2 separate cases brought against the City and/or agents of the City. I want to clearly state in advance how this blog will function as it relates to such proceedings.

1. Wiacek farm being acquired by the City of Shelton as Open Space via eminent domain. I was called to give testimony in this case some time ago (I think it was 2007). The case had two parts, both of which have been decided: Was the City in the right to use eminent domain proceedings to acquire the land (court ruled yes), and was the valuation paid to the property owners appropriate (court recently ruled no, and ordered an adjustment). Since the case was in the hands of the court for decision, I have felt I could make comments on news articles reporting on the results. The BOA may appeal the valuation ruling, but I have no involvement or affect upon that so I continue to offer comments on articles related to this.

2. Wiacek farm, process of how staff enforced or enacted eminent domain proceedings. I've been asked to give deposition in this case and will not be commenting on any news articles directly related to the case while it is in trial. (though I will enter raw news accounts in the blog for posterity and possible later reference)

3. Canal area zone change, process of how the Planning & Zoning Commission enacted a zone change for the area near Canal Street and Riverview Park. I've been asked to give deposition in this case and will not be commenting on any news articles directly related to the case while it is in trial. (though I will enter them in the blog for posterity and possible later reference).

I have received feedback over the years from all the reporters who cover Shelton, stating that this blog method of providing more in-depth information is a valuable tool for them to reference. I hope the reporters understand my decision regarding blogging about these specific subjects while being contested in court. The blog will continue, except for these 2 cases until they are resolved.

Friday, March 13, 2009

279 Soundview - CTPost on flawed process attempt to sell

The Mayor's office requested the BOA consider the appropriateness of the City selling a piece of land which is part of a larger acreage recently acquired at 279 Soundview Ave. The lot is likely the one containing the farmhouse that came with the larger acreage acquisition of the full original parcel.

I don't know what is being proposed because the Conservation Commission has not been consulted yet. I do not know the acreage, street frontage, any impact on access to a remaining public parcel, or who is making the request to the City that they would like to acquire the land.

The Mayor's office is NOT supposed to initiate requests to the Planning & Zoning for them to consider selling City real property (land). Such request must be received by the BOA and then the BOA must determine that the BOA has an interest in selling the property.

Look at my previous blog post on the subject to understand more on the subject.

I have an RSS feed that alerts me to Saturday's CtPost article appearing online today (Friday). I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_11907251
Process to sell city property flawed
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer
Updated: 03/13/2009 08:02:39 PM EDT

SHELTON -- The Planning and Zoning Commission's favorable recommendation for the city to sell a portion of the property on Soundview Avenue it just bought may not hold much weight.
That's because the process to sell city-owned property wasn't followed, according to the president of the Board of Aldermen.

On Tuesday the commission voted 3-2 to report favorably on the proposal to sell about an acre of the 14-acre property -- the portion of the site that has on it a single-family home -- in order to recoup part of the $2.1 million price tag.

++ The PZC should only be concerned with this from the perspective of a planning for city purposes perspective. They are a land use agency, not a fiscal authority ++

Mayor Mark A. Lauretti's office asked the commission for the ruling, which violated the process to sell city-owned property. The request was supposed to come from the Board of Aldermen and was supposed to go to the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission before being forwarded to Planning and Zoning.

++ If the BOA had their Reg monthly mtg last night. Their next Reg monthly mtg will occur after the CC has it's Reg monthly mtg. If the BOA do not receive this request, then act on it to forward to the CC for comment during a special mtg during the interm, the CC can not act on it during it's Apr1 mtg, and it would have to wait for our May mtg. Something that should have been taken care of at last nights BOA mtg was fouled up proceedurally ++

Former Alderman Chris Panek, who heads up the Citizen's United Party, brought up the issue at the Board of Aldermen's monthly meeting Thursday. "It was a blatant violation of the process," he said. "The vote should be null and void."

++ I must give credit to Chris who caught that a request to the PZC must come from the BOA, not the Mayor's office. I missed that when I talked to the Mayor's Adm Asst this week to ask what was going on. ++

He also expressed concern about the fact that the zoning agenda didn't specify which property on Soundview Avenue was being discussed -- it only listed the road name. "The agenda didn't say which number it was," he said.

++ The PZC should list, consistently the development name, street address, and application number. A search engine such as google can be restricted to the city website by entering site:cityofshelton.org as part of a query in the search box. If the balance of the query is an application number, you can deftly find all content in minutes or agendas that refer to that matter. Not having minutes in the full on the City website, works toward hiding information from the public, which can be done either purposely or unknowingly ++

Conservation Commission Tom Harbinson shared Panek's concern. "Not listing the full street address is suspicious," he said. "The process was not appropriately followed."

++ Just for the reasons stated above. ++

Board of Aldermen president John Anglace agreed. "Your comments are absolutely on the mark," he told Panek. The request for the 8-24 referral -- which refers to the state statute that requires land use boards give such recommendations to the legislative body -- came from Lauretti's administrative assistant and not from the board, he said.

"We have to get in synch," he said. "We will not go any further with this until we ask for the recommendations from the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. As far as I am concerned, the zoning recommendation is null and void," he said.

++ I will be curious to see the accompanying request. ++

Harbinson said that communication between city board and agencies needs improvement.
"Communication from City Hall is very poor," he said. "I am disappointed with the communications that comes from City Hall."

++ There are many good workers in City Hall, but there is a poor process put in place in which they are reqd to work under. The worst of those processes is communication. There is no sharing process or central application system by which progress of proposals can be monitored. This is one such case. A simple pdf scan of the request could be emailed to the BOA. They review it at their leisure, then discuss it and act on it if need be at the BOA mtg. The same materials can possibly then be emailed to the CC and PRC members who review it at their leisure, comment on it during their meetings and make recomendation back to the BOA. The BOA can then email fwd those two responses to the PZC for their consideration. The whole process can take one month, and be transparently and clearly be known to the public. ++

Wiacek - bus lot CtPost article 2

I was at the BOA monthly mtg last night where residents of Summerfield spoke again with concern over actions by the City on a parcel near their neighborhood. Some background.

Wiacek is a property that was acquired by the City via eminent domain process. Please read my earlier blog comments here and here. The City had long valued the property for municipal purposes. The City targeted the property for acquisition and attempted negotiation with the owners. The City could not come to agreement and pursued eminent domain proceedings. The City paid a value to the court based on proffessional appraisals of the property taken. The court determined the City was in the right to take the eminent domain course of action. The court determined that extra value was needed as compensation to the previous owners based on comparison of competing appraisals and the court's knowledge and understanding. I only re-iterate this because public comments were again bringing up these issues.

The parcel was highlited as part of a presentation from the CC to the BOA on 2004/Jan/7. The CC spoke of potential for multiple municipal uses for the parcel.

An article last month discussed this issue. Please read my blog entry on that article as it contains links to online video of speakers at the BOA mtg, and links to mtgs where decisions were made regarding the parcel's purchase.

The CtPost article this morning covers last nights speakers on the bus parking issues. I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_11900741

Neighbors oppose Shelton bus lot idea
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer

SHELTON -- For the second month in a row, residents of the Summerfield Gardens condominiums turned out for the Board of Aldermen's monthly meeting Thursday, and vowed to be there every month until they get assurances from the board that the school bus parking lot won't be moved next to their homes.

"I want you all to go down to where the buses are parked now on Riverdale Avenue and see what it looks like," Summerfield Garden Association president Diane Alterio told the board, "and then drive in our neighborhood and along Independence Drive. "I'm sure all of you sitting up there live in very nice homes," she said, "and if this were happening in your neighborhood, tell me you wouldn't be standing here in my place."

"This" is the prospect of the school bus lot moving to city-owned property off Meadow Street, the site of the former Wiacek Farm. Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has said that, if needed, the school buses could be parked there, though there are no immediate plans for that. Lauretti did not attend Thursday's aldermen meeting.

++ Speaking from my experience as CC chair and managing co-ordination of trails construction on City Open Space, any project (private or public) must go thru a process to be approved. If there is sub-surface disturbance there must be a call made to CBYD (call before you dig) which alerts all utilities and requires they locate and mark their infrastructure. If there is any depositing of materials, or disturbance to an area of wetlands or setback area to the wetlands, an application must be made to the IWC. If there is any change of use, an application must occur with the PZC. My understanding is that a CBYD call was made for this location. ++

The city took the 40-acre Wiacek Farm property by eminent domain several years ago, paying $2.5 million for the property. But a Superior Court judge has determined the fair market value was almost $1 million more than that, raising the price to about $3.5 million.

"Are you willing to pay $3.5 million for that and move the buses there?" Alterio asked. "I want to know if you are willing to do that." "We will be here every month until you assure us you will vote no to relocating the buses," she said.

++ Any activity from the City should have applications to agencies seeking approvals. The CBYD markings indicate that some activity is planned on taking place. I have not seen nor heard of any applications however. ++

Resident Pat Fazio said the property should be made into a city park since it was purchased for open space. The Wiacek family's farming tradition should be showcased, she said, and displays could highlight the wildlife that inhabits the spot. It could be a popular destination for school trips and scouting projects, she said.

++ Please refer to the CC presentation regarding possible municipal needs that could be satisfied in use of the property ++

279 Soundview Ave, CtPost on PZC 8-24 referral

The PZC had on their 2009/mar/10 agenda an item that caught my attention. Near the end of their meeting, under Other Business: "8-24 Referral: disposition of City property (Soundview Avenue)"

For those not used to certain references, "8-24" refers to the Ct Gen Statutes regarding municipal governing authorities (in our case the Board of Alderman) receiving advice from the planning authority (in our case the Planning & Zoning Commission) or vice versa (ie: when the BOA gave a favorable 8-24 referral to PZC when the Plan of Conservation & Development was approved. The PoC&D is the "master plan" to guide many of the City's decisions)

Knowing the various properties under City ownership, I was personally guessing that the likely location being referenced was 279 Soundview Ave, though the street address was not mentioned and thus not giving opportunity for notice to nearby residents to the property in question.

Such location would be a property recently purchased for Open Space. There was a house on the original parcel, which was subdivided by the previous owner before the City purchased it. If you want to see my comments on that parcel, search this blog using the query "soundview". It is likely that this is the property in question - a subdivided lot with the existing house within the acreage purchased.

I must emphasize that I'm guessing. I have not seen any proposal, application, or request come to the CC regarding this issue on the PZC agenda. I am upset with the lack of communication in City Hall causing me to just happenstance upon this item as you can see from an conversation thread of the CC on our public google group.

The City does have a process whereby real property (land) can be considered for sale. It is addressed under ordinance #782 It was recently modified on Feb11 after a public hearing on the changes on Jan27. You can put this query into a google search box to quickly find more:

site:cityofshelton.org 782 8-24

Simply look at the 2009/feb/11 BOA minutes on p.12 to see the rules.

1. A request must be received by the BOA.
2. The BOA must determine that the BOA has an interest in selling the property.
3. The request for opinion must come to the CC and PRC from the BOA.
4. The BOA must consider those inputs of opinion.
5. The BOA must determine whether to proceed, and if so then seek an 8-24 referral from PZC

The process has several steps from there which are not germain to this discussion, so I will not bother continuing with them. I do know after talking with the Mayor's office (see last msg on Mar11 of the conversation thread), that the request originated with them. I'll admit that I didn't catch that as being as incorrect process and then give question to the Mayor's office as to why this didn't go via the BOA. It was not until the BOA mtg last night where a speaker pointed out that the request must originate via the BOA process that I realized this was an invalid process being followed (thank-you Chris Panek). To his credit, BOA President John Anglace readily admited this action seemed to be done in error and stated publicly that corrective action would take place and any PZC decision already made would be null/void.

The CtPost had an article 2days ago, before last nights BOA mtg. Still, there is value in creating a record (CtPost doesn't retain archive of articles publicly), I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_11889397
Sale of Shelton city-owned land debated
By Kate RamunniStaff Writer
Updated: 03/11/2009 09:50:29 PM EDT

SHELTON -- With the purchase of open space off Soundview Avenue just completed, city officials are considering selling a small parcel of the property.

++ The Mayor is considering this. The BOA have not considered this according to process they established last month on Feb11. ++

On Tuesday the Planning and Zoning Commission took up a request from the Board of Aldermen to report either favorably or unfavorably on the proposal to sell about an acre of the 14-acre piece that has a single-family home on it.

++ This is reported incorrectly. As I've discovered yesterday, the Mayor's office made the request to PZC, not the BOA. This is an incorrect, inproper, inappropriate , or an illegal request process - depending on your point of view. Bottom line: IT IS WRONG. ++

The commission reported favorably on the proposal, but just barely -- by a vote of 3-2.

++ The action by the PZC is null/void. The President of the BOA stated that they would correct the mistake of process ++

"You have a vacant house that serves no purpose for the city that is going to need maintenance and is off the tax rolls," said Commissioner Ruth Parkins. "Its sale can generate revenue to offset the purchase price and put it back on the tax rolls." In the current economic times, it's imperative the city look for ways to generate revenues, she said. "The city needs every way it can to increase revenue and decrease expenses," she said. "Every little bit helps.

++ I understand Commissioner Parkins concerns, just like any taxpayer would. However, the role as Commissioner is to give comment and decision for the request (disregarding for the moment that the request was improper) based solely on a perspective of planning as the Planning & Zoning Commission. The BOA is the sole fiscal authority, and that is not the PZC job ++

The dissenting votes came from the commission's two Democratic members, Chris Jones and Leon J. Sylvester.

"It just doesn't smell right," Jones said. "I didn't like the whole deal from the get go."

++ You can see my thoughts on this type of commentary in my blog entry of 2008/Mar/4 ++

The land had long been in the city's sites for open space, but when the former owners decided to sell, they were looking for a quick sale -- too fast for the city to be able to get the funding in place, city officials said. Instead a development group that included former Inland Wetlands Commission chairman Al DaSilva bought the property for $1.4 million.

But less than a year later the new owners sold the property to the city -- for $2.2 million, a profit of $800,000.

++ This is an incorrect conclusion. The parcel was purchased in raw land form as a single lot. Inland Wetland Commission applications were filed, pursued and approved. Planning & Zoning subdivision applications were filed, pursued and approved. Survey of the wetland soils by soil scientist, survey of the land area and design services of a landscape architect and/or civil engineer were employed. There was investment of resources by the new owner to transform the raw land parcel into an approved subdivision of unimproved building lots. To simply say saleA minus saleB = profit is not the full story. ++

Sylvester said he doesn't think selling the house in today's real estate market makes sense. It could be used for a better purpose, he said. "I think from a value point of view, we paid top dollar for that piece and to sell off a piece of the road frontage diminishes the value of the property, especially in this market," he said. "I don't see why they want to sell off the house and a good portion of the road frontage -- it doesn't make sense to me."

++ This type of commentary from a PZ Commissioner who has served for several decades, at times as Chairman of the PZC, simply blows me away. The value, cost or market conditions should have absolutely no bearing on the PZC decision. I don't question Commissioner Sylvestor's knowledge on the subject of real-estate market values, as his wife Barbara has been a real-estate agent for some time, but that should not enter into his decisions or comments. Shame on the PZC Chairman for not putting a stop to it. ++


While the city isn't in the business of being a landlord, it does have properties it rents, Sylvester said, which could be done with this house. "The house is in fine shape so why not do something creative with it," he said, such as renting it to a city employee who may not be making a large salary and needs affordable housing. "To me it's a no-brainer," he said. "I believe in the future this will be a very valuable part of the property."

++ Off the top of my head, the City has real property at various locations: Old Police Station downtown was recently used by the Valley Health Dept, Old house near Echo Hose firehouse was recently used by the Judge of Probate, house on Rte108/Nell's Rock Rd was acquired as part of BHC purchase and is used for City storage purposes, house on Perry Hill near the new Upper Elementary School has been rented as a dwelling unit by a tenant, structure on Huntington Wellfield property was leased to Cablevision for housing communication infrastructure. I agree that the City shouldn't be in the business of being a landlord, but at times it has properties that can be put to better utilization, at times generating revenue for the City. ++

The Parks and Recreation Commission and the Conservation Commission also will be asked to weigh in on the proposal, and the aldermen will hold a public hearing on it before making a decision.

++ As stated above, the BOA President has stated that the actions taken thus far will be negated and the ordinance and process will now be correctly followed ++

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Wiacek property - court valuation, NHRegister article

The dueling papers in town reported on the same subject today, court decision toward valuation. I commented on the CtPost article first, but the NHRegister has some more detail. Read the whole article, then come back to this link for a google spreadsheet document that explains comparisons more appropriately.

I encourage readers to go to the NHRegister article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

http://nhregister.com/articles/2009/03/05/news/valley/b1-shlandruling.txt
Shelton told to pay $1M more for farm
Thursday, March 5, 2009 6:14 AM EST
By Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, Naugatuck Valley Bureau Chief

SHELTON — A Superior Court judge has ruled that the city should have paid $856,000 more than it did when it took 36 acres of the Wiacek Farm parcel by eminent domain four years ago.

Judge Bruce Levin, in a decision dated Feb. 23, concluded that the fair market value of the property taken by the city in April 2005 was about $3.36 million, or $856,000 more than the $2.5 million the city paid for it.Levin further ruled that the city owes $208,293 in interest on the difference, which brings the total judgment of damages to $1.06 million, according to the ruling, on file in Superior Court in Milford.Both the city and Wiacek Farms LLC had presented appraisals of the property.

+++ This works out to $178,215 per unimproved building lot within the acreage taken by the City under eminent domain proceedings, which is a portion of the overall parcel referred to as the Wiacek Farm +++

Assistant Corporation Counsel Ramon Sous said Wednesday he had no comment on the ruling, as he has yet to discuss it with the Board of Aldermen, which he plans to do next week. Sous said he hasn’t determined yet if the city will appeal.

The Board of Aldermen voted in late 2004 to acquire the property for open space and recreation, court documents show. The land is in the area of Meadow Street and Constitution Boulevard, neighboring Shelton High School. It had been a dairy farm, and was in the Wiacek family for about 85 years.

+++ Go to the next blog entry on this subject with the CtPost article to see all the hyperlinks for the CC presentation and the BOA votes on acquiring the property. You don't have to rely on "court" documents. +++

In March 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Wiacek family’s application to put a 24-lot single-family residential subdivision there. Shortly afterward, the owners began site development for the project, which also called for three roads, court documents show.

+++ On 2004/Jan/7, the CC made presentation that the parcel be purchased. The BOA authorized the Mayor to negotiate to do so. Such negotiations were unsuccessful. The BOA decided to enter eminent domain proceedings on 2004/Sep/30. They were berated for doing so by some speakers during the public session of their 2004/Oct/14 BOA mtg. +++

In January 2005, the city commenced its eminent domain action to take 36 acres of the overall 46-acre farm for $2.5 million, based on an appraisal obtained by the city.

+++ Don't know the meaning of "commenced" but the process of eminent domain started clearly months before that +++

The Wiacek family’s attorney, Jonathan Bowman, submitted paperwork to the court claiming the property was valued at nearly $3.7 million, and that the family should receive the difference, or $1.2 million, plus interest on that difference.

Walter Wiacek and Shawn Splan, who are cousins and own the property, asserted that the city has paid more for similar property, and the family had hoped for more money than allowed for in Levin’s ruling.

“I can’t say I’m totally disappointed, but I am a little disappointed with the ruling,” Wiacek said. “We had planned a high end subdivision there. The only time the city got interested in the land was when we decided to develop it.”

+++ That statement regarding the City's interest is absolutely not true +++

Wiacek noted that since the city bought the land, it is supposed to be used for open space. There have been recent discussions about potentially parking school buses there, a possibility that has earned the ire of residents at nearby Summerfield Gardens condominiums, who spoke against the idea at a recent Board of Aldermen meeting.

+++ The CC presentation did not advocate that the entire parcel be purchased solely for Open Space associated purposes, but recognized the possibility for other municipal purposes not normally associated with open space (school education area for example). The BOA motion for eminent domain was "Said taking is for City Open Space and recreational purposes consistent with such open space" +++

Wiacek Farms LLC also has a separate case still pending in Superior Court in Milford, filed in 2006 against the city, Mayor Mark Lauretti, Board of Aldermen President John Anglace, Zoning Enforcement Officer Thomas Dingle, and City Engineer Robert Kulacz.

That case seeks more than $15,000 in damages, and claims the defendants caused work to stop at the property, even though the owners had approval for the subdivision, interfering with their business expectations

+++ On the pending case's claim, I don't have anything further to offer at this time +++

Wiacek - court valuation, CtPost article

The CtPost today reported on the court's final decision regarding valuation for an Open Space acquisition known as the Wiacek Farm by the City of Shelton.

One of the roles of myself and others on the CC is to advocate for land purchases we think are appropriate. The CC comments are purely advisory, and the only tool we have is the power of persuasion based on following consistent goals or directions (the Open Space Plan), and being persistent. (When I took over Chairmanship of the CC in 2004Nov, I quoted Calvin Coolidge as my guide to be persistant, and consistent).

The CC has no fiscal decision role in Shelton government. Though we may make suggestions and serve a supportive role regarding fiscal course of action (ie: giving presentations to explain a referendum question), finances are the realm of the BOA as the City's final fiscal authority.

While this CtPost news article deals mostly with fiscal issues, the public opinion of process as to how the City arrived at this parcel's state of affairs is important to me, and thus I clarify the article with my comments within the article below. Too that end, I published a google document spreadsheet that outlines all the values and ratios that I think should be the more appropriate comparisons, as I more fully describe below.

I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

http://www.connpost.com/valley/ci_11836579
Shelton to pay more for Wiacek property
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 03/04/2009 10:05:12 PM EST

SHELTON -- A Superior Court judge has determined that the Wiacek property the city took by eminent domain five years ago is worth almost a million dollars more than the city claimed.

+++ First, if you want to research the facts, you can see other comments I've made on this blog over the past several years where this was ever mentioned - use the search box at the top of this blog with "wiacek" for term. If you want to see any emails where the CC possibly discussed the subject try this discussion search link to our google group that publishes all our emails live to the public to satisfy FOI rules. If you want to see any City of Shelton agencies discussion over the parcel, visit this sample of a site restricted search to find it mentioned in the minutes of the IWC, PZC, BOA, or CC at the very least. Regarding the opening line: The CC made a presentation on 2004/Jan/7 advocating it be acquired. The BOA passed a motion to pursue eminent domain at their 2004/Sep/30 mtg. The "taking" due to eminent domain would have occured upon filing the paperwork which would likely have been within days of the BOA decision. +++

Last week, Judge Bruce Levin in Milford Superior Court ordered the city to pay about a million dollars more than the city's appraisal of the property, about 40 acres off Meadow Street next to Shelton High School.

The land was in the Wiacek family for about 85 years, according to attorney and Wiacek family member Shawn Splan. Splan and his cousin Walter Wiacek had just gotten land use board approvals for 24 lots on the property in 2004 when the city began the proceedings to take the property.

+++ The CC encouraged the City to consider buying this parcel (along with two other parcels during the same presentation). The BOA authorized the Mayor to negotiate with the owners (for all 3 parcels in the presentation) toward purchasing them. One of the Wiacek parcel owners stated among several public mingling at the end of the meeting that the only way the City would get the property is via eminent domain. The City still attempted to negotiate and the Mayor has stated he even had phone calls with the owners during his family vacation time. The owners pursued a development application for the parcel. The process was delayed in part due to errors from the owner's hired soil scientist expert who had mistakes while wetland flagging on the parcel. All regulatory agencies gave the application fair and standard treatment thru to approval. The approval of subdivision layout and subsequent qty of building lots allowed both parties to evaluate a realistic appraisal of value. +++

At the time the city's appraisal for the land came to about $2.5 million. The $2.5 million sale price works out to roughly $62,500 an acre.

+++ The City did indeed have an outside appraisal value the acreage it desired to acquire at apx. $2.5mil, with an acreage stated in the 2004/Sep/30 BOA motion being 39.7 acres. This was later corrected in the minutes of the 2004/Oct/14 minutes to be 35.99 acres as reflective of the legal description for the land area in the taking, and that is $69,463 per acre. However, that is not an appropriate metric upon which to compare with other areas. The subdivision approval map was the basis upon which the description for land taking was made, and it covered 20 of the 24 building lots which at that juncture were in an unimproved state. This works out to $125k per unimproved building lot. An unimproved building lot is one where subdivision approval exists, but there still is required from a developer the improvements such as roads, underground utilities and such, for building construction to take place. These improvements include City depts requiring bonds to ensure the proper construction standards are met before the City takes ownership and responsibility of areas such as a new City street. After certification by the City engineer, bonds can be released. Nobody should make the leap of thought comparing this to a personal dwelling sitting on an acre and being worth a hell of a lot more than $125k per lot or per acre. The comparison is not apples to oranges. At the time when the City took the property, the appraisal considered the status that the property was in. Some in the public tried to claim it should be valued at $8.2million (BOA 2004/oct/14 p.6: Gene Hope, p.18: Irving Steiner), something now determined by the courts to be far from reality. +++

The Wiacek family's appraisal came in about a million dollars higher. Last week a judge ordered the Wiacek family be reimbursed 85 percent of the difference, along with interest.

+++ Appraisals are done by proffessionals who certify their justifications by doing market comparisons. They can vary. If the Wiacek's appraisal came in at apx. $1mill more (I'm relying on the news report as I don't have access to real documents or exact numbers), and the judge approved of 85% of that valuation, that is $850k more than the $2.5mill of the City's appraisal for an apx. judge ordered valuation of $3.35 million. This is equiv to apx. $167.5k per unimproved building lot. +++

Splan said the city could have avoided the cost of going to court had it treated his family fairly, such as how it treated developer and former Inland Wetlands Commission chairman Al DaSilva.

+++ That statement is in direct opposition to the comment made in the presence of several people after the public presentation to the BOA where it was stated that the only way the City would get his property is by eminent domain. +++

The city paid $2.1 million, or about $150,000 an acre, for DaSilva's 14 acres off Soundview Avenue, which abuts the Wiacek property.

+++ The city purchase price was $2,124,500 for property at 279 Soundview Avenue, purchasing it from Huntington Development Group LLC, an entity where it is common knowledge that at least one of the members is Alvaro DaSilva, the former Chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission, having stepped down just shortly before this transaction agreement. That was after a "gift value" of $100k was discounted from the agreed contract value between the City and the seller. Thus the City had agreed to "value" the property at $2,224,500. The appraisal from the City for the 14 acres was $1.8mill, the appraisal from the owner was $2.2mill. I'm not part of the negotiation process, but the negotiated price and what was agreed to by the BOA and shown in their minutes was the $2.1 net purchase price (which was agreed to be spread out over several payments). At 11 lots approved for this parcel - that is $190,909 per lot. +++

Splan said five years ago it was a very different real estate market than it is today. "We always would have rather had the land and the opportunity to develop it during the golden age of real estate," he said. "We could have lived with it if they had paid us the same as they paid Al DaSilva -- when we went to market the property, the economic times were a lot better than they were in 2007" when DaSilva's purchase was done.

+++ Timing does need consideration. The difference is $23,409 per lot, a 14% increase from the time of the 2004 Wiacek acquisition (the court valuation is based on the time of the taking, even though they decided upon it in 2009) and the time of the 2008 Soundview purchase - a span of about 4 years. +++

Board of Aldermen President John Anglace said he hadn't yet seen the ruling but was not surprised by the outcome. "That's the process," he said. "That's what you do -- you see what the fair market value is for the property."

The board took criticism at the time of the action from some residents who said the city would end up having to pay far more than the $2.5 million -- some said that price would be as much as $8 million. "There is a big difference between this and what they said," Anglace said. "I said it wouldn't be anywhere near that."

The property is valuable to the city because of its proximity to Shelton High School, Anglace said. "It's part of the education complex up there."

+++ Anyone can see the CC presentation advocating reasons for acquiring the parcel. The BOA also made representations during the funding that it was for recreational uses and purposes associated with them. +++

The city will be able to pay whatever difference the court requires it to, Anglace said. The city has not done anything with the property yet, but Mayor Mark A. Lauretti said if needed, the land could be used as a school bus lot in the future, which angered residents of the nearby Summerfield Condominiums. Those residents spoke at the last Board of Aldermen meeting against the prospect.

"That's a pretty expensive parking lot," Walter Wiacek said.

+++ To think that the only use of the entire acreage of the property would be for parking school busses is simply short sighted. I have made a separate blog comment on the recent article regarding use of the property as a bus parking area. +++

The Wiacek family has another lawsuit against the city that is ongoing over the way the eminent domain process was carried out, Splan said.

+++ The first case was whether the City had the right to use eminent domain - court said yes. Next up was the valuation the City used and put in escrow, was it appropriate - court said no, pay more (which caused this article). Still to be decided, a case against public officials brought by the Wiacek's regarding actions taken during the approvals and permit to construct process. That will likely be decided during the summer. +++

Monday, March 02, 2009

Wildlife in Shelton

Another wild animal was sighted in Shelton, and it seems that the Bobcat has been identified. The Conservation Commission discussed this last week when we were alerted to it by Conservation Agent Teresa Gallagher, and the CtPost picked up on the story which has more information.

With reports of "mountain lions" (mis-reports) and other wild animals gaining close proximity to residential areas, I starte tracking this with a custom google map which I embed below. Red markers are confirmed sightings, blue markers are simply reports, and Purple Pins are whimsical.


View Larger Map

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Wiacek - bus parking use, CtPost article

Residents of Summerfield Garden are concerned about the use of city-owned property for parking of school busses.

As is my custom and reason I created this blog, I comment on articles in the news directly with my thoughts and without filter. Given the dynamic nature of data available on the web, I try to go beyond that regarding this news-story. The BOA have a public portion component at the start of their regular monthly meetings. During the 2009/Feb/11 meeting (minutes at City website) the residents of Summerfield Gardens raised concerns over what would become of nearby City property. There was also a community activist who recorded video for two of the speakers, and uploaded it to youtube. (Video 1, Video 2).

I have opinions on the comments recorded in the meeting's minutes, spoken in the video, and writen in the caption/info component entered for the videos by username sheltonpulse (which is Irving Steiner of the WeR1 organization). I will refrain from making those here as there isn't enough space, and will instead try and contain myself to the newspaper article.

I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_11717245

Condo residents angry over bus plan
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Posted: 02/16/2009 06:24:40 PM EST

SHELTON -- It began late last year when residents of Summerfield Garden condominiums on Constitution Boulevard began to see marks in the road and a driveway being forged into the nearby city-owned Wiacek property.

++ The Wiacek property is located between Constitution Boulevard and Meadow Street, adjacent to the open space set-aside acquired by Shelton during the subdivision of land into the Summerfield Garden condos. The CC advocated to the BOA during a powerpoint presentation at their 2004/Jan/7 meeting that the Wiacek farm along with two other parcels in the City be acquired for various reasonings. The case made by the CC for the Wiacek property begins on p.7 of the above link.++

They were even more upset to learn the land the city took by eminent domain and later bought for open space several years ago could end up being a parking lot for the city's school buses.

++ The BOA agreed with the CC thoughts presented to them. The BOA authorized the Mayor to negotiate with the 3 property owners to purchase them. Clearly in the CC presentation to acquire these open spaces was the possibility for use by the City beyond it's current state of undeveloped agricultural land. This included possibly trails for passive recreation, sports fields for active recreation, preservation of streetscape to retain a natural landscaped rural character atmosphere, further environmental enhancement via accumulation or compilation to a greenway corridor, and future municipal uses which included enhancements for complementing the existing school and/or teaching environments. The focus for much of the potential uses of the Wiacek property was its central location in the community and proximity to the already existing campus of the SHS and SIS. At the end of our BOA presentation, in the presence of several people, the Wiacek owner stated that he would not sell and the only way the City would get his property was eminent domain. The City attempted negotiation over the subsequent months, but could not do so to an amicable resolution. The BOA on 2004/Sep/30 authorized bonding in the amount of $500k. Important to note in the above link's minutes regarding motion for bonding funding $500k of value: "for the acquisition of land in the City of Shelton for the purpose of open space preservation" Next motion at the above meeting was to enter eminent domain prodeedings on a piece of the land aka "Wiacek Farm Estates", a recently approved subdivision map for apx 24 lots referred to when legally describing the taken area of apx 20 building lots. The amount of compensation was $2.5million for 39.7 acres (apx. $63k/acre, or apx.$125k/unimproved building lot) with funding coming from the Capital Project Fund Account (see p.4 of the minutes). Important to note in this eminent domain motion was "Said taking is for City Open Space and recreational purposes consistent with such open space " The court has since found that the City was in the right to use eminent domain (I testified in the case) but has yet to render a decision as to value. I understand that the funds the City has forwarded ($2.5million) still remain in escrow. To clarify the article: The City purchased the property as open space and completed the acquisition by eminent domain proceedings. Despite the CC promotion for mixed use, the BOA motion states no use other than recreational purposes associated with it being open space. +++

Speaking with Mayor Mark A. Lauretti recently, Summerfield Gardens Association president Diane Alterio said she made it clear those plans wouldn't fly with the residents. She also spoke at the Board of Aldermen meeting last Thursday. "We wouldn't tolerate such a thing in our residential neighborhood," Alterio told the board. "It would hurt our property values."

+++ I understand the neighborhood concerns over what currently exists and what may change in the future, but this neighborhood will change dramatically from it's feeling of secluded cul-de-sac. It's access entrance is from Constitution Boulevard, a future arterial road that will connect to the White Hills area of town as shown in many City planning maps. Traffic, noise and light pollution will increase when this road is pursued, and any substantial residential growth in the City's north section of town will cause the road's build-out sooner rather than later. That is a reality which I feel not everyone in this neighborhood (nor the nearby Old Dairy Estates) appreciates. +++

Those plans won't be implemented in the immediate future, Lauretti said, but could be down the line. "It's only talk" at this point," Lauretti said Monday. "It's not necessarily going to happen, and if and when the time comes we will let them know about it so they can voice their opposition." What will happen soon is the area will be open for overflow parking for the nearby baseball and soccer fields, Lauretti said.

++ The Mayor is correct in that there had been "talk" from his office regarding the buses being located on the Wiacek parcel. The school buses were located at a leased lot on River Road, and the City offered a City-owned parcel for overnighting the vehicles which would have reduced the contract fee charged the BOEd for school transport services. (apx.$100k). The City prepared a parcel on Riverdale Avenue near the sewer treatment plant downtown, but contamination issues arose that caused a return to the private lot on River Rd. The BOEd contracts for the transport services, and the City had promised them to find a location - which apparently led to the idea of using the Wiacek parcel. The Mayor informally mentioned this concept and asked if there were any restrictions for use of the land during a meeting I had with him in his office on 2008/Sep/5, the results of which I emailed to the CC members and the public could read on our google group. The Mayor was exploring the option of locating buses on the City owned Wiacek parcel. I told him that there is no deed restriction on the City's use of this land that I am aware of, but intentions and representations to the public were made as evidenced during the 2004/Sep/30 BOA mtg. The CC has not been asked to comment on any application for development to the parcel by the City, either for bus parking or for vehicle parking to access the school campus' sports fields. If the property were used for active or passive recreation (sports fields or trails), there would be a need for parking. Thus in my personal opinion, parking for better access to sports fields is an appropriate use of open space when it is associated with open space use for active recreation. There is significant drainage issues on the property that has plauged the upper ball fields for years. Any use of the site that causes disturbance to topography or creation of impervious surfaces, should go through a review process from first the IWC and secondly the PZC. No applications to either agency have occured to my knowledge. +++

"There is a consistent problem with parking there and they know about that," Lauretti said. The marks the residents saw in the road were put there when city officials called in Call Before You Dig, a nonprofit organization that by law must be notified before any excavation is done on a property. Someone from CBYD will go out and mark what utilities run on the property free of charge in order that they not be disturbed during the work.

+++ Again, I have no knowledge of any application for use to a City agency. This should be done, even with the fact that the City owns the parcel. +++

The city was bringing in wood chips to the property to prepare it for parking, Lauretti said, and had to cross a section of the Iroquois Pipeline to do so. "That's why there were markings in the road," he said.

+++ Actually, anytime you have excavation on any land you must execute a CBYD (call before you dig) action. Simply depositing materials onto a site doesn't warrant a CBYD, excavation does. Further, I'm no engineer, but organic material such as wood chips does not make an ideal base material for a parking area. If there is a wet soil area that requires preparation for parking use, it is likely a wetlands and requires an application by the City to the IWC. +++

The traffic from the games is bad enough, one Summerfield resident said; to put a school bus lot there would only make it worse. "When there is a game we have some traffic constriction," said Judith Falango, a Summerfield resident. "If you have buses going there every day, it will get really heavy."

"If you have 58 school buses and [drivers'] own cars going in there, you're talking about 232 cars on the road each day," said Chris Macri, which is more than the total number of people living at Summerfield, where Macri resides. Add to that the approximately 100 Summerfield residents who work, Macri said, and you have a traffic nightmare.

+++ As stated earlier, the feeling of a quiet cul-de-sac in the form of Constitution Boulevard terminating where it does now, is temporary. More traffic and congestion is guaranteed to occur at that location at some point, and any purchaser of property in that area should have been made aware of such by their real-estate agent or via simple search of City records and plans +++
But if the city needs the space to park the buses, it will, Lauretti said. "It is city-owned property," he said. When the buses were parked on River Road, it cost the Board of Education $100,000 a year in lease fees, he said. A city-owned lot on Riverdale Avenue is being readied for the buses, but fears of contamination surfaced there at the beginning of the school year because of soil dumped there, forcing the buses back to the privately owned River Road site.

+++ On this I disagree. The CC advocated and advised for the parcels mixed use to the community. Despite this, the BOA voted for taking and funding the property acquisition cost solely under the concept of open space, a poorly thought thru decision in my opinion. Simply creating parking lots for non open space purposes is now contrary to the BOA intentions. Further, the Mayor's statement has an air of presumption that the only alternative spot to River Rd or Riverdale Ave is this location. Just because the City owns a property, doesn't give it the right to do with it as it pleases. Alternatively, I would submit that their are numerous parking areas where the bus fleet could be more intimately located - the schools themselves. This would be more efficient as a geo-disbursed resource rather than a fixed root-tree layout of resources(currently being followed due to emination of equipment from extreme southern end of town) or a spoke-wheel style layout (if busses were to eminate from a central spot such as Wiacek outward to where they were actually used). It is done in numerous communities, and can be done in Shelton. +++

There are no plans now to park the buses on the Wiacek property, Lauretti said, but if there are, "we will be sure to let them know."

+++ Again, there are no plans for buses that I'm aware of, but there are plans to alter part of the overall parcel's use thru the Mayor's own admission regarding woodchips and CBYD actions. The CC advocated for such mixed use activity, but the BOA didn't clearly state that they desired that intention to be followed, and only stated a open space use as reason for acquiring the land. Not being forthright and transparent in goals, even as activities have taken place upon this land and there has been no discussion about it among agencies that should review it, is a bad sign. I am not for or against use of this land in ways that enhance the education campus until I have seen a presentation. To attempt these actions in a clandestine manner is sneaky, a term I purposely use to show such manner of action is not building confidence that the outcome will be positive for the community. Communication of plans or goals WILL make for a better outcome. +++

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Millings for RecPath

The community of Shelton has a long held vision to see completion of a Recreation Path (firm surfaced, hcp accessible, 8ft wide walking path) from Pine Lake near Wheeler Street and Rte108, all the way to Huntington Center.

Back in 2008, there was a repaving project of Rte8 done by the State. The CC and Trails Committee members had expressed numerous times about the need to obtain millings from repaving projects in our area. When used with filter fabric to keep soil and millings separate to cut down on vegetation growth, they can be used as a base material for the RecPath.

Returning home late from work (1am from Derby on Rte8), I followed a dump truck taking millings off the Rte8 ConstBlvd exit and making a right turn. Knowing the City's interest in obtaining these millings, I followed the truck to see why they were heading into downtown Shelton. Having not been communicated to from the Mayor's office that the City had been able to obtain the millings from the State, I was pleasantly surprised to see that they were being deposited at the lot next to the wastewater treatment plant, and the pile was VERY large.

I subsequently heard that the millings had been used to level the lot where they were deposited from the state contractor, in preparation for parking school buses there (which generated its own controversy). Still, I was surprised when there were no millings left over. Now it seems they went somewhere else. (see below story1)

After that loss of materials to what I thought at the time was simply another City project in the form of leveling the bus parking area, Huntington Street went thru a local paving project (fall 2008) where I discovered that the City Engineer contracted the millings to the contractor rather than to the City. I expressed disappointment to the Mayor directly on that loss, and thought that after the Rte8 project this would have been different. He expressed surprise and promised to follow up so it wouldn't happen again.

The City of Shelton has several areas that could use these road millings as base material for the RecPath. Approvals are in place from the BOA and the PZC and IWC to do such work. Yet public materials were not being retained or utilized for this RecPath. To better communicate that with the City staff and the public, I created a google map that has clickable areas to determine length and plan use of City forces or outside contractors. (see below embeded map) The City continues to not make the best and broadest use of it's GIS (Geographic Information System) software to plan and communicate these types of projects with City staff, so I turn to using these publicly accessible tools.


View Larger Map

To now learn that materials which could have been used as a base material for the RecPath, a project on the books for 10yrs of which everyone is aware, are instead diverted to a private organization's parking area is a sad reflection on the administrations otherwise supportive actions over the years.

The RecPath has nearly 3/4 of a mile out of it's entire design length ready to make use of these types of materials from State as well as City paving projects. In fact, a 3/4 mile section was completed by a City sub-contractor this fall, which meant that at the time of the Rte8 milling project there was 1.5 miles of RecPath ready for base materials such as millings. To have given away City property to private entities or contractors, shows poor communication of the administration's goals as it relates to long-term capital projects, and poor management of City resources.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/02/19/news/valley/a1_--_asphalt.txt

Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:22 AM EST
By Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, Naugatuck Valley Bureau Chief
SHELTON — The Police Department’s detective division is investigating whether there was any criminal wrongdoing last summer when city workers were told to take asphalt millings from Route 8 to an American Legion property in the middle of the night.

The millings were later used to resurface the legion’s parking lot.

Detective Sgt. Kevin Ahern said this week he is not sure when the investigation will conclude. “We have the reports and are in the process of reviewing them and conducting interviews,” Ahern said.

State workers had milled Route 8 in preparation for repaving it. Those millings, or ground up old asphalt, were being stored in piles in Shelton, according to police.

Police released initial reports by Officer Edward Dobbins on the July 17-18 incident this week. According to the reports, the state resurfaced Route 8 in Shelton, and loads of asphalt millings from the project were put on city property off Riverdale Avenue. The millings were to be used to resurface a lot for city school buses once some contaminated soil at that location was removed, the report shows.

According to the report, a city worker told police that city employees were directed to move some of the millings to the American Legion parking lot, and alleged it was done at the direction of Mayor Mark Lauretti, who frequents the club.

Dobbins reported that he saw more than 20 newly placed piles of asphalt millings at the American Legion Sutter-Terlizzi Post 16 Bridgeport Avenue lot on July 21, and then saw they had been spread when he returned July 26.

A resident called police and reported hearing “gunshots” at 12:45 a.m. July 18, though police later determined it was the sound of dump truck tailgates slamming shut at the American Legion, the report shows. Police had seen a city dump truck at 2 a.m., and followed it to the legion property, the report shows.

In the report, Dobbins wrote that he was contacted by various members of the city’s Highway Department, who “wished to remain anonymous in fear of retaliation by city officials.”“They confirmed that the asphalt millings hauling detail was wrong, and that several union members refused to participate, but those who did were told to not talk about it,” the report states.

Some city workers allegedly told police truckloads of contaminated soil from a pile at the sewage plant may have been dumped at the American Legion to level the area, prior to the millings being applied, the report shows.

“At this time, it appears that city officials utilized city workers and city equipment for services for a private purpose,” Dobbins wrote in the report, dated Oct. 20.

According to Ahern, Police Chief Joel Hurliman told detectives to investigate.

This week, Lauretti said he directed city workers to move the asphalt millings, which the city got from the state. According to Lauretti, some millings were spread at a bus yard and some went to the American Legion. Lauretti said he wasn’t sure if city workers were involved in spreading the millings at the American Legion, or just in moving them there.

Lauretti said he was unaware of any police investigation.

Kevin Nursick, a state Department of Transportation spokesman, said the state typically offers unneeded asphalt millings from road projects to municipalities for free. Shelton had requested about 1,900 cubic yards of asphalt millings, and the state provided them to the city, and delivered them to an area near the city’s sewage treatment plant, according to Nursick.

Once a city takes them, they belong to the city, he said. If a community isn’t interested in the millings, the state goes out to bid and tries to sell the millings to private companies, Nursick said. The millings typically fetch between $1 and $2 per cubic yard.

Alphonse Sabetta, an adjutant with the American Legion Post 16, said it is his understanding that someone from the Legion spoke with someone from the DOT about getting millings for the legion’s lot. Sabetta said this week it was “news to me” that there is a police investigation.

According to Sabetta, Lauretti belongs to the Sons of the American Legion because his late father, John Lauretti, was an Iwo Jima survivor and Marine Corps veteran.

Nursick said the DOT was contacted by someone from the Legion post about millings, but the DOT’s response was that it doesn’t deal directly with any public or private entities when it comes to obtaining millings.

Board of Aldermen President John Anglace, a member of the American Legion, said what to do with asphalt millings would be an administrative matter for the city, not something that required a vote from aldermen.

“Several aldermen are members of the American Legion, and we are aware the city has helped out the American Legion,” Anglace said. “Does anyone doubt that they aren’t worth helping out? The American Legion did enough for us, and they don’t need to be harassed. I wish the police would do something like catch more speeders.”

Colleen Ezzo, a union spokeswoman and field organizer, said Wednesday she consulted with union leadership on the issue.“No one is willing to say what they’ve seen or done,” Ezzo said. “They are really concerned about making a public statement on this issue at this time. Since the American Legion is a nonprofit, they don’t want to hurt that group’s intentions by bringing up this issue.”

+++++++

Next is the CtPost article on investigation findings.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_11775165

No charges in Shelton asphalt case
Police probe clears Shelton mayor
By Kate RamunniStaff writer
Posted: 02/24/2009 04:16:12 PM EST

SHELTON -- Mayor Mark A. Lauretti did nothing wrong when he directed Highway Department employees to work night shifts to bring asphalt millings to the American Legion, a police investigation has determined.

"We find no probable cause for any arrest or any wrongdoings," Shelton Police Department spokesman Sgt. Kevin Ahern said.

Detectives interviewed a number of people, Ahern said, including state Department of Transportation officials, city officials and members of the American Legion.

"No one benefited from [the deliveries] except for the organization itself," Ahern said. "No one person benefited."

Police Chief Joel Hurliman recently directed detectives to investigate after Officer Edward Dobbins submitted a report of his findings of the situation from last summer.

Then, Lauretti ordered Highway Department employees to work two night shifts July 17 and 18 to haul the millings from under the Route 8 bridge downtown to the Legion on Old Bridgeport Avenue.

At the time the DOT was paving the highway, and it gave the city the millings -- the asphalt scrapings collected while preparing the road for paving. The city used the bulk of the millings to resurface the Riverdale Avenue lot where the school buses are parked and gave the rest to the American Legion, to which Lauretti belongs.

Several Parks and Recreation Department and Highway Department employees approached Dobbins to report that the millings were being brought to the Legion in the overnight hours in a clandestine operation at Lauretti's direction.

"The work was done at night because that's when the state was doing the milling on Route 8," Ahern said. The Route 8 work, he said, "coincides with what the Highway Department worked for those two nights." Giving the materials to the American Legion is no different from the city helping out any other civic, nonprofit organization, Ahern said.

"It's what we would term an "in-kind" service," he said, "where the city provides something to an organization that is a nonprofit group like Little League or Pop Warner." The problems at the American Legion's paring lot were well known, Ahern said.

"When it rained, it became muddy and hard for cars to get through there," he said.

Lauretti said helping the American Legion has been something the city has tried to do for years. For example, in 2005, the Board of Aldermen waived charging the organization building fees when it renovated its facility, he said.

"This is not a social club -- it's far from a social club," he said. "This is a civic-minded, nonprofit organization that has done things like sponsore baseball teams.

"How do people think those flags get on the graves on Memorial Day?" he said. "They sponsor oratorical contests, send boys to Boys State, offer scholarships, the list goes on and on. And if for nothing else, they went into foreign lands and served our country. We have always tried to help them where we could."

Lauretti was philosophical about the latest investigation into his actions. "This has been going on for 18 years as it pertains to me, and at the end of the day it speaks for itself" he said. "I'm just sorry the American Legion guys got dragged into it."

Monday, January 26, 2009

OSPlan, joint mtg of PZC and CC

*update 2009/feb/10: The PZC adopted the OSPlan at their regular February meeting.

The Planning & Zoning Commission and the Conservation Commission had a joint meeting last week as previously reported in the news, and subsequently blogged about by me. What I didn't know, is that a portion of the meeting was recorded on video and uploaded to youtube.

The person behind the camera is Irving Steiner, who has been a concerned citizen around City Hall for several years now on various issues, but primarily those that deal with development and thus he founded a group known as WE-R1.

I have not agreed with everything espoused by that organization or Mr. Steiner, but having good debate and opposing views is healthy for democracy, and so is transparancy.

I believe the public should have the ability to know what goes on among elected officials, and I actively look to further that (witness this blog for example). To that end, I offer this post which illuminates the type of raw data which has been reported on in recent newspaper accounts, and upon which I then blogged my comments. This post includes embeded video recorded by Mr. Steiner, which can also be viewed here.

Friday, January 23, 2009

CtPost Canal Fence etal

The City is engaged on several separate issues in the City that in part involve the area of land owned by the McCallum Enterprises or the Shelton Canal Co.

1. The City's Plan of Conservation & Development was recently updated. It has tasks laid before the Planning & Zoning Commission to accomplish such as updating subdivision regulations, maps, etc. In light of that PoC&D, the PZC has been examining areas that should be re-zoned to better reflect either current existing or future desired uses. One way this is being done is to change the zone to R1 in the downtown area where otherwise there could be significant impact on the viewshed of the Housatonic River Greenway. McCallum's property is within that zone change area.

2. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission grants via license for the right of McCallum to take hydroelectric power away from the Housatonic River. In return for granting the license to take power from a public asset (the river is public), FERC requires a fee (based on the amount of power taken) and several other items called out in the license - notably providing public access to the river, and a fish ladder to allow their migration up river. McCallum has expressed concern that in light of significant residential development proposals in close proximity to their public access area, and the coming change in character from an industrial to residential setting, that they had concern of liability and safety due to increased use of the public access area of their private property, and sought to reduce the size of such area. They applied to FERC to modify the license and installed a new fence to delineate the area. This is in conflict with FERC's ruling that does not allow this. Although FERC over-rules state or local agencies, this is also in conflict with the City's PZC approval of use back when the Shelton hydro-electric plant was constructed in the mid 1980's. The City has issued the cease and desist order against McCallum to take down the fence. No local permit was sought to construct the fence (and in this case FERC has no ruling or change to McCallum's license that would allow them to overide seeking such a permit).

3. The fish ladder component of the FERC license has not been installed since being required under the license issued in the mid 1980's, but the deficiency hasn't been enforced by FERC either. In the license renewal process, FERC made known that they will be actively seeking the fish ladder installation, and McCallum estimated the installation of it would be a significant expense upon them. McCallum is thus seeking to modify the license to allow them to fill the portion of the canal which is non-contributory to their hydro-electric generation infrastructure, but was included in the acreage controlled by the license. Upon achieving granting of filling in the canal, the Shelton Canal Co. (a similar ownership entity to McCallum) has stated that their goal is to create land area for residential development, similar to the numerous applications occuring in their neighborhood. Such pursuit would involve applications to the Army Corps of Engineers, DEP for Water Quality permit, and local Inland Wetlands and PZC approvals - a long and expensive process.

The following article appeared in CtPost last week. I post for public access to the news (CtPost does not retain links for very long) alongside my comments for clarification of the report. Please visit their website to view the original content:
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11444959

Shelton: Take down that fence
By Kate RamunnISTAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/13/2009 11:29:45 PM EST

SHELTON -- The city has ordered McCallum Enterprises to take down the fence it erected several months ago that prevents residents from accessing land along the river that is supposed to be open to the public.

But the cease-and-desist order issued last week doesn't mean the fence is coming down any time soon, one of the company's owners said.

Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz issued the order last Thursday, giving McCallum 10 days to take down the fence, or face a lawsuit.

"We will not be taking down the fence as a result of the cease and desist," McCallum managing partner Joseph Szarmach said. "We believe they do not have jurisdiction in this case."

Szarmach's grandfather E.J. McCallum Jr. got the initial Planning and Zoning Commission approval in 1986 to run the hydroelectric plant at the Derby Dam. As part of that approval, the canal company agreed to "provide an adequate and acceptable location of access to the water on the Shelton side of the river for the fishing and boating public." But Szarmach, citing Hackett v. J.L.G. Properties, LLC, a Connecticut Supreme Court decision earlier this year, maintains that he doesn't need the city's blessing to put up the fence -- only the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which granted that permission last year.

++ The "acceptable location" component of the approval was and continues to be decided by FERC. FERC did recently modify the recreational area outlined in the license, but withdrew the approval shortly thereafter. ++

In Hackett, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Power Act pre-empts local zoning regulations, which Szarmach said means that the conditions the commission placed on the approval are not enforceable.

"Federal licenses are not regulated by local zoning officials," he said.

++ I agree with Mr. Szarmach on that point. FERC pre-empts both local and state decision making. However, as seen with the attempt by Broadwater Energy to install a liquid natural gas platform in the middle of Long Island Sound, FERC decisions can consider input from a variety of sources such at the Attorney General, or other government representatitves. ++

Commission member Leon J. Sylvester was the chairman at the time and said he remembers the hours of work that went into the agreement reached with McCallum.

"They made a deal of good faith with the Planning and Zoning Commission years ago, and now they're saying that doesn't count," he said.

"I don't believe that; I believe a deal is a deal.

"That fence is a sign telling people, 'you're not welcome,' and that's wrong and he needs to adjust that," Sylvester said.

++ Leon is correct that a lot of work goes into hammering out an agreement. Ensuring that the agreement is adhered to is where the process was lacking on a local level. The PZC at the time should have requested a public access easement recorded in the land records with the City of Shelton as a grantee. That would have trumped any FERC change in license. ++

McCallum also is in the process of suing the city and the commission over its recent actions that rezoned the Shelton Canal Co. property from R-4 to R-1.

++ The rezoning is a separate issue that occured as part of the tasks assigned the PZC in the PoC&D. ++

Szarmach had intended to build 24 townhouses on a 2.5-acre portion of the property in order to raise funds to pay for the $2 million fish ladder the state Department of Environmental Protection is requiring the company to install. But under the new zoning, only a couple of single family homes can be built there, rendering the value of the property worthless compared to the R-4 designation, he said.

++ The fish ladder is a requirement of the FERC license, though the CtDEP would like to see it accomplished. McCallum Enterprises has had consultants estimate the cost at $2million, and they have made the decision to try and convert under-utilized asset of land into more value (via various Federal, State and Local agency approvals) that can then be sold for development. ++

It was after the city rejected Szarmach's offer to sell it the land, and during the rezoning process, that the fence went up.

"We understand that they want our private property kept undeveloped as an amenity for the Canal Street developers and their new residents, and they will say and do anything to make that happen," Szarmach said. "The city of Shelton is once again trying to bully a private property owner -- this is standard procedure for them.

++ The public access reqd by FERC is for the public. Shelton, Derby, Valley, CT, USA - generally any public. It is not, nor ever would be, exclusive to nearby developers or new residents. ++

"It is apparent to us the City of Shelton is perfectly content to put our viable Shelton family business out of business to get a free city park," he said.

++ The area is not a City Park. It is privately owned land where public access is mandated by the FERC license - NOT the City of Shelton. The City recognizes the acreage as "managed" open space, similar in character to cemeteries or golf courses which are owners of land that will contribute to the open space character of the community. ++

"I'm not saying he shouldn't fight for his rights in court," Sylvester said, "but until he does that, that fence shouldn't be there.

"This should not be about the zoning issue," he said.

++ Leon is absolutely correct on those points. ++

"This is about an issue that has already been fairly decided -- it was fairly negotiated between the originator of the facility and the Planning and Zoning Commission.

"It was a fair deal for Mr. McCallum and for the city of Shelton," he said.

++ But, as was frequent 20yrs ago when Leon and others chaired the PZC, "deals" weren't always recorded on land records, fair or otherwise. ++

While FERC initially approved McCallum's application to alter the public area of the property -- and thus allowing it to put up the fence -- it later reversed that decision after the DEP appealed it.

Schultz said the city, represented by Assistant Corporation Counsel Ramon Sous, would work with the DEP to resolve the issue but would file a lawsuit if the fence hasn't been removed by Jan. 18.

"We are hoping the DEP will resolve this once and for all," Schultz said.

++ It may resolve the current barrier to public access issue, but overall there are many issues that intertwine with affect of effect which will take some time to reach resolution. ++

Thursday, January 22, 2009

OSPlan CtPost 3rd article

The Ct Post has a 3rd article in Friday's paper (I'm alerted online via google news at 7:30 the day before it's in the "dead-wood" format). Please goto the newspaper's website to view the content first hand. As is my custom and purpose of this forum, I note the article with my comments throughout, and serve as an archive for articles not retained in an online format.

At issue: Setting aside open space
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/22/2009 06:25:33 PM EST

http://www.connpost.com/ci_11530005

SHELTON -- As it moves closer to approving a new Open Space Plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission will next look to implement higher subdivision set aside regulations.

The commission's Plan of Development recommends developers deed 15 percent of their property for open space and the Conservation Commission's proposed Open Space Plan does likewise. That requirement is currently 10 percent.

++ Technically, it is the "Plan of Conservation and Development". It recognized planning goals, and strategies that could achieve those goals. One of the goals is to permanently protect as Open Space 15% of the City's landmass. One of the strategies to reach that goal is to increase the set-aside for open space, currently called out in subdivision regulations as 10%, to 15%. The OSPlan drafted by the CC concurrs or reinforces pursuit of that strategy. ++

When that plan came before the zoning commission for approval late last year, Shelton Builder's Association attorney Stephen Bellis told the commission that he would file a lawsuit should it be implemented into the subdivision regulations, when it would become legally enforceable.

Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson and zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester clashed over the issue when Sylvester said he wanted see more discussion on it.

But a joint meeting of the two commissions Wednesday lacked that acrimony as they worked out their differences in anticipation of the P&Z approving the plan at its Jan. 28 meeting.

Since the issue came up, Sylvester repeatedly said he supported the plan and made motions to pass it on two different occasions. But he said he wanted the percentage issue resolved by putting it to a vote to change the regulations, which the commission will do after the plan passes next week.

++ Technically, only the January mtg of the PZC had a motion made and seconded to adopt the OSPlan. ++

"I would like to have a public hearing and have a discussion about it in the open rather than as just part of the plan," Sylvester said. "I believe it should be brought forward and discussed and decided."

++ The strategy expressed in the OSPlan (increasing the % of OS set-aside) was available for discussion at public forums which created the PoC&D in 2004, public hearings by the PZC during it's adoption in 2006, and in public hearings by the BOA during it's favorable referral to the PZC for the PoC&D in 2006. The same strategy was re-iterated in the OSPlan which was available for comment online in summer of 2008, and during the public hearing on it held by the PZC in Nov2008. The only person who spoke unfavorably was a representative of the Shelton Builders Group, and the sole comment was concern over pursuing the recomended strategy in light of CtGenStatues. ++

Because his wife is a real estate agent, Sylvester has been accused of favoring developers, but that's not so, he said, pointing to the many times he has pushed for open space preservation over the years, especially waterfront property.

++ I have never accused Leon of favoring developers in subdivision applications presented before the PZC. However, I have pointed out the difference between abstaining and recusing on an issue, and the lack of clarity on the record when that occurs. Simply look at the PZC minutes of Jan13 just a week ago. An inadequate example of recusing is recorded by Chris Jones in the pg.9 for application #09-01 (didn't state reason for conflict), and a proper example shown by Pat Lapera in the same mtg on pg.14 for application #109-4 (wife works at law firm that is party secondarily involved with the application). I have never even accused anyone on the PZC of an ethics violation, I simply pointed out the difference that should be acknowledged on the record in the minutes of the PZC mtgs. ++

And on several occasions, he supported buying open space when others were not interested, he said, such as land along the Housatonic River near Indian Wells that the city declined to buy from the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company, which owned it at the time.

++ The area being referred to is the "Maples" on the right along the shore as you enter the area of Indian Wells State Park. The land was leased by the water company to private homeowners, and land leases not being renewed. The owners of the improvements wanted to gain full ownership in fee-simple. The water company had difficulty doing this directly due to liability concerns (the homes were often flooded being right on the riverfront). I believe that the City acted as an intermediary to facilitate transfer to private owners, but this was before my involvement with the City and that is the extent of my knowledge on the issue ++

The city also initially passed on property on Perry Hill Road adjacent to the former Shelton Intermediate School that it later bought at a higher price from developers who had plans to build on it.

++ The area being referred to is the "Hurd" property on the left as you enter the old Intermediate School parking lot from Perry Hill. It is often alleged when this subject arises that there was a "right of first refusal", but no such document has ever surfaced. I'm unaware of an offer made to the City that they "passed on". From my memory, a developer either had an option or had made purchase in fee-simple, and presented application for zone change and development. This was around the time that the Board of Ed had just completed the new SIS bldg and questions about the future use of the old SIS bldg and possible need for an elementary school were being floated. Leon was the Superintendent of Schools at the time (and also was on the PZC then too). Consequently, the passive stance of the City changed to a more active interest and the property was purchased. The City has leased the dwelling, and currently is using a rear portion for stockpiling materials during re-construction of a new school on the site. ++

"It would be helpful to have information about such properties and have better planning with all city agencies such as the Board of Education and the Parks and Recreation Commission," Harbinson said.

++ The P&R should have projections on sports fields needs. The BoEd should consider where residential development can or may take place and the results that could be felt on the school system that would result in expanded facility needs. The CC has been out in front with these thoughts. It was the CC who pushed for the BHC purchase, recognizing that parts of the property purchased would make a fine candidate for a school campus being adjacent to the High School. It was the CC who additionally encouraged that the Wiacek Farm adjacent to the SHS campus and sports fields, be examined and deserved attention for acquisition. It was the CC who saw to the purchase of the Behuniak and Carrol properties that surrounded the Long Hill Elementary School. It was the CC who sought the City purchase the Tall Farm and it is now providing informal fields for lacrosse use. I'm not tooting my own horn, as there were many other individuals and bodies who contributed toward conclustion sought by the CC, but these decisions would be better prepared for if the two bodies mentioned would do some planning, and share the results. The projected needs could then be matched against potential land areas with their varying characteristics and valuations. ++

The proposed set aside increase from 10 to 15 percent is nothing new, Harbinson said. "This is not something that came out of the blue," he said.

The plan also has a goal of preserving 15 percent of the city as open space, he said, and because of the lack of large remaining parcels, subdivision set asides are an important tool to reaching that goal.

"It's one strategy," he said.

++ With or without a PZC follow thru to implement such a strategy, the goal to achieve a balanced community of developed areas and open space land will be met. ++