Buying Land - CtPost

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lauretti could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

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

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

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

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

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

Open Space Ordinance - non approval

Due to questions asked by the public at our CC meeting on WedSep19, I offer the following.

Issues regarding the Open Space Trust Account (OSTA) has had numerous blog entries in past years.  A good starting off point on some aspects for that is this link to an entry from 2011March.

Open Space Trust Account funding is defined by Ordinance.  At one time it was calculated as .0075 times the Grand List increase of the previous year.  This resulted in:

        Fiscal Year           Funding

        2000/2001            $ 141,212

        2001/2002            $ 224,872

        2002/2003            $ 153,512

        2003/2004            $ 129,076

        2004/2005            $ 192,643

        2005/2006            $ 0        should have been $ 442,185 by Ordinance

        2006/2007            $ 0        should have been $ 629,625 by Ordinance

Recognizing that the account was not funded to the tune of over a million dollars, partly due to a formula which complicated budget planning or projections, clearly something had to be done regarding refining of the ordinance language.  John Anglace and I reviewed the ordinance and prepared an update to it during July2006 to be a flat $250k/yr.  There were two Public Hearing process held before final adoption by the BOA on ThuAug10 of 2006.  Despite that lengthy process, with opportunity for review and comment, the Mayor at the last minute had concern of a technical nature that a newly enacted ordinance would be interpreted as having an impact upon a budget that had already passed and been put in place.  The Mayor wrote a “non approval” letter (veto) on 2006Aug17.  There was significant debate at the BOA meeting of 2006Sep14 regarding the veto.  The ordinance was finally passed on 2006Sep16 during a BOA meeting.  The ordinance was modified to be a flat annual amount of $250k beginning with FY 07/08. (and $50k for FY 06/07).  Given the change from previous ordinance calculations (+442,185+629,625-300,000) = $771,810 reduction in appropriating funds into the OSTA in comparison to the previous law.

Now, this is not to say that the City boards of PZC, CC, BOA and Mayor’s administration weren’t all working for and in many cases accomplishing Open Space preservations and/or purchases.

Year   Property               Net City Cost.  (8 projects in 6 years 2001-2006)

2001   Shelton Family Farm     $376,000

2003   Indian Well Overlook    $148,000

2003   French’s Hill         $2,654,000

2004   Wiacek                $2,300,000

2005   Above the Overlook       $41,250

2005   Tall Farm             $2,400,000

2006   Aside the Overlook       $45,000

2006   Pagliaro, Buddington    $120,000

TOTALS                       $8,084,250

In addition to these City’s funds, there were $920,750 in grants.

Significantly, the City of Shelton was making bold and important expenditure toward Open Space Acquisitions.   Bonding, Budget Surplus capacity, Grants and the OSTA were all sources for such expenditures.  These 4 sources of expenditure are a stable four legged chair.  Stable, but each with their own set of both benefits and drawbacks.

1.  Bonding for Capital Expenditures allows the cost to be spread out over time, usually the useful life of the asset.  Land will serve the City for many future generations, and this method is the manner in which the longest spread or term of yearly cost impacts.  It also takes time to implement, and thus is not something accomplished with expediency.  At times it involves voter approval which is another time hurdle.  There are also other competitors for use of the City’s bonding capacity such as new schools (Intermediate and Upper Elementary in recent years) or City infrastructure (sewer treatment plant, road improvements).
2. Budget Surplus is thankfully a regular occurrence in Shelton due to the fine work that the administration accomplishes in keeping costs in check, and receipts properly collected.   It is however a tool that is limited in size, and subject to the unpredictable level of surplus in any year.  Also, a surplus is only assuredly predictable as you encounter the end of the fiscal year, thus this tool might not be used 1/2 way through the municipal fiscal year in December even though a person's individual fiscal year might end and as a seller  they would be interested in timing of receipt of payments for their own tax purposes.  There are other competitors for use of any budget surplus.
3. Grants are competitive by their very nature.  A purchase agreement must be in place for a grant to be applicable, it can’t be after the fact.  Ranking toward receiving an award can involve the need for studies or plans that are prepared in advance and are kept current.  The amount available and ability to be a recipient are always in question.
4. OSTA is a limited scope source, receiving money from both subdivision fees (in lieu of Open Space land set-asides) and an annual budget appropriation.  It is a “trust” account in that money in it can only be used for the trustee purpose.  Funding the OSTA via appropriation provides a ready source of liquidity for immediate actions.  The amounts accumulated within the OSTA are seldom enough quantity to execute a purchase on their own.

In starting from a clean slate of the OSTA ordinance modification in 2007, here is what occurred for appropriation.

     Fiscal Year                Funding

     2007/2008                 $ 250,000

     2008/2009                        $0

     2009/2010                  $533,000

     2010/2011                  $312,500

     2011/2012                  $315,000

     2012/2013                        $0

      Total                   $1,410,500

Ordinance of $250k/yr = $1,500,000 in total.  Funding is deficient by $89,500

Alternative view: 2008/09 was underfunded by $250k, and 2012/13 was underfunded by $250k = deficient $500k.  (I don't necessarily agree with this view)

The OSTA tool is not being funded in the manner it was intended, nor as per called out in the Ordinance.  I spoke to the BOA meeting in 2008May about this when it first occurred.  Funding occurs when the Mayor (along with a complying BOA) feels it should happen, rather than when the letter of the law says that it should.  Funding occurs at the level the Mayor (along with a complying BOA) feels he needs to wash through the account as an expenditure toward an existing Open Space purchase, rather than what amount the letter of the law says that it should be appropriated to supply and sustain an existing and ready fund.  

This is not to say the tool of the OSTA isn’t being utilized, but imagine trying to use a flat-head screwdriver to function like a chisel.  When you strike the screwdriver with a hammer, you will damage the screwdriver tool and blunt it.  In this case, the OSTA Ordinance is being made blunt in my opinion, and when you take away that “leg” of the chair as a tool in the Open Space program, it puts more pressure on the other legs and makes the chair less steady. 

The City boards of PZC, CC, BOA and Mayor’s administration continued accomplishing Open Space preservations and/or purchases.

Open Space projects after ordinance revision (6 projects in 6 years 2007-2012):

2007            UI, Buddington            $120,000

2007            Jones Farm PDR          $4,213,982

2007            LongHillAve Pinecrest     $175,000

2009            279 Soundview           $2,100,000

2011            Bures Oak Valley          $190,000

2011            Mohegan Rd                $625,000

    Totals                             $ 7,423,982 

In addition to these City funds, there were $906,000 in grants.

Gratefully the voters supported the leg on the chair that is bonding to accomplish the above.  Thankfully the diligence of the administration has created the leg on the chair that is a Budget Surplus.  Hopefully, the BOA will see that the appropriations into the OSTA are a leg on the chair that also needs supporting. Grants, as the fourth leg of funding, are beyond our control and competitive.

On 2012Aug9, the BOA voted to move $250k from the General Fund Surplus into the Open Space Fund, pursuant to Ordinance.  This would satisfy the ordinance for 2012/13 fiscal year.

On 2012Aug16, the Mayor issued a non-approval letter (some call it a "veto" which it technically is not) on this action.  The letter reads in part: "The Open Space Ordinance does not reflect the provisions made to open space over the past 10-12 years and needs to be revisited."

On 2012Sep13, the BOA formally received the non-approval letter via it being read into the record and minutes.  They took no further action.

A few thoughts on the current state of affairs:

1. Appropriations into an OSTA is entirely different than expenditures for Open Space.  To confuse the two terms is bewildering.  
2. If the BOA or the Mayor believes that the OSTA ordinance needs modification, then it should do so with the public hearings that it entails, not violate it when they wish.

Since 2007, The City spent $7,423,982 toward land preservation.  At a $250k annual investment, that is 29.7 years worth of OSTA appropriation.  If anyone believes that the intent of the ordinance has been met by such a calculation and thus provided for into the future for nearly the next 3 decades, then that defies logic.

I can agree that the OSTA is worth a review as to the funding amount or perhaps maintenance of a certain fund balance or level, but if an ordinance can simply be not followed without any ramification, is it worth my time to dedicate toward another revision of ordinance process along with the public hearings and all the time/effort that entails?

It is without question that this administration can claim success in open space dedication, and land preservation like no other.  It will be an enduring testimony to the community.  14 projects of significance are referenced above.  The pace is historic and I commend it.

However when you look backward over your shoulder instead of looking forward to where you are headed, you tend to walk into things.  We can't rest on our laurels, and need to consider the needs of our future.

The OSTA ordinance is not a mandate to spend money on land preservation, it is a mandate to be prepared.

As any Good Scout should be able to tell you.  The Scout Motto is "Be Prepared".

HuntHrld - Build a fence?

The Huntington Herald had a letter to the Editor on it's Jan11 edition that needed a response.  Unfortunately, the physical paper has limitations for length, and my response needed to be shortened.  This letter from Ms. Wilson was the same as posted in the online news entity "Patch", and which I previously responded to in length and detail on 2011Dec22.


Below is the abridged version submitted to the Huntington Herald, but I encourage reading the more full version in the earlier blog entry.


***
EDITOR:


A recent Letter expressed dismay over lack of a fence between private property and City Open Space. I offer the following as Chairman of the Conservation Commission, a purely advisory body to the Alderman and Planning & Zoning on aspects such as property acquisition, maintenance or use; as well as subdivision applications and their impact on the environment.

The City Open Space referred to is two parcels totaling 42 acres purchased several years ago from the Klapik brothers and informally known as the “Klapik Open Space”. The brothers each retained a building lot carved out of it that fronted Long Hill Avenue. The property line between a building lot and the Open Space is the area of concern by Ms. Wilson.

A purchase agreement spelled out aspects of defining the property line between the public property (Open Space) and the retained private parcel (residential lot with building). The language of the purchase agreement was agreed to by the attorneys for both the buyer (City of Shelton) and the seller (the two Klapik brothers). Since the closing, the private parcel’s existing house was demolished and a new one rebuilt in its place, a failing barn structure on the City’s parcel was demolished and removed, and trees were planted along the perimeter of the public/private boundary line to give delineation and a sense of privacy.

The purchase contract states specifically that if the Open Space is used “actively”, the City would put in fencing. The character of this adjacent Open Space has remained unchanged from the time of purchase: a meadow mowed once during the growing season for hay. I am not a legal reference, so I don’t know the definition of “actively” using the property, but it has not been turned into sports fields or hiking trails and continues as before: a simple meadow.

The City has a long dedication to valuing the open land and character of our community, and preserving such through the acquisition of Open Space. Acquisitions are not done using “wily ways”, and the Mayor and Aldermen are not “master minds”. There is a process that starts with guidance from the Open Space Plan prepared by the Conservation Commission, includes referrals from Planning & Zoning, involves dialogue with the property owners, and in this case due to significant monies paid the landowners - preparation for funding.

Some Open Space acquisitions have been accomplished with willing partners (purchase), and some have not (back taxes, foreclosure, or eminent domain acquisition). Some willing partners look upon their actions with regret (I should have received more compensation), and some look upon their actions gratefully (I'm glad I sold it a couple of years ago rather in the current market). In this case, it appears that these aren't so much second thoughts, but rather misunderstandings by later owners as to what was agreed upon in years past by those that actually transacted their sale of their property.

The City residents are grateful to the Klapik family for having cared for the fields and kept the land undeveloped for so many years. The City purchasing the property as Open Space helped ensure that would continue. If a subsequent property owner is not satisfied with the agreement and covenants, then that is unfortunate. There is a difference between rights spelled in an agreement or otherwise by law, and something one feels they deserve. The City leadership, officers and representatives have a responsibility to administer affairs fairly that follow rules, regulations or agreements, not simply what someone feels they should have granted.

Space limits my response, thus a much more detailed reply is posted on my Chairman’s Blog: www.sheltoncc.blogspot.com

Open Space Purchases - integrity

The Shelton edition of the Patch online news organization, carried a Letter to the Editor dated 2011/Dec/15 which I feel needs a response as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.  Here is the link to the online letter from Ms Wilson.


If a news agency refers to this response, I request you include a link to it can be seen in its full context.  Below follows a cut/paste of the Letter to the Editor's text, with my commentary on 2011/Dec/22 as Chairman of the Conservation Commission inserted.  My only commentary is in this forum, so that retention of virtual content can be ensured.  I will not fully comment in facebook, twitter or webpage forums, but may provide reference to this response.

EDITOR:
On October 13, 2011, I attended the full Board of Alderman meeting to ask publicly to the mayor and board members for a second request on a fencing issue.  I am frustrated, but not surprised, by the response time. After all we have been in and out of meetings with Mayor Lauretti for a year and a half. What upsets us the most are the misleading words used by the city in their contracts which release the city from any contractual obligations.  As to not bore the taxpayers of Shelton, we say one thing to the residents, except for keeping your taxes low, dealing with Mayor Lauretti and board members has been very ill-mannered.  Mayor Lauretti and Board of Alderman, when you do not pay attention to the little issues you will start to fall into deception with the bigger issues.

*** What Ms. Wilson is referring to is property on Long Hill Avenue in the south end of Shelton which the City purchased many years ago.  There were two separate parcels of land owned by two brothers, the Klapiks, thus the property is casually referred to internally as "Klapik Open Space" but it is technically Open Space properties 105.02 (19.2 acres) and 105.03 (22.8 acres).  Each parcel had a building lot carved out of it that fronted Long Hill Avenue.  The purchase agreement defines the aspects of defining the property line between the public property (Open Space) and the private parcel (residential lot with building).  The language of the purchase agreement was agreed to by the attorneys for both the buyer (City of Shelton) and the seller (both of the brothers).  Since that time of a closing on the purchase: one existing house has been demolished and a new one rebuilt in its place, a barn structure on the City property that was blight and falling down was demolished and removed, and trees have been planted along the perimeter of the public/private boundary line to give visual delineation and a sense of privacy.  The original brothers who negotiated the sale of their property are no longer the owners of these referenced remaining private parcels, it is the subsequent generation or other family members.  I am unsure if they were party to and knowledgeable about all considerations that went into the decisions by the two brothers regarding their agreement to sell their fields as Open Space to the City of Shelton, but the purchase contract states specifically that if the open space is used "actively", the City would put in fencing.  The character of the open space has remained unchanged from the Klapik brother's use since purchase: a meadow mowed once during the growing season.  I am not a legal reference, so I do not know the definition of "actively" using the property, but it has not been turned into sport fields or hiking trails, and continues as a simple meadow of open space land.  Different in both time and selling party from that process was another acquisition of Open Space (casually referred to as the "Carroll Property") that abutted both the above purchase and Long Hill School property.  The seller was a family relation to the Klapiks and this parcel is technically referred to as 105.01 (16.4 acres).  There was no reference to any fencing aspects in that separate purchase contract.  There were even more purchases from other property owners that further expanded a connected greenway corridor of adjacent Open Space parcels (Behuniak parcel, Tall Farm, Development dedications on Old Coram Rd), but these three parcels that Ms Wilson references combined to a total of 58.4 acres.  You can find a complete listing of our City Open Space via this link. ***

I received a letter from the Shelton Historical Society which states "A community that forgets its past loses its soul".  "They want to preserve the city’s history in order to create lasting and meaningful connections between the community’s past, present, and future generations. Please support us.”  Well Mayor Lauretti and Board of Aldermen, except for a few, you have lost your souls to greed in your wants to the city, not acting like a community.  You should all bond with that saying, like you have bonded over the last 20 years for being the “master minds” of the open space buying era. Using your wily ways you used to get the 58 acres you received from our family over these years. Final say contracts rule. We are not fans of lack of the integrity, dodging or manipulating that we have witnessed over the years.

*** Since the Conservation Commission is part of the process by which the City acquires Open Space, I feel I must respond vigorously to these particular comments due to inaccuracies.  1) The City did not use "wily ways" for property acquisitions.  There was an open dialogue between the brothers for many years that the City was interested in their property being preserved from development.  This eventually reached some formal discussions, they were represented by counsel, an agreement was arrived at and executed.  If a subsequent generation family member has issue with that agreement - that is unfortunate.  2) The City has not "bonded over the last 20yrs" for all the acquisitions.  Some acquisitions are for back taxes unpaid and have no outlay of funds.  Some came as dedications from zoning regulations during subdivision of land for development.  Some came from purchase with Open Space Trust Account funds (the OSTA funds grow partly via fees paid by developers in lieu of land dedications for certain subdivision where City retaining ownership of a land parcel is not desired.  This is determined by PZC in their approval process).  Some funds come from the grants awarded to the City from various entities, over 13 grants totaling $1.6 million since 2000 alone.  And finally: yes, some funds come from bonding, which action is required to be approved by the voters in a referendum.  This was 1997 for $6.6million with 89.5% approval, 2003 $2 million 72.3% approval, 2004 $3 million 78.3% approval, and 2006 $4.3 million 75.2% approval.  Note however that my understanding is that all such bonding has been paid back due to the borrowing being short term notes.  3) The Mayor and Board of Alderman have not been the "masterminds" of such Open Space buying.  The City has a master plan called the "Plan of Conservation and Development" which was prepared by the Plan Update Advisory Committee, recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission for endorsement by the Board of Alderman, and subsequently adopted in 2006 by PZC as the City's POCD.  This is required to be done every 10yrs.  This POCD refers to supporting documents, one being the "Open Space Plan", which was updated in 2009 from the existing plan that had been in place since 1993, and again endorsed/adopted by both the Board of Alderman and Planning & Zoning Commission.  Every step along the way of these document preparations is public meetings, hearings, and votes.  You can learn more directly about the Open Space Plan details via this link to the Conservation Commission's website. ***

Hearsay is that my elderly mother should get down on her knees and apologize to the political leaders of Shelton.  These leaders feel my family does not deserve fencing. What has she ever done for us? She has had integrity, honor, and believes the truth always prevails.

*** The City residents are grateful to the Klapik family for having cared for the fields and kept the land undeveloped for so many years.  The City purchasing the property as Open Space helped ensure that would continue.  The City has continued to simply mow the fields during the growing season and maintain the property in it's meadow character.  The agreements entered into were reviewed by attorneys for both sides, and accepted.  If a subsequent generation of family member, or any subsequent property owner is not satisfied with the agreement and the terms, that is unfortunate.  There is a difference between a "right" spelled in an agreement or otherwise by law, and something one feels they "deserve".  The City leadership, officers and representatives have a responsibility to administer affairs fairly that follow rules, regulations or agreements, not simply what someone "feels" they should have granted. ***

Let our story warn anyone who has land the city is interested in purchasing. Please do your research.  When you attend the open meetings you see the frustration on issues brought up by taxpayers but the city’s response time is stagnant.  I am sure we are not the only ones wronged.  However, we speak openly so their misleading words will not continue to wrong others. You can not fight city hall but public awareness to the taxpayers of Shelton of how the Mayor and Board operate we bequeath to you.

*** The City has made many acquisitions of Open Space over many years.  Some of those have been accomplished with willing partners (purchase), and some have not (back taxes foreclosure, eminent domain acquisition).  Some willing partners look upon their actions with regret (I should have received more compensation), and some look upon their actions gratefully (I'm glad I sold it a couple of years ago rather in the current depressed market).  In this case, it appears that these aren't so much second thoughts, but rather misunderstandings by a later generation or associated family member(s) as to what was agreed upon in years past by those that actually transacted their sale of their property. ***

December 15, 2011 and still waiting for a response.

-Joyce Wilson

***  The Conservation Commission is a purely advisory body in the City of Shelton.  We provide commentary to the Board of Alderman or Planning & Zoning Commission on aspects such as property acquisition, maintenance or use; as well as subdivision applications and their impact on the environment.  I currently serve as Chairman, and have been on the Commission since 1998. ***

Farmers Market in Shelton

The Conservation Commission is a strong supporter of agricultural activity in our community.  One of our goals is to enhance both the viability of farms and the preservation of farmland.

Numerous acquisitions of Open Space land complement existing farmlands as buffers from development or as watershed protection, and several working farms have been preserved forever toward agricultural purposes through the purchase of development rights funded both by local City resources and partnerships with regional organizations, both public and private.

Although Open Space preservation is quite an obvious activity and gets much press attention due to it's initial costs, grant applications, and voter referendums; less obvious is our Commission's promotion of agricultural activity.

The Shelton Open Space Plan was revised in 2009.  One of it's top goals is "Preserve Agricultural Resources".  Within that goal (p.50) it is noted that "Although farmers themselves must initiate most of these activities, City officials can be alert to the needs of entrepreneurs and facilitate planning where appropriate" and the first one on the list of activities is "Continue the Farmer's Market".

The Plan is a document that we consistently refer to.  For example, one item calls us to "Pursue the possibility of Community Gardens".  A community garden was started in 2010 on the Klapik Open Space property in the Long Hill section of town.  Despite neighborhood concerns, it proved a success and for the 2011 growing season a 2nd location was tilled on City property at 279 Soundview Avenue near the Wiacek Open Space property.

Our sheltonconservation.org website has a "Farmland in Shelton" webpage that contains hyperlinks to several farms.  The Shelton Trails & Conservation facebook page has several "likes" of local farms that have facebook pages.  The Shelton Economic Development Corporation website has a Shelton Farms webpage noting some of our local farms and what they offer.

At our WedSep7 monthly meeting, there was a request to consider expanding the Farmers Market potential.  The Commission will examine aspects of how that might be accomplished for the benefit of all.  The City of Shelton has a lease with the Farmers Market Association for them to conduct a Farmers Market at the City facility on Canal Street (Farm and Public Market).

It is my understanding that on TueOct4, the Farmers Market Association will hold a meeting to discuss aspects brought up during the public portion of our September Conservation Commission meeting.

Fwd: Trails after Hurricane Irene

Board of Aldermen,

We all know how Hurricane Irene took down trees and toppled them over wires throughout the region.  Now pause for a moment to think where there are a LOT of trees - throughout our City Open Space.  As you can imagine, our trails network was quite impacted with trees down absolutely all over the place.  They were across the RecPath in many spots, and with some limbs hung up in the trees above potential hikers - there was a danger factor as well (such limbs are affectionately called "widow makers")

We didn't ask Park & Rec to help, nor the Tree Warden to approve what to do, or use Conservation Commission budget money to hire tree service companies.

What we did, over the past several years, was to prepare an inventory of tools (purchased almost entirely with grant money) such as chainsaws, bars, cutting tools, and our "gator" 4x4 to transport equipment and volunteers to distant locations.  The Trails Committee volunteers hit the ground running this week (several of them are retirees).  They were out there clearing the trails - and boy is the public using them a lot, especially the RecPath as our contractor has completed his project recently.

Take a look at this entry in the volunteers blog to illustrate some before and after photos of what they have accomplished.  PHENOMENAL.  They were even clearing blow-downs from the Great Ledge property (Bures family parcel) that was just purchased by the City this week. (and Thank-you for your part in accomplishing that)

http://sheltontrailscom.blogspot.com/2011/09/blowdowns-deadfalls-widowmakers-oh-my.html

The above hyperlink has several photos.

Thank you for supporting the Trails Volunteers via our Conservation Commission budget.  For a small investment, you are leveraging a tremendous amount of value in the labor of these individuals.

--
Thomas Harbinson - Chairman

Conservation Commission.

--
Thomas Harbinson

skype: harbthom

Oak Valley Road - Open Space Purchase

Shelton Conservation Commission

Press Release

Purchase of Open Space, Oak Valley Road

29, Aug, 2011

The Shelton Conservation Commission is pleased to announce that the City has acquired another parcel of land in our Shelton Lakes Greenway corridor.

The parcel is 13 acres in size located on Oak Valley Road. It is adjacent to the utility line corridor and centrally situated in the Shelton Lakes Greenway. The purchase price was $190,000. The preservation of the parcel will maintain a continuous corridor for wildlife and passive recreation enjoyment.  The parcel is known as "Great Ledge".

The Conservation Commission conferred with the property owners for several years regarding the public's interest toward the property being preserved and incorporated into the Greenway Corridor. A general understanding was reached, with final terms of purchase negotiated by the Mayor's office.

The Conservation Commission is a purely advisory agency. The terms of the final purchase agreement, and method of funding toward it's cost, can be obtained from the Mayor's office, or the Board of Alderman who is the fiscal authority for the City of Shelton.

With this acquisition, the City Open Space in the Shelton Lakes Greenway area now totals close to half a thousand acres. The first parcel (Abby Wright Parcel) was purchased in the 1960's across from where the La'Hermitage Condominiums are now located. Consistently following an Open Space Plan document has helped achieve this success which the public enjoys today.

The bulk of the Greenway's acreage was preserved in a 1997 purchase of properties from Bridgeport Hydraulic Companies (aka Aquarian) that were Class 3 watershed and thus available for sale from the water utility. That purchase was accomplished via a 1997Jun3 referendum question to bond $6.7million for the costs - which Shelton Voters approved with 89.5% of votes cast. Other parcels were acquired in later years via subdivision set-aside per Planning & Zoning regulations, in-fee-simple purchase, or in-lieu of back taxes.

The parcel will further facilitate the Recreation Path toward completion as a handicap accessible grade multi-use trail through the Shelton Lakes Greenway Corridor from Pine Lake on Rte.108 near downtown, to Lane Street at Huntington Center. Significant progress was made this year by a contractor awarded a project which constructed the RecPath from the two separate ends toward this parcel.

The Trails Enthusiasts have a Committee and Blog that expresses their enthusiasm for the purchase.
http://sheltontrailscom.blogspot.com/2011/08/great-ledge-property-purchased.html

Further information regarding mapping, trail guides, and planning documents that the Conservation Commission uses, can be found on our website:

www.sheltonconservation.org

From there you can discover deeper discussion of our activities via the services of blogs, facebook, and google groups.

Thomas Harbinson is Chairman of the Conservation Commission. He can best be reached via email: thomas.harbinson@gmail.com

Teresa Gallagher is the Conservation Commission's Conservation Agent, a part-time position in City Hall. She can best be reached via email: conservation@cityofshelton.org

Wild Animal Sightings

There has been recent sightings of animals that many confuse to be a mountain lion. While there was a mountain lion hit by a car in Milford that had been in the area, the possibility of another is extremely low.

What is likely observed, it a coyote, or a bobcat - both of which are more prevalent in our region. The Valley Independent Sentinel had an article regarding a wild animal encounter on Crystal Lane, which as I post this is unconfirmed.

This NYTimes article has a photo of the mountain lion hit by a car in Milford in June.

This map has a informal listing of animal sightings in the area of Shelton.

If you see an unknown animal, and it is safe for you to do so, snap a picture with your camera or cellphone. It will prove valuable for identification purposes.

Commission Appointments

Service on the Conservation Commission comes about via appointment from the Mayor for a three year term. The seven positions on the Commission follow a rotation of term that has expiration of 2, 2 and 3 individuals. These terms have been harmonized to expire on Aug1 among the variation of years.

Currently all positions are filled. The Mayor recently re-appointed Jim Tate, Joe Welsh and Bill Dyer for another 3yr term.

The average length of service for the current Conservation Commission is 9yrs. I believe Jim Tate has served the longest as a Commissioner, close to 15yrs. I began service in 1998, so I'm in my 13th year myself.

Among other characteristics, longevity of service to a commitment that requires a dedication toward a long-term goal, is important for success in the realm of Open Space preservation and conservation. It is one aspect that has led to our continued success as a community that has balanced economic growth via development, with quality of life via Open Space preservation.

I thank the Mayor for his confidence in our Commissioners as illustrated by their re-appointments for continued service to the community.

Our website has a page that describes in detail what each member of the Commission contributes to the group.

http://www.sheltonconservation.org/about/about.htm

Tom Harbinson - Chairman

Community Garden 2011

Last year was the start of using City owned Open Space for the passive use at a single location, and it received a lot of neighborhood opposition. See this link to letters to the editor opposing it back then. There were even signs posted on lawns and flyers distributed such as this one.

The end result from 2010 was overwhelmingly positive, both for users and the neighborhood in which the garden was located. The assumptions by neighbors regarding the impact on their street was proven inaccurate. Car traffic was not excessive, there was no increase in crime and vandalism, and property wasn't devalued. I know some gardeners who shared produce with nearby residents (and all the opposition signs eventually came down).

The overwhelming interest caused a need to expand, and while it would have been easy to expand at the current site, a distributed system was considered better than consolidating this garden activity to one location. Thus some good news: The City of Shelton now has two Community Garden locations.

Now the bad news: The Shelton Community Gardens are full for 2011.

If you would like to get on the waiting list for next year, complete this online form.

Garden #1 is near Long Hill School. Garden #2 is near Elizabeth Shelton School A standard plot for growing vegetables or flowers is 20ft x 20ft, and the cost is $20 per year. Organic only, no pesticides.

If demand continues to grow next year for 2012 registrations beyond our current capacity, options will be reviewed.

Note: Community Gardens are made up of individual's plots, and not to be confused with the "Eklund Garden" which is a demonstration area of native species plants on City Open Space. If you enjoy tending to a garden, take a look at our Conservation Commission's Eklund webpage to see opportunities to contribute at that location. (gardening only, no harvesting of flowers).

Open Space Trust Account Report thru 2010

The Conservation Commission is required by Ordinance to make an annual report on the activities of the Open Space Trust Account. Below is the comments I gave to the Board of Aldermen.

Keep in mind that this issue of the OSTA has extensive entries in this blog over the years. Once a full compilation is done of the transactions, it will be available to all via the internet.

First a link to my last mention of the topic in 2009.

Or comments on the lack of funding the OSTA during the budget process in 2008.

And the debate regarding modifications that were being made to the existing ordinance in 2006

And now my most recent comments from 2011Mar11:

BOA,

I'll be simple and to the point. First, while I'm making my presentation, I want to note I have a slideshow of photos displaying the organized activities of work parties and guided hikes that our volunteers have conducted over the past year. They volunteers have specifically logged 785.5 hours of volunteer work parties, but that does not include all the many individuals that work on their own to trim brush, rake leaves, and other maintenance efforts. I want to point out for example that the red barn at Nells Rock Road and Rte 108 that sits prominently next to the Dog Park, is in the shape it is today due to numerous work parties by volunteers to make it a useful structure. Power washing, paint removal, repaint and trim work - along with security measures. All done by volunteers. These folks may work, but also like to give guided hikes, such as one this spring on Palm Sunday afternoon to experience native woodland spring wildflowers at Birchbank Mountain. If interested, sign up on their facebook page (where they have 522 fan/followers). This does not even mention those that volunteer at the Eklund Native Species Garden, the Project Clean Sweep of the Litter Committee, or the Community Garden on Long View.

These volunteer contributions, along with our small CC budget (which request for coming fiscal year is only $36 higher than 2006), have helped us obtain 13 grants totaling over $1.6 million since 2000.

Although I want to sing praise to the volunteers that create and maintain our trails, my purpose this evening is to make report on the OSTA as required in ordinance. For the benefit of the public, Shelton has many tools in it's arsenal to conserve and preserve open space in our community. Subdivision regulations currently require 10% of the original parcel being developed to be set-aside as Open Space, and that's a qualified definition that excludes areas of steep slopes and wet soils. At times, there is determined by the PZB that there are no suitable or desirable open space areas in the application, and the applicant can alternatively make a payment of fee, in lieu of land. This is referred to in shorthand as a FILO payment.

Such payments are deposited into an account held in trust for purposes of acquiring future Open Space land parcels. This Open Space Trust Account is what I am reporting on. In addition to these FILO payments, the City Ordinance that created this account, currently requires that $250k per year be deposited into it promptly near the beginning of the fiscal year.

The concept was that a OSTA would build to sufficient level through both developer and government contributions, so that it would be available in a timely manner to react in the real-world marketplace of property acquisitions without delay of bonding, annual budgets, or other financial maneuvers that would create a liquidity to react for Open Space conservation in competition with developers. It has proven to be a useful tool and model to other communities.

In recent years, the OSTA has not grown with accumulations of inflows, as outlays have been made on various parcels as required in their acquisition agreements. For example, a purchase amount spread over several years would result in money entering the OSTA account as required by ordinance, and promptly leaving the account as expenditure toward said purchase. That however has ended, as the City owes no further partial payments on such purchases, and the fund can again accumulate toward a future purchase.

The OSTA had a previous balance of $14,438.16 and received it's ordinance defined contribution for FY 10/11 of $250k. As of 2010Dec31, the fund balance was $264,444.97

As you no doubt might assume, there has been little development that would create FILO payments into the OSTA, in fact, my records show none for FY 10/11. I will say though that since Jan2011, we have already had two subdivision applications that will show minor payments into this OSTA, which in concert with the FY 11/12 contribution from the annual budget, will begin to bring the OSTA into a range of useful utility.

I can take any questions you have, but when the fully detailed report is compiled showing all additions and expenditures to the OSTA, it will be available to you all via the Conservation Commission's website.

Budget Request Fiscal Year 2011/2012

The City budget process is underway, and this entry hopes to explain what we do from the Conservation Commission perspective.

First, the Finance Department follows the City Charter Section 7.1, and seeks Budget Requests from each department. The City fiscal year ends June 30, so the fiscal year is referred to as 2011/2012, or 11/12. The Finance Department notice includes a printout for our current year budget with amount expended to date and balance remaining, for each line item under our responsibility.

Second, the Conservation Commission takes on the task of reviewing goals, mission, activities, expectations, projects, staffing, and budgeting line items with justifications that would seek to accomplish the collection. This was done at our WedJan5 meeting and the request voted in approval to be submitted.

Third, the Finance Director will assemble all requests for the Mayor, who will present the Mayor's Budget Proposal for FY 11/12 to the Board of Aldermen.

Fourth, the Board of Apportionment and Taxation will meet jointly with the Board of Aldermen in a series of budget workshop meetings, where various department heads are called in to answer any questions. After completion of the workshops, the BoA&T will submit it's budget recommendation to the BoA.

Fifth, the Board of Alderman as the final fiscal authority will approve the budget and set the mill rate (tax rate) for the coming year.

The Conservation Commission has just completed step #2. In full transparency, you can view the complete document regarding our budget request since the actual email that was sent to the Finance Director was also courtesy copied to our google groups service.

It is my personal hope that the City would make more use of electronic methods to accomplish it's tasks. We are the only Department that submits it's budget request electronically.

Bob Wilkins - contributor

A good friend and contributor to Shelton Open Space and Trails died recently. I was fortunate to learn from his example of volunteering and can-do attitude.

The Shelton Trails Committee has a nice entry on their blog regarding Bob.

He will be missed.

ATV - public open space

Local TV Channel WTNH-8 did a story on illegal ATV use in Shelton municipal lands and a police crack down on it involving the Conservation Commission. Here is a link to the online transcript version of the story, which includes video. I use this blog entry to talk about the subject a bit more.

The City of Shelton has invested as a municipality in preserving and conserving land in town for various purposes. In either case, the land may be providing lasting natural habitat, historic preservation, passive recreation, buffer between development and habitats, agricultural purposes, and passive or active recreational needs in form of hiking trails or sports fields. Some of these areas are "permanently protected open space" via deed restriction, and some conservation projects received funding from grants at the state or federal level which came with and easements on what activity can be conducted upon the lands.

All of these areas come under the umbrella of being designated as "City of Shelton Open Space", and as such the City of Shelton has an ordinance as to what can occur on the properties. Notably, motorized vehicles (excepting for official vehicles) are prohibited as the very first item.

A property labeled "Birchbank Mountain" was purchased by Shelton in 1998 as protection to the Housatonic River Greenway near the Indian Well State Park and well-field area of the Aquarion Water Company (fka Bridgeport Hydraulic). It was a class 3 watershed property purchased from Bridgeport Hydraulic as part of a 500 acre purchase assembled around the city (this was before the State of CT did a similar action with the balance of class 3 watershed properties that BHC owned around the state). It is a unique ecological property as it contains sandy soil from the formation of the Housatonic River (thus the nearby public water well-field), it is easterly facing at the toe of a long bank and is in the shadow most of the day, it receives seepage of moisture from the hillside, and contains historic roadbeds that served to access White Hills before the present day Rte110 was constructed. It is a very special piece of preserved property.

This area has received significant ATV activity in violation of the City ordinance, and numerous State Statutes. Unique vegetation given the environmental conditions mentioned was being damaged, and the sandy soil when disturbed continuously by ATV's in a single area leaves it prone to erosion. The City's investment in the valued parcel of land was being damaged.

A significant area of Open Space known as the Shelton Lakes Greenway has numerous trails enjoyed by residents and visitors (all open space and trails in Shelton is open to anyone for free and there is no resident requirement or permit needed). ATV and motorcycle use has caused erosion issues that need correction due to the hazard created for hikers. On SatAug28, 2010, a scout group encountered ATV's and dirtbikes racing down the trail toward them, creating a hazardous situation in violation of the law.

Certain open space properties where agricultural use occurs via lease to farmers have had damage to crops by careless ATV use through the field. This causes loss of value in the harvest of the crop.

ATV users have blatantly violated the state law and local ordinances, repeatedly, on numerous parcels of land owned by the City. These violations have caused ecological and economic damage and must be addressed by the proper authorities.

Working with the police department, we are asking that people enjoying the Open Space for passive recreation purposes, or nearby residents to Open Space parcels, or simply anyone who sees a violation - snap a photo on your cellphone and send it to the Conservation Commission's Conservation Agent via email or to our facebook page. The documentation will allow police to follow up with enforcement of state statutes.

Ct General Statutes, Chapter 55, Sec 14-387

Those who use ATV's, snowmobiles, or dirt bikes (collectively known as off-road vehicles) would do well to also visit the DEP webpage on the subject.

As an off-road vehicle owner myself (Polaris ATV and sled), I recognize the difficulty when other states (MA, ME, NH, VT, NY) do not recognize a CT registration of the off-road vehicle. With no State owned lands in which to ride, there is little incentive to register the vehicle in CT. These are State issues that should be worked on by legislators to give recognition for CT registrations at out-of-state locations, and by the CT DEP to provide suitable areas for riding within CT.

The closest legal alternative is the nearby riding areas of Pittsfield or Otis MA

MA off road vehicles

CT DEP Grant Award for RecPath

I'm pleased to announce that the City of Shelton has been awarded a Recreational Trails Program Grant for Fiscal Year 2010, in the amount of $73,150.00

Thank-you to all who worked so dilligently on the grant application.

Here is a link to the Ct DEP webpage outlining all the grants awarded over the years. A link regarding the projects funded this June is halfway down the page.

From the Grant description:

To construct Phase 3, Section c (about 2500 linear feet) of the Shelton Lakes Recreation Path ("Rec Path"), and to purchase maintenance equipment. This section of the Rec Path will provide linkage to a recently completed Huntington Street walkway and to shops, the Community Center, Post Office, and events on the Huntington Center Green. The RecPath is a 4.5-mile multi-use, handicapped-accessible path connecting downtown Shelton and Huntington Center, This is a major capital project for the City of Shelton, and is incorporated in local, regional, and state planning documents. The completed section of Rec Path is 8 to 10 feet wide and about 1000 feet long with a crushed stone surface.

Community Garden plowed

The Conservation Commission is not directly responsible for the Community Garden concept, rather it is the ad-hoc committee formed by the Board of Alderman.

However, we on the Conservation Commission are supportive of using agricultural lands (City owned Open Spaces with appropriate agricultural soils) for that purpose.

Consequently, the Klapik Farm Open Space on Long Hill Avenue and Long View Drive is being prepared for planting. You can see photos of the work on facebook.

I recognize their was neighborhood opposition to using the former farm fields as gardening fields, but the need and desire expreseed by the community has outweighed the items of concern expressed by the neighborhood.

The Conservation Commission's part time staff (Conservation Agent) has been assisting co-ordination of the Community Garden Committee's activities.

Personally, I look forward to their first harvest!!

Info on Facebook

As a reminder, this Blog is a tool I use as Chairman of the Conservation Commission to communicate to the public in broadcast fashion, and provide for future reference of information.

There are other tools that accomplish this also. The Trails Volunteers and Conservation have a page on facebook where you can learn of their activities. Beyond the "broadcast" format of a blog, it also allows comments via text, "liking" an entry, and becoming a "fan".

Be aware that Facebook does log your activities on their site when you are "logged in". Any actions you make there are made available to the public.

The facebook page is NOT my manner of communicating as Chairman, but it is of value for those interested in Conservation affairs.

Facebook page of "Shelton Trails & Conservation"

Community Garden - Neighborhood flyer

There was a public hearing of the Community Garden Committee on Mar8 at City Hall. The room was over capacity and it was noted that not all the public had access during the meeting. As the auditorium was also at capacity for a separate meeting, the public hearing was haulted until a future time.



During the meeting, the following flyer was distributed. My comments follow.

1. "City already increased plot numbers from 40 to 60! Community Garden Committee says further expansion is very probable and desirable, including back fields bordering Long Hill Ave and Laurel Wood Drive." The Community Garden Committee is drawing up a concept of plots based on the response from the citizenry. There are already over 50 sign-ups from Shelton residents, so in my opinion they are being frank and wise to recognize the reality today and what it may be in the future. That said, this is still conceptual and design stage.


2. "No representation from our neighborhood on the Community Garden Committee" The Committee was created as an ad-hoc committee to the Board of Alderman for those who expressed interest in the task. It's up to the BOA to add or modify their committees. I don't think the Long Hill School PTA has a representative from the neighborhood simply because the school is next to a residential area. I don't see the logic in the claim to have committee representation based upon geo-location. The involvement to comment, critique, question, challenge, complain, and otherwise voice opinion is available during every meeting during the public portion of both the Board of Alderman and Garden Committee.


3. "Complete disregard for the safety concerns of our neighborhood. City never explored other options." This is an outright falsehood. The Conservation Commission looked at all the City's Open Space properties, eliminated those that were not in agricultural use, and examined those remaining for soil types, drainage, etc as to suitability for community gardening. This was all public in our meetings, and was further specifically reiterated and explained at our Conservation meetings to the public who came out on Mar3. The Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Engineer both examined the proposal and rendered affirmative referrals that it is an appropriate use for the parcel.


4. "Car traffic into residential roads expected to be 400-500 passes per week. As the garden expands, so does the traffic in the Long Hll area, and our streets." I'll start with the low side claim of 400 passes. Assuming that's one car's in and out travels, that's 200 visits per week. Assuming the high end currently stated of 60 plots, that's 3.3 visits per plot per week. Summary: Given assumption of the least number of visits claimed, and highest number of plots mentioned, the flyer's contention is that every single plot will have a unique caretaker and be visited by them every other day. Imperical data from other community gardens show that is not the case.


5. "Devaluation of our property due to traffic and garden access on Longview Road, Laurel Wood Drive or Long Hill Avenue". I'm not an expert in property valuation, but the implication is that access from any abutting road into this property for such use is going to negatively impact all surrounding properties. I would doubt that.


6. "Potential increase in crime and vandalism" The parcel is currently fields and has had ATV activity (addressed promptly by the police) and illegal hunting (addressed promptly by the DEP), both to a minimal amount. Anytime there are "improvements" to a property (playscape, ballfields, etc) that can serve to attract youth, there is a potential for negative aspects. That said, the likelihood of a garden attracting crime to a neighborhood is an unlikely outcome.


7. "Already concerned residents are receiving misleading and incomplete information from the City Conservation Agent. How much worse will we be treated if/when the huge garden goes in" I can say without hesitation that the Conservation Agent is pro-active toward informing the public as to what is occurring. Her statements are consistently factual. The garden proposed is a small area of 1 field our of a parcel acreage of many acres. It is not a "huge" area.

Community Garden

A letter to editor was in the 2010Feb18 CtPost. My response is within the ++ symbols to stand out. The link to original is found here.

Letter to the Editor:
Shelton residents are being encouraged to "sign up" for a plot at the Klapik Farm Community Garden when the location, details and the very concept have not been formally approved by the appropriate governing body.

+++
Information is a powerful tool. The City of Shelton website has all agency/body minutes in pdf form. You can google search restrict to the website. Try this search for example. From the results you can glean that there has been much discussion on the concept for much time. Any improvement to property by the City, requires much the same approvals as a private entity. Application to Planning & Zoning, Authorization by Board of Alderman, referrals from agents such as City Engineer, etc.
+++

In an effort to determine if there is even a need for a community garden, the Board of Aldermen created an Ad Hoc Community Garden Committee. The committee had one meeting in January at which time it performed the usual initial business of electing officers, accepting rules of order and establishing a schedule of meetings for the year. However, if you read the meeting minutes carefully, you'll discover that the committee was told that a preferred location was already identified, that a formal review by the Planning and Zoning Commission had already been initiated for the property use change, that the entrance for the garden would be at the end of a residential cul de sac on Longview Road, and, oh yes, that the committee needed to hurry because apparently somebody wants to start planting this spring.

+++
Lets have a timeline

• 1993 - Open Space Plan identifies Greenways as emphasis areas for preserving open space.
• 2002 - The Klapik Farm was purchased, totals apx 58acres, and has significant hedgerows visually blocking the fields from adjacent residential properties. This is part of the Long Hill Greenway (includes several other property purchases that became assembled, notably the Tall Farm across the street from Klapik)
• 2003 - A license agreement begins in May between the City and Lyman Wells (a local farmer) to harvest hay from the fields. The property use will not change and remain agricultural.
• 2006 - The Plan of Conservation & Development has as it's #1 agricultural preservation strategy "continue to support programs that preserve farmland" which this does. See page 3-10 of the plan
• 2009Feb - Open Space Plan is updated from 1993, and recomends pursuit of possible Community Gardens. View details of the plan via this link.
• 2009Aug4 - Some early discussion on the subject that I can document from email, originated from citizenry with the Mayor meeting on this date to examine the concept.
• 2009Fall - Conservation Commission and Parks & Rec Commission were both consulted. Review of potential City owned Open Space parcels were done (Tall Farm, Wiacek Farm, 279 Soundview, Klapik, Nells Rock Road, French's Farm) and the consensus was that Klapik was most suited for public community gardens.
• 2010Jan19 - Mayor sends letter requesting 8-24 referral from PZC and advise from City Engineer.
• 2010Jan22 - City Engineer endorses the project
• 2010Jan27 - Planning & Zoning Commission votes favorably on the refferal (p.27 of minutes)
• 2010Jan25, Feb9, Feb23 - Community Garden AdHoc Committee meets to plan for quickly approaching planting season. Minutes are found here.

One can not imply that this came about as a surprise, or was rushed to judgement
+++

Now, I just happen to live on Longview Road and I know for a fact that we never requested this use for the property. While we think a well-planned community garden is a terrific idea, we became worried about how this might affect our neighborhood. So, several of us went to the second meeting of the Community Garden Committee. We asked the committee members flat out if the Longview Road site and entrance was a "done deal." Every one of them robustly assured us that it was not.

+++
This was in the Plan of Conservation & Development from 2006. It was in the Open Space Plan of 2009. It has been discussed openly on Conservation Commission's meetings. The neighbors were notified as part of the referral review by the Planning & Zoning Commission. No, the residents of Longview Road didn't request this, but the citizens of the City have repeatedly via the planning methods, workshops, and meetings outlined above, over many years. There remain details to work out if this prospective location is to be productive - and in that regard it is not a "done deal".
+++

So, we neighbors expressed our concerns. We handed them a petition of names of people who are opposed to the Longview Road entrance. We asked the committee to please consider making the entrance in a more appropriate area. We were polite, articulate and even helpful despite the fact that we never requested a community garden, and there was no one present who did.

+++
The two areas to access the parcel are from Longview Road's cul-de-sac, which is at the highpoint of the drumlin's topography; or from Long Hill Avenue which is a busy road and would require crossing a wetlands area to access the more advantageous agricultural fields. Longview is the better location for access.
+++

We want peace not war, but we also want our needs to be considered. We don't want another poorly planned, town-sponsored intrusion into a defenseless neighborhood. Let's see what happens.
Randy Ann York

+++
Working together to solve issues will bring greater satisfaction to all.
+++

What follows is my letter to the editor submitted to CtPost on Feb21:
Editor:

I was dismayed to read the Letter of Feb18 regarding the Community Garden in Shelton. As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, let me offer some clarification.

Shelton's Open Space acquisition was following the award winning 1993 Open Space Plan when the 58 acres near Long Hill Avenue was acquired in 2002 as part of a Long Hill Greenway vision that has since preserved an abutting assemblage of over 100 acres. Continuously since 2003 there has been a revocable license with a local farmer to harvest hay from the property, thus maintaining it's agricultural usage in the community.

I served on the Committee that updated Shelton's Plan of Conservation & Development in 2006, which recognized Community Gardens as one strategy to preserve farmland (see p.3-10). The Conservation Commission updated Shelton's Open Plan in 2009 and reiterated such pursuits. The concept of a Community Garden is one other municipalities offer, and should not come as a surprise to residents of Shelton who take interest in their City's activities and its planning documents.

Out of citizenry interest and initiative, the Board of Alderman forrmed an ad-hoc Committee to bring the idea together in late 2009, and the Mayor's office requested advice and referrals on the concept from the City Engineer and the Planning & Zoning Commission in 2010. The Conservation Commission and the Parks & Recreation Commission have discussed this concept openly in their meetings. All of this above documentation is readily available on the City's website.

Yes, there is a planting season quickly approaching and the ad-hoc committee is working diligently to meet mother nature's deadlines, but this is not a rushed or hasty endeavor. This is a community sponsored concern being addressed. As of Feb16, 43 people had already signed up for plots. I encourage everyone to voice concerns, and work together in making it a success.

Thomas Harbinson
Conservation Commission - Chairman.