Shelton Conservation Commission

118 Armstrong Rd - withdrawal article

2024-03-25T15:57:00.002-04:00

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

Below is an article in this

+++

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My assumption is that this application is withdrawn.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 There is no ability to amend a "withdrawn" application that I am aware of.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+++

Shell Game - Shelton Herald Commentary

2013-08-12T22:58:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

+++

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

+++

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

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

+++

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

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

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

+++

Advising the public on this issue

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

+++

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

+++

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

+++

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

+++

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

+++

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

+++

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

+++

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

+++

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

+++

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

+++

Fear of rocking the boat

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

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

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

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

+++

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

+++

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

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

Allowing Residential in Commercial zone

2013-07-07T21:34:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development Proposal - CtPost

2012-10-15T13:38:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chairman Dyer.

Discussion:

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

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

+++

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lauretti could not be reached for comment.

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

x

Reviewing Land for Open Space - 2005 comments

2012-10-08T11:34:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 4, 2005

Mr. John F. Anglace

President

Board of Aldermen

Shelton City Hall

54 Hill Street

Shelton, CT 06484

Subject: Request to review property for potential acquisition

550 River Road

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Shelton Conservation Commission

Thomas Harbinson, Co-Chairman

Cons.Comm.Aug03mtg/Commission:th

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

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

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

Conservation Commission review of open land parcel for possible acquisition

Subject: Property at 550 River Road.

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

Date of Review: July 2005

Preface:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of Practice:

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

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

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

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

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

As the region’s population grows more access will be needed to the river for both active and passive recreation opportunities, therefore access to the river is encouraged where best accomplished for both active and passive recreation. Currently available are:

Active: The municipally maintained Sunnyside Boat Ramp is open to non-residents and strained to capacity use at peek demand (weekends). Also available in Shelton to the general public is the boat ramp to Lake Housatonic at Indian Well State Park, a canoe launch at Southank (City open space) and a launch access area on Birchbank Road. (City open space). There are two commercial marinas offering slips and winter storage of vessels.
Passive: Riverfront passive recreation is available at Birchbank Rd, Indian Well State Park, the Canal Locks (on private land made open to the public), the Riverwalk downtown, the Sunnyside Boat Ramp park area (includes picnic areas), the Southbank open space parcel (includes picnic benches and a pavilion), and a pedestrian easement at the Shelton Sports Center (as part of it’s PDD Planned Development District approval, the owner is required to maintain a pedestrian access to the river). While not riverfront, enjoyment of river vistas can be had at the Riverview Park in downtown.

Although not in Shelton, recognition of the Housatonic River as a regional resource is given and to the fact that Derby has future prospects to open the O’Sullivan Island area to recreation opportunities that could serve the broader community.
Under the Commodore Hull Bridge, an old area of wharfs or piers exists adjacent to the current northern terminus of the Riverwalk. This has potential for a fishing pier allowing further passive enjoyment of the river.
The area from the Commodore Hull Bridge to Lafayette School offers some promise for expansion of the Riverwalk, just as it is proposed to be expanded north beyond Bridge Street.
ITEM REDACTED DURING 2012SEP RELEASE.
ITEM REDACTED DURING 2012SEP RELEASE.
ITEM REDACTED DURING 2012SEP RELEASE.
ITEM REDACTED DURING 2012SEP RELEASE.
There is ability to expand the Southbank open space picnic areas to the parcel’s northern boundary on area that is sparsely vegetated and buffers a private residence from the park activities. This area was improved during the development of Nature’s Lane off Old Coram Road across the street and above the site. Newly installed City sewers traversed the property and parking lot improvements along with a bank stabilization plan of vegetation (white pines) were made by the contractor at no cost to the City.
The CRRA landfill is a state facility which is closed from accepting any further waste. Toward the end of its use, it accepted ash from the trash burning facility in Bridgeport that served the region and is now “capped”. Methane gas is collected from decomposing waste deposited during the many years it was used as a landfill. As part of its closure plan, recreational improvements are proposed that are both passive (hiking trails around the lagoon that opens to the Housatonic) and active (boat launch area at lagoon). This includes associated parking areas and offers a significant opportunity to answer these recreation needs for the future residents of the region at little or no cost to the City.

Subject property

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

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

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

End of 5 page report to Aldermen that accompanied letter

Recreation Path - A Celebration

2012-10-05T11:40:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buying Land - CtPost

2012-09-27T13:35:00.000-04:00

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

2012-09-21T13:03:00.000-04:00

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.

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).
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.
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.
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:

Appropriations into an OSTA is entirely different than expenditures for Open Space. To confuse the two terms is bewildering.
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?

2012-01-23T10:52:00.002-05:00

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

2011-12-22T12:17:00.001-05:00

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

2011-09-17T19:33:00.000-04:00

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

2011-09-04T21:23:00.000-04:00

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

2011-08-30T17:51:00.000-04:00

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

2011-08-22T17:45:00.004-04:00

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

2011-08-17T19:05:00.003-04:00

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

2011-04-05T11:55:00.004-04:00

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

2011-03-11T16:57:00.002-05:00

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

2011-01-11T14:02:00.002-05:00

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

2011-01-10T14:37:00.000-05:00

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

2010-09-02T08:39:00.003-04:00

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

2010-05-20T12:55:00.002-04:00

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

2010-05-15T12:48:00.000-04:00

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

2010-04-20T12:38:00.000-04:00

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

2010-03-09T15:05:00.008-05:00

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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

2010-02-21T19:06:00.002-05:00

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.