When I was asked to run for elected office in the Planning & Zoning Alternate position, it was assumed by many that I could serve in both an elected and appointed position. See my Nov1 blog entry regarding elected and appointed service, and why I ran for office.
Since then I have been elected and thank the public for entrusting me to serve in that office, however it has been brought to my attention that the City of Shelton Charter Sections regarding Planning & Zoning members have additional verbage that makes it an exclusive office of service. (See the cut/paste at end of this message of the Charter from municode website).
It is with that new revelation in mind, which has been confirmed by the City Attorney, that I decided to resign from the Planning & Zoning Commission effective immediately. My decision was based on where I could best serve the administration of City affairs and my overall community.
Wed 2009/Dec/2 will be the completion of my 11th continuous year of service on the Conservation Commission. During that time the entire Commission has worked to acquire significant City of Shelton Open Space, helped Shelton purchase development rights to agricultural lands, obtained substantial grant monies for Shelton's land acquisitions and enhancements upon them, expanded trails networks and their accessibility, improved our Commission's communication and technology methods to be the most transparent in the State of Ct, and updated the award winning Open Space Plan for the City of Shelton.
Today I was made aware of a decision that was rendered by the City Attorney in the past, that reveals the position of Planning & Zoning Commission Alternate (not a Member unless seated and replacing a Member) would be quite restrictive as to involvement with everyday affairs of the Commission. While an Alternate could participate during a hearing (as anyone from the public can), an Alternate can not participate in any deliberation nor any vote unless seated as the replacement of a Member.
After discussion with trusted friends and weighing the pros and cons, I decided that the years of history, knowledge and leadership at the CC, along with the relationships compiled for furthering the CC's goals and objectives, held more fruitful value than sitting in meetings where I would be prohibited from contributing on a regular business.
I'm sorry this Charter nuance was not recognized clearly by anyone earlier. Regretfully, that oversite error is mine alone.
City Charter component, unrealized until Tue2009/Nov/24. My emphasis added.
5.1.4. Planning and Zoning Commission: (a) The City shall have a Planning and Zoning Commission elected as provided by Section 2.4.1(f) of this Charter, no more than four (4) members of which shall be from the same political party. The members shall hold no other elected or appointed office within the City. The Commission shall have such duties as are provided by the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut relating to planning and zoning, and, subject to the approval of the Mayor, shall appoint and may remove zoning and planning officers and such professional and other personnel as may be necessary or convenient to the operation of the commission. (b) There shall be two (2) alternate members elected to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the election in November 1995 and biannually thereafter for a term of two (2) years no more than one (1) of whom shall be from the same political party. The Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall, when a regular member is unable to attend a meeting or is otherwise unable to participate, select an alternate in place of such member firstly from the same political party as the member and if an alternate from the same political party is not available, then the Chairman shall select the second alternate. If two (2) members are unable to attend or participate, both alternates shall be seated, provided that the minority representation requirements of the General Statutes are not thereby violated, in which event the Commission shall proceed on the matter without the participation of any alternate
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Resignation from PZC Alternate
Wednesday December 2, 2009
Ruth Parkins - PZC Chairperson
Rick Schultz - PZ Dept Administrator
Planning & Zoning Commissioners.
I'm disappointed that after review of the City Charter by the City Attorney, I have become aware of a conflict in my serving both as an appointed Member of the Conservation Commission, and as an elected Alternate of the Planning & Zoning Commission. In personal review of the Shelton Charter Section 5.5.c, I had the expectation that I could serve in both positions. An opinion given to me today from City Counsel of Charter Section 5.1.4 negates that understanding.
After consulting with trusted friends and colleagues, I have decided that given the choice of my 11year history of service and subsequent knowledge from activity with the Conservation Commission, versus an Alternate position on the Planning & Zoning Commission where my input is limited to contributing only when replacing a Member, that I could best serve the administration of the City's affairs and my community while serving as a Conservation Commissioner where my current term expires in August 2012.
Regretfully, I resign from my recently elected position as Planning & Zoning Alternate.
This electronic message will be my sole notice of resignation to all interested parties. There will be no hard-copy.
Thank-you for your attention and understanding, and best wishes to the Commission in your days ahead.
Sincerely - Thomas Harbinson.
cc:
Mark Lauretti - Mayor
Margaret Weber - City Clerk
Dave Gioiello - Democratic Town Committee Chair
Tom Welch - City Attorney
sheltoncc.blogspot.com
Ruth Parkins - PZC Chairperson
Rick Schultz - PZ Dept Administrator
Planning & Zoning Commissioners.
I'm disappointed that after review of the City Charter by the City Attorney, I have become aware of a conflict in my serving both as an appointed Member of the Conservation Commission, and as an elected Alternate of the Planning & Zoning Commission. In personal review of the Shelton Charter Section 5.5.c, I had the expectation that I could serve in both positions. An opinion given to me today from City Counsel of Charter Section 5.1.4 negates that understanding.
After consulting with trusted friends and colleagues, I have decided that given the choice of my 11year history of service and subsequent knowledge from activity with the Conservation Commission, versus an Alternate position on the Planning & Zoning Commission where my input is limited to contributing only when replacing a Member, that I could best serve the administration of the City's affairs and my community while serving as a Conservation Commissioner where my current term expires in August 2012.
Regretfully, I resign from my recently elected position as Planning & Zoning Alternate.
This electronic message will be my sole notice of resignation to all interested parties. There will be no hard-copy.
Thank-you for your attention and understanding, and best wishes to the Commission in your days ahead.
Sincerely - Thomas Harbinson.
cc:
Mark Lauretti - Mayor
Margaret Weber - City Clerk
Dave Gioiello - Democratic Town Committee Chair
Tom Welch - City Attorney
sheltoncc.blogspot.com
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Elected vs Appointed
One purpose of this Conservation Commission blog is to say my comments once, not repetatively again and again to reporters or the public - not being rude, just efficient with time. My running for elected office in 2009Nov has elicited a number of questions, from a number of people such as public or press, which I will answer here in a FAQ manner. I am using this blog, as it is the most read outlet I have that the public regularly reference.
I thought you were already in office? I was appointed to the Conservation Commission in 1998 by Mayor Lauretti according to Section 5.2.3 of the City Charter. The appointment is a 3 year term. My last term ended in 2009Aug, just 2 months ago, at which time Mayor Lauretti re-appointed me to the Commission. I am thus a Conservation Commissioner until August of 2012. This is different and separate than the elected office I seek on the Planning & Zoning Commission.
What is the elected office you are running for? Planning & Zoning Commissioner, as one of the two alternate positions. The PZC is made up of 6 members and 2 alternates. The alternate commissioner serves a very distinct purpose from a standard commissioner. From the City of Shelton Charter Section 5.1.4.b, "The Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall, when a regular member is unable to attend a meeting or is otherwise unable to participate, select an alternate in place of such member firstly from the same political party as the member and if an alternate from the same political party is not available, then the Chairman shall select the second alternate. If two (2) members are unable to attend or participate, both alternates shall be seated, provided that the minority representation requirements of the General Statutes are not thereby violated, in which event the Commission shall proceed on the matter without the participation of any alternate"
Can you serve on both Commissions? Structurally, yes. According to the Shelton Charter Section 5.5.c, "Members shall hold no more than one other elected office and/or two other appointed offices with the City"
Is it a conflict to serve on both Commissions? Philosophically, and generally no. The PZC is a regulatory body making decisions based upon reference to plans, regulations, statutes, etc. The CC is an advisory body making recomendations and comments that are also based upon reference to plans and guides, but has more latitude and breadth in what it may comment upon in it's role as the environmental conscience of the community. There are times where the PZC is asking for comment from the CC on issues such as a subdivision application, and I can reinforce the intent or direction of those comments when they reach the PZC - that isn't a conflict. There are however times when the CC is conducting a project (say a trails construction or activity) where a referral request is made to the planning agency (PZC) to affirm that it is appropriate. These are commonly referred to to as "8-24 referrals" in noting the Ct Gen Statutes section that outlines how it should be done. In cases where such a request is made, I may have to abstain from voting, but should not have to recuse myself from participating in discussion. That said, it is unlikely that such a conflict may occur anyway, because I would be in the "alternate" position and only voting when another commissioner was unable to fulfill their duty.
I didn't know you were running: My "campaign" for office is non-existent, due mainly to two factors. Firstly, I'm running for one of 2 alternate positions, of which no more than one can be from a single party. The Democrats and Republicans usually put forth one candidate for each office and thus they are de-facto elected. Shelton has a third alternative in the form of the Citizen's United Party, but they didn't nominate anyone for the PZC alternate position. Secondly, in 2008 and 2009 a company I have ownership in received a grant contribution from the State of Ct. toward a solar array. As such, the company is explicitly defined as a "state contractor" and is restricted in the political donations it's principals can make to candidates. This goes beyond any Ct state office candidate such as Governor or Atty General, and includes a prohibition against donating to Town Committees. In summary, I can't donate to general campaign funds of the Town Committee for helping with the cost of flyers or mailers, and due to the nature of the office and number of candidates on the slate - I don't need to campaign anyway. I'm fine with that as I instead can continue concentrating on continuing the work as Conservation Commissioner and prepare for that additional work as Planning & Zoning Commissioner.
What skills do you bring to the office? I am controller of a family construction business. As such, I have skills of management and knowledge of the construction industry. My business is not in development, primarily in NYC, and doesn't interact with any local contractors or developers. I am also a 5th generation farm owner and have a balanced perspective for the environment and the value of balance it brings to a developed community. In addition to having served on the Conservation Commission since 1998, I was appointed by the Planning & Zoning Commission to serve on the 2006 Plan Update Advisory Committee which updated the City's master plan known as the Plan of Conservation & Development. I am a director of the Shelton Economic Development Corporation, and a Life member of the non-profit Shelton Land Conservation Trust.
I hope this answers the questions regarding what offices I will be serving in, how I attained those offices, and what I intend to bring to them.
I thought you were already in office? I was appointed to the Conservation Commission in 1998 by Mayor Lauretti according to Section 5.2.3 of the City Charter. The appointment is a 3 year term. My last term ended in 2009Aug, just 2 months ago, at which time Mayor Lauretti re-appointed me to the Commission. I am thus a Conservation Commissioner until August of 2012. This is different and separate than the elected office I seek on the Planning & Zoning Commission.
What is the elected office you are running for? Planning & Zoning Commissioner, as one of the two alternate positions. The PZC is made up of 6 members and 2 alternates. The alternate commissioner serves a very distinct purpose from a standard commissioner. From the City of Shelton Charter Section 5.1.4.b, "The Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall, when a regular member is unable to attend a meeting or is otherwise unable to participate, select an alternate in place of such member firstly from the same political party as the member and if an alternate from the same political party is not available, then the Chairman shall select the second alternate. If two (2) members are unable to attend or participate, both alternates shall be seated, provided that the minority representation requirements of the General Statutes are not thereby violated, in which event the Commission shall proceed on the matter without the participation of any alternate"
Can you serve on both Commissions? Structurally, yes. According to the Shelton Charter Section 5.5.c, "Members shall hold no more than one other elected office and/or two other appointed offices with the City"
Is it a conflict to serve on both Commissions? Philosophically, and generally no. The PZC is a regulatory body making decisions based upon reference to plans, regulations, statutes, etc. The CC is an advisory body making recomendations and comments that are also based upon reference to plans and guides, but has more latitude and breadth in what it may comment upon in it's role as the environmental conscience of the community. There are times where the PZC is asking for comment from the CC on issues such as a subdivision application, and I can reinforce the intent or direction of those comments when they reach the PZC - that isn't a conflict. There are however times when the CC is conducting a project (say a trails construction or activity) where a referral request is made to the planning agency (PZC) to affirm that it is appropriate. These are commonly referred to to as "8-24 referrals" in noting the Ct Gen Statutes section that outlines how it should be done. In cases where such a request is made, I may have to abstain from voting, but should not have to recuse myself from participating in discussion. That said, it is unlikely that such a conflict may occur anyway, because I would be in the "alternate" position and only voting when another commissioner was unable to fulfill their duty.
I didn't know you were running: My "campaign" for office is non-existent, due mainly to two factors. Firstly, I'm running for one of 2 alternate positions, of which no more than one can be from a single party. The Democrats and Republicans usually put forth one candidate for each office and thus they are de-facto elected. Shelton has a third alternative in the form of the Citizen's United Party, but they didn't nominate anyone for the PZC alternate position. Secondly, in 2008 and 2009 a company I have ownership in received a grant contribution from the State of Ct. toward a solar array. As such, the company is explicitly defined as a "state contractor" and is restricted in the political donations it's principals can make to candidates. This goes beyond any Ct state office candidate such as Governor or Atty General, and includes a prohibition against donating to Town Committees. In summary, I can't donate to general campaign funds of the Town Committee for helping with the cost of flyers or mailers, and due to the nature of the office and number of candidates on the slate - I don't need to campaign anyway. I'm fine with that as I instead can continue concentrating on continuing the work as Conservation Commissioner and prepare for that additional work as Planning & Zoning Commissioner.
What skills do you bring to the office? I am controller of a family construction business. As such, I have skills of management and knowledge of the construction industry. My business is not in development, primarily in NYC, and doesn't interact with any local contractors or developers. I am also a 5th generation farm owner and have a balanced perspective for the environment and the value of balance it brings to a developed community. In addition to having served on the Conservation Commission since 1998, I was appointed by the Planning & Zoning Commission to serve on the 2006 Plan Update Advisory Committee which updated the City's master plan known as the Plan of Conservation & Development. I am a director of the Shelton Economic Development Corporation, and a Life member of the non-profit Shelton Land Conservation Trust.
I hope this answers the questions regarding what offices I will be serving in, how I attained those offices, and what I intend to bring to them.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Dog Park - CtPost
I encourage readers to go to the ConnPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
Plans move forward for Shelton dog park
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 10/18/2009 07:31:29 PM EDT
SHELTON -- Plans for a new dog park are moving forward with approvals from one commission that will now hand it off to the Board of Aldermen.
The Parks and Recreation Commission Thursday approved both the location and design for the park. If approved by the aldermen, it will be constructed on Nells Rock Road and will include areas for both large and small dogs.
+++ The BOA should approve any use of City Property. The PZC will also need to review, and given access improvements onto Nells Rock Rd - I assume also the Engineering Dept. +++
"We looked at a lot of dog parks in a lot of towns and found that people do utilize them," said commission chairman John Papa, who also served on the Dog Park Committee.
+++ The Conservation Commission's Agent visited Ridgefield Dog Park, and Milford Dog Park. (see links for respective blog reports) +++
It's going to cost about $20,000 for the fencing, benches and parking area that will accommodate about 20 cars, he said. And that money is LOCIP-eligible, which is why the aldermen must approve the project, he said.
+++ The BOA must approve every trail project, even those don't involve costs of funding when simply done by volunteers. The BOA must approve a use of City real-property such as this, in addition to the fiscal approval +++
"This is a great opportunity for people who love their dogs to have a park to bring them to that won't cost a heck of a lot of money to do," Papa said.
The plans must first go to the aldermen's Finance Committee, which must approve it and send it to the full board, Papa said. "We're hoping to get it done in November or December," he said. "Before we did this we presented it to the mayor and he is in support of it."
Once approvals are in place, volunteers will begin clearing the area of dead trees and brush, Papa said.
+++ Because of impervious surfaces, grading issues, access onto City road, possible structure demo, etc: This will require review from Engineering Dept. Also the PZC will need to give a referral regarding the change of use from passive recreation to active recreation and the amenities, parking, etc. +++
The park will have two areas: one for small dogs and a larger area for larger dogs. There will be several benches placed along the perimeters, and "pooper scooper" bags will be provided, Papa said.
+++ See previous entry for Ridgefield as to the ideal way to run such a park from what we have seen locally. +++
The Conservation Commission, which manages the city-owned open space behind the park spot, had several concerns about the plans, but Papa said they are relatively minor and can be worked out.
Those concerns include the use and maintenance of buildings located on the property, the layout of the parking spaces and the screening of the park from the roadways.
"Dog parks that we have seen in other communities show that the facilities need to be very well maintained, for if they are not at the highest level they become an eyesore and a liability to the city and are not used by residents," Conservation Commission Tom Harbinson wrote to the Parks and Recreation Commission. "We feel that the city has not shown that the city can maintain a facility like this at this time." It ultimately will be the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the dog park, Papa said.
+++ Unless a space is "adopted" by an advocacy group such as trails volunteers to do maintenance and guided hikes, or a baseball league organization to maintain some facilities and order to them - it is on the shoulders of the already overburdened Park & Rec Dept. The Riverwalk Park in downtown is an example where broken lightposts are replaced with something out of character because they are handy. Vandalism is allowed to remain for far too long on signs, benches, and other amenities with no apparent effort toward swift removal. Take a look at the "park" next to Rte8 with basketball courts that are unusable +++
"I don't see any problems with what (the Conservation Commission) is concerned about," Papa said. Having the park in close proximity to the Recreation Path is a plus, he said.
+++ The sketch provided to the CC for commentary upon didn't even show the RecPath, which has been a long term goal for over 15years. There was no reference to the structures that exist in dilapidated condition and how they might be utilized or demolished. The screening of the urban elements of fences and such from the passive natural open space character was not looked at nor considered. In short, the plan I looked at during the review by CC was deficient +++
"This is not going to interfere with their trails, they are far enough away that the park won't infringe on their areas," he said. "People use both the park and the trails, and we thought this would be a happy park for both those who use the park and the trails."
+++ I'm an advocate of multi-use of the trails. I too believe that dog owners and trail users are compatible. We currently allow dogs (on leash) on all our Shelton trails, as opposed to Derby or Trumbull who do not. The question I have is why were the trails and RecPath location not even referenced or shown so that the integration with other site uses could happen in harmony. +++
Plans move forward for Shelton dog park
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 10/18/2009 07:31:29 PM EDT
SHELTON -- Plans for a new dog park are moving forward with approvals from one commission that will now hand it off to the Board of Aldermen.
The Parks and Recreation Commission Thursday approved both the location and design for the park. If approved by the aldermen, it will be constructed on Nells Rock Road and will include areas for both large and small dogs.
+++ The BOA should approve any use of City Property. The PZC will also need to review, and given access improvements onto Nells Rock Rd - I assume also the Engineering Dept. +++
"We looked at a lot of dog parks in a lot of towns and found that people do utilize them," said commission chairman John Papa, who also served on the Dog Park Committee.
+++ The Conservation Commission's Agent visited Ridgefield Dog Park, and Milford Dog Park. (see links for respective blog reports) +++
It's going to cost about $20,000 for the fencing, benches and parking area that will accommodate about 20 cars, he said. And that money is LOCIP-eligible, which is why the aldermen must approve the project, he said.
+++ The BOA must approve every trail project, even those don't involve costs of funding when simply done by volunteers. The BOA must approve a use of City real-property such as this, in addition to the fiscal approval +++
"This is a great opportunity for people who love their dogs to have a park to bring them to that won't cost a heck of a lot of money to do," Papa said.
The plans must first go to the aldermen's Finance Committee, which must approve it and send it to the full board, Papa said. "We're hoping to get it done in November or December," he said. "Before we did this we presented it to the mayor and he is in support of it."
Once approvals are in place, volunteers will begin clearing the area of dead trees and brush, Papa said.
+++ Because of impervious surfaces, grading issues, access onto City road, possible structure demo, etc: This will require review from Engineering Dept. Also the PZC will need to give a referral regarding the change of use from passive recreation to active recreation and the amenities, parking, etc. +++
The park will have two areas: one for small dogs and a larger area for larger dogs. There will be several benches placed along the perimeters, and "pooper scooper" bags will be provided, Papa said.
+++ See previous entry for Ridgefield as to the ideal way to run such a park from what we have seen locally. +++
The Conservation Commission, which manages the city-owned open space behind the park spot, had several concerns about the plans, but Papa said they are relatively minor and can be worked out.
Those concerns include the use and maintenance of buildings located on the property, the layout of the parking spaces and the screening of the park from the roadways.
"Dog parks that we have seen in other communities show that the facilities need to be very well maintained, for if they are not at the highest level they become an eyesore and a liability to the city and are not used by residents," Conservation Commission Tom Harbinson wrote to the Parks and Recreation Commission. "We feel that the city has not shown that the city can maintain a facility like this at this time." It ultimately will be the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the dog park, Papa said.
+++ Unless a space is "adopted" by an advocacy group such as trails volunteers to do maintenance and guided hikes, or a baseball league organization to maintain some facilities and order to them - it is on the shoulders of the already overburdened Park & Rec Dept. The Riverwalk Park in downtown is an example where broken lightposts are replaced with something out of character because they are handy. Vandalism is allowed to remain for far too long on signs, benches, and other amenities with no apparent effort toward swift removal. Take a look at the "park" next to Rte8 with basketball courts that are unusable +++
"I don't see any problems with what (the Conservation Commission) is concerned about," Papa said. Having the park in close proximity to the Recreation Path is a plus, he said.
+++ The sketch provided to the CC for commentary upon didn't even show the RecPath, which has been a long term goal for over 15years. There was no reference to the structures that exist in dilapidated condition and how they might be utilized or demolished. The screening of the urban elements of fences and such from the passive natural open space character was not looked at nor considered. In short, the plan I looked at during the review by CC was deficient +++
"This is not going to interfere with their trails, they are far enough away that the park won't infringe on their areas," he said. "People use both the park and the trails, and we thought this would be a happy park for both those who use the park and the trails."
+++ I'm an advocate of multi-use of the trails. I too believe that dog owners and trail users are compatible. We currently allow dogs (on leash) on all our Shelton trails, as opposed to Derby or Trumbull who do not. The question I have is why were the trails and RecPath location not even referenced or shown so that the integration with other site uses could happen in harmony. +++
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Eklund Garden used for unique purposes
Eklund Garden is located off Oak Valley Road near Nells Rock Road. It is a City-owned parcel of Preserved Open Space that is within the Shelton Lakes Greenway corridor. A portion of the parcel has gardens that were intended to illustrate the value of native species plantings for landscaping. Too often, invasive or foreign plants take over our landscapes, when there are native plants that can provide aesthetic needs.
Not to long into the concept of the Eklund Garden of native species, it was decided that it might also be a good study habitat regarding the destruction of the overabundant deer population. The entire perimeter was barriered with deer fence and entry/exit gates to create a study area unharmed by the hungry deer.
In addition, the garden is being visited by an autistic woman as the gardening (weeding) activity is very therapeutic.
The Valley Independent Sentinel had an article on this use.
http://valley.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/shelton_garden_model_for_autism_farm/
Not to long into the concept of the Eklund Garden of native species, it was decided that it might also be a good study habitat regarding the destruction of the overabundant deer population. The entire perimeter was barriered with deer fence and entry/exit gates to create a study area unharmed by the hungry deer.
In addition, the garden is being visited by an autistic woman as the gardening (weeding) activity is very therapeutic.
The Valley Independent Sentinel had an article on this use.
http://valley.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/shelton_garden_model_for_autism_farm/
Animal Shelter Site - CtPost
The CtPost had an article today (actually it will appear in ThuOct1 deadwood version) that relates to site evaluation by the Conservation Commission for an Animal Control Facility. There isn't much to comment on within the article, but I present it hear for posterity as the CtPost occassionaly deletes links.
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 aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_13453974
Site chosen for Shelton animal shelter
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 09/30/2009 05:05:52 PM EDT
SHELTON -- After years of wrangling, city officials appear to have settled on a spot for the city's new animal shelter - and it's only yards away from the existing one.
A building on Riverdale Avenue, known as the Pink Elephant, would be demolished to make way for the new shelter under the current proposal the Animal Shelter Building Committee is considering.
"We haven't decided upon it as much as the mayor has asked us to look at it," committee chairman, Tony Minopoli, said. "We are in the process of trying to verify if it will work."
For the past several years the committee has been designing the new shelter and looking for somewhere to put it. Originally they investigated the site next to the Pink Elephant building and had extensive environmental tests done there to make sure it is usable.
But then Mayor Mark A. Lauretti, who originally established the committee because he said the current shelter is woefully outdated, asked the committee to look into a city-owned site on Nells Rock Road where a proposed dog park is being considered.
But that suggestion drew criticism from both neighbors and members of the Conservation Commission, which maintains the open space there along the Shelton Greenway.
"No matter where around the city you suggest a site, there are people that will say I'm against it," said Board of Aldermen president John Anglace. The committee must get the board's approval on a site before going forward with construction of a new shelter. "It's the most difficult things to do -- to find a reasonable location for a new animal shelter," Anglace said. "[The Pink Elephant site] seems to make the most sense."
The committee is investigating constructing a 5,000 square-foot metal building on whatever site is chosen that will include 30 dog runs and an area for cat adoptions, Minopoli said. It also will have an adoption area where those interested in adopting can get to know their prospective pet.
"The basic tenants of the plan remain unchanged," he said. A metal building will be more economical, he said, and improvements in the building technology mean that it will be much more visually pleasing than such buildings have been in the past.
"The things you can do to the outside of these buildings are tremendous," he said. "We have designed it to make look like a New England-style barn with cupolas - it's going to be a very attractive building and the maintenance cost should be low."
More environmental testing will likely have to be done, Minopoli said, and the items in the building, which has been used for storage, will have to be relocated. "We likely would do more testing to be absolutely sure that there are no environmental problems," he said, and would have to investigate other utility issues before moving forward with the site.
"Nothing is firm yet but these are our thoughts and the direction we would like to see this project go," Anglace said. "I think it is a good direction to get this project moving."
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 aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_13453974
Site chosen for Shelton animal shelter
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 09/30/2009 05:05:52 PM EDT
SHELTON -- After years of wrangling, city officials appear to have settled on a spot for the city's new animal shelter - and it's only yards away from the existing one.
A building on Riverdale Avenue, known as the Pink Elephant, would be demolished to make way for the new shelter under the current proposal the Animal Shelter Building Committee is considering.
"We haven't decided upon it as much as the mayor has asked us to look at it," committee chairman, Tony Minopoli, said. "We are in the process of trying to verify if it will work."
For the past several years the committee has been designing the new shelter and looking for somewhere to put it. Originally they investigated the site next to the Pink Elephant building and had extensive environmental tests done there to make sure it is usable.
But then Mayor Mark A. Lauretti, who originally established the committee because he said the current shelter is woefully outdated, asked the committee to look into a city-owned site on Nells Rock Road where a proposed dog park is being considered.
But that suggestion drew criticism from both neighbors and members of the Conservation Commission, which maintains the open space there along the Shelton Greenway.
"No matter where around the city you suggest a site, there are people that will say I'm against it," said Board of Aldermen president John Anglace. The committee must get the board's approval on a site before going forward with construction of a new shelter. "It's the most difficult things to do -- to find a reasonable location for a new animal shelter," Anglace said. "[The Pink Elephant site] seems to make the most sense."
The committee is investigating constructing a 5,000 square-foot metal building on whatever site is chosen that will include 30 dog runs and an area for cat adoptions, Minopoli said. It also will have an adoption area where those interested in adopting can get to know their prospective pet.
"The basic tenants of the plan remain unchanged," he said. A metal building will be more economical, he said, and improvements in the building technology mean that it will be much more visually pleasing than such buildings have been in the past.
"The things you can do to the outside of these buildings are tremendous," he said. "We have designed it to make look like a New England-style barn with cupolas - it's going to be a very attractive building and the maintenance cost should be low."
More environmental testing will likely have to be done, Minopoli said, and the items in the building, which has been used for storage, will have to be relocated. "We likely would do more testing to be absolutely sure that there are no environmental problems," he said, and would have to investigate other utility issues before moving forward with the site.
"Nothing is firm yet but these are our thoughts and the direction we would like to see this project go," Anglace said. "I think it is a good direction to get this project moving."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Mayor asks PZC for 8-24: CtPost Sep10
I encourage readers to go to the CTPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_13303786
Lauretti, Democrats at odds over zoning panel rules
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 09/09/2009 11:38:16 PM EDT
SHELTON -- For the third time this year, the Planning and Zoning Commission has been asked to render an opinion on whether the city should sell several properties, and each time the answer has been different.
+++ Every request made for referral comments has it's own paramaters of what is being proposed that the requestor is seeking comment on. This is true of subdivision proposals/applications, and referrals under Ct Gen Statutes Sec 8-24.+++
The first time it debated the question of whether it would recommend selling a portion of the Soundview Avenue property the city bought last year for open space; the commission said yes.
The second time it came up, the commission reversed itself and said no.
+++The Mayor's office made a request for PZC comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave and this was addressed by PZC Mar10. The BOA followed City ordinance # 839 by preparing their packet describing the issue, and requested comment from the Park&Rec and ConsComm (both were unanimous to not sell the land in respect to the proposal defined in the BOA packet's request). The BOA then after receiving those responses moving further to request comment from the PZC on the same proposal CC and PRC had commented on (and the response to this request with its paramaters was unanimous to not sell the land) +++
On Tuesday, it once again looked favorably on the proposal. But some commissioners were angry that the issue even came up again.
+++ The Mayor's office asked the Chairman of the PZC for a referral/comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave, and this was addressed by PZC on Sep8 where the outcome was along party lines rendering a favorable opinion to sell. +++
"I'm fit to be tied," said commission member Chris Jones, who is running for mayor on the Democratic ticket. "This was totally done illegally in my eyes -- the whole vote was illegal."
+++ Though I understand his frustration, he is not correct in stating the vote was illegal. The Mayor can ask any commission at any time for advice on any subject. He is the Chief Elected Official and that is his right. +++
That's because the third request for the 8-24 referral, named for the state statute that requires it in the process to sell city-owned property, came not from the Board of Aldermen, but from Mayor Mark A. Lauretti.
"The chairman was instructed by the mayor to put it back on the agenda, and that is illegal," Jones said. "They didn't follow the ordinance, they are following the mayor."
+++ The Mayor has the right to request a referral and it is not illegal, but it is a different and separate request. I don't know what information was provided with the Mayor's request to the PZC, but from the P&Z Commissioner comments, there seemed to be maps that they didn't have before, so something different was provided them. Yes the Mayor contacted the PZC Chair to request/demand that his request be put on their agenda, and from the comments made by several commissioners, it seems to indicate that the Mayor had talked to them regarding this subject, or that he instructed the Chairman to talk to them regarding this subject. All those actions are not illegal, not inappropriate, and are moot because the Mayor's request and package of documents related to his request is a different subject and paramaters than the package of documents related to the BOA request that was the same as those sent previously to the ParkRec, ConsComm and PZC when they all three rendered unanimous decisions to not sell the City property. +++
Lauretti wants the city to carve out an acre of the 14-acre site to sell. He said that he has the authority to request 8-24 referrals, as well as the aldermen.
+++ The Mayor is correct. Unfortunately, his request is a different one than the process of commenting on the request made from the BOA where the information provided by them to the PRC, CC and PZC was from an identical package with no hint of apples vs oranges. +++
"This is a piece of property that we should sell," Lauretti said. "It has no economic impact on anyone or anything but the bottom line -- this is a business decision."
+++ That is not true, and is an offensive comment to me given the efforts made to follow a process that is defined for a purpose. There is more to the equation and "business decision" that the BOA will have to make than purely economics. The Park & Recreation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any recreational value of the community. The Conservation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any environmental value of the community. The Planning & Zoning Commission has given a referral as outlined by State Statute 8-24 from a overall planning perspective regarding the parcels value to the community's needs. +++
Jones is wrong about the whole issue, Lauretti said. "He doesn't know what he is talking about once again," he said. "He is uninformed and very deceptive."
+++ When it comes toward election time, there is a lot of mis-information to go around on all sides. +++
Jones and commission alternate Joseph Sedlock were the only commissioners who voted against recommending the sale. Sedlock was sitting in for Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who had to attend a wake Tuesday night. The three are the commission's only Democrats.
+++ Issues regarding property acquisition or disposition should not be politicized, but rather be based on the facts. That is why there is a process in place to ensure these subjects are dealt with transparently, rigorously, and promptly. The process is being corrupted. +++
http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_13303786
Lauretti, Democrats at odds over zoning panel rules
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 09/09/2009 11:38:16 PM EDT
SHELTON -- For the third time this year, the Planning and Zoning Commission has been asked to render an opinion on whether the city should sell several properties, and each time the answer has been different.
+++ Every request made for referral comments has it's own paramaters of what is being proposed that the requestor is seeking comment on. This is true of subdivision proposals/applications, and referrals under Ct Gen Statutes Sec 8-24.+++
The first time it debated the question of whether it would recommend selling a portion of the Soundview Avenue property the city bought last year for open space; the commission said yes.
The second time it came up, the commission reversed itself and said no.
+++The Mayor's office made a request for PZC comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave and this was addressed by PZC Mar10. The BOA followed City ordinance # 839 by preparing their packet describing the issue, and requested comment from the Park&Rec and ConsComm (both were unanimous to not sell the land in respect to the proposal defined in the BOA packet's request). The BOA then after receiving those responses moving further to request comment from the PZC on the same proposal CC and PRC had commented on (and the response to this request with its paramaters was unanimous to not sell the land) +++
On Tuesday, it once again looked favorably on the proposal. But some commissioners were angry that the issue even came up again.
+++ The Mayor's office asked the Chairman of the PZC for a referral/comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave, and this was addressed by PZC on Sep8 where the outcome was along party lines rendering a favorable opinion to sell. +++
"I'm fit to be tied," said commission member Chris Jones, who is running for mayor on the Democratic ticket. "This was totally done illegally in my eyes -- the whole vote was illegal."
+++ Though I understand his frustration, he is not correct in stating the vote was illegal. The Mayor can ask any commission at any time for advice on any subject. He is the Chief Elected Official and that is his right. +++
That's because the third request for the 8-24 referral, named for the state statute that requires it in the process to sell city-owned property, came not from the Board of Aldermen, but from Mayor Mark A. Lauretti.
"The chairman was instructed by the mayor to put it back on the agenda, and that is illegal," Jones said. "They didn't follow the ordinance, they are following the mayor."
+++ The Mayor has the right to request a referral and it is not illegal, but it is a different and separate request. I don't know what information was provided with the Mayor's request to the PZC, but from the P&Z Commissioner comments, there seemed to be maps that they didn't have before, so something different was provided them. Yes the Mayor contacted the PZC Chair to request/demand that his request be put on their agenda, and from the comments made by several commissioners, it seems to indicate that the Mayor had talked to them regarding this subject, or that he instructed the Chairman to talk to them regarding this subject. All those actions are not illegal, not inappropriate, and are moot because the Mayor's request and package of documents related to his request is a different subject and paramaters than the package of documents related to the BOA request that was the same as those sent previously to the ParkRec, ConsComm and PZC when they all three rendered unanimous decisions to not sell the City property. +++
Lauretti wants the city to carve out an acre of the 14-acre site to sell. He said that he has the authority to request 8-24 referrals, as well as the aldermen.
+++ The Mayor is correct. Unfortunately, his request is a different one than the process of commenting on the request made from the BOA where the information provided by them to the PRC, CC and PZC was from an identical package with no hint of apples vs oranges. +++
"This is a piece of property that we should sell," Lauretti said. "It has no economic impact on anyone or anything but the bottom line -- this is a business decision."
+++ That is not true, and is an offensive comment to me given the efforts made to follow a process that is defined for a purpose. There is more to the equation and "business decision" that the BOA will have to make than purely economics. The Park & Recreation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any recreational value of the community. The Conservation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any environmental value of the community. The Planning & Zoning Commission has given a referral as outlined by State Statute 8-24 from a overall planning perspective regarding the parcels value to the community's needs. +++
Jones is wrong about the whole issue, Lauretti said. "He doesn't know what he is talking about once again," he said. "He is uninformed and very deceptive."
+++ When it comes toward election time, there is a lot of mis-information to go around on all sides. +++
Jones and commission alternate Joseph Sedlock were the only commissioners who voted against recommending the sale. Sedlock was sitting in for Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who had to attend a wake Tuesday night. The three are the commission's only Democrats.
+++ Issues regarding property acquisition or disposition should not be politicized, but rather be based on the facts. That is why there is a process in place to ensure these subjects are dealt with transparently, rigorously, and promptly. The process is being corrupted. +++
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
PZC on 279 Soundview Sep8
Last night (Sep8) the PZC had on their agenda some 8-24 referral items regarding disposition of various City parcels, and I'll stick to the item 279 Soundview Ave item VI-C for purposes of my comment. I was curious why this was on the agenda, since I knew the issue had already been dealt with, so I attended the PZC mtg.
As a refresher:
The BOA should be familiar with the process of disposing of City property since they passed the ordinance at their recent mtg of 2009Feb11.
The Mayor asked PZC to render an 8-24 referral on the parcel and the PZC had it on their agenda for Mar10. The PZC had a majority vote say that it was appropriate to be sold. Although the Mayor stated that his office has the prerogative to ask for referrals at any time and for any reason, at the BOA mtg of 2009Mar12, the BOA stated that the Mayor hadn't followed the disposition of land process that is in place and they would correct that going forward. This is referencing the City of Shelton Ordinance #839 process.
Once they sorted this out at the BOA mtg of 2009Apr9, the BOA began following the defined process. At that time they asked the CC and PRC to give their opinions. At the CC mtg of 2009May6, the CC both visited the site and looked at the maps provided us by Asst Corporation Counsel Ray Sous, collectively as part of the request, and had a split vote over a recommendation. We decided to investigate the UConn Farmlink program further as it may apply to this parcel, and informed the BOA of such action. At the CC mtg of 2009Jun3 the CC had further data regarding the program and to summarize: under the conditions presented, recommended not selling with the resulting letter that was sent to the BOA on Jun10.
At the Jul9 BOA mtg, (pg15) the BOA recognized the CC and PRC response (both unanimous not to sell) and voted to take the next step of requesting PZC comment under CGS Sec 8-24 regarding the City disposing of the parcel. At the Aug11 PZC mtg (pg26) the PZC evaluated and responded unanimously not to dispose of the parcel. A letter was written and communicated to the BOA promptly for their consideration at the upcoming Aug13 BOA mtg. The BOA on Aug13 was flummoxed by the unanimous PZC negative response and wanted to take time to read the minutes (which weren't available being that the PZC mtg was held 2 days previous) to understand more fully how the PZC decision was arrived at.
The BOA could have proceeded immediately on Aug13 under the process toward sale by attempting a 2/3 majority vote in order to over-ride the PZC referral opinion on the planning perspective, and gone on further by obtaining an appraisal. They chose to wait and read the minutes when they became available, which brings us to last night.
The PZC Chairman stated during the meeting that the Mayor contacted him to have the issue put back on the agenda, and it seemed obvious that the Mayor had communicated to several members that they should reconsider their previously rendered opinion. It was stated by P&Z Commissioners that they didn't have maps and all the data available to them at their Aug meeting. If that was the case then they should have tabled the issue, but I would be surprised if that statement was correct as the PZC minutes indicate a packet was distributed and the CC had all data including maps available to it back in May when it visited the site. Outside of my passion of this being a CC subject, I was curious and did some research on whether last nights PZC action was even appropriate.
The PZC operates under Roberts Rules of Order. A motion was made at the Aug11 PZC mtg and the action (sending the opinion letter to the BOA) was accomplished.
If there is ever a question about an action during a meeting, a body may take up a "motion to reconsider". That doesn't apply as the decision was made in a previous session that is closed.
Article VI, Sec. 36. Reconsider.1 This motion is peculiar in that the making of the motion has a higher rank than its consideration, and for a certain time prevents anything being done as the result of the vote it is proposed to reconsider. It can be made only on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day, a legal holiday or a recess not being counted as a day. It must be made by one who voted with the prevailing side. Any member may second it. It can be made while any other question is pending, even if another member has the floor, or after it has been voted to adjourn, provided the chair has not declared the assembly adjourned. It may be made after the previous question has been ordered, in which case it and the motion to be reconsidered are undebatable.
If the session in which a motion is made has closed, and the body wanted to change it's mind, the appropriate direction would be to have a "motion to rescind". Rick had already taken action by delivering a letter to the BOA stating the PZC decision on the 8-24 referral. Such action could be "undone" since the BOA took no action after receiving the PZC letter, and thus there was left open a possibility that a "motion to rescind" would be capable - but that wasn't the way the PZC handled it - they simply voted on an 8-24 referral issue and put themselves in the position of again flip-flopping in what is the 3rd time of stating an opinion on the same issue.
Article VI, 37. Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Any vote taken by an assembly, except those mentioned further on, may be rescinded by a majority vote, provided notice of the motion has been given at the previous meeting or in the call for this meeting; or it may be rescinded without notice by a two-thirds vote, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The notice may be given when another question is pending, but cannot interrupt a member while speaking. To rescind is identical with the motion to amend something previously adopted, by striking out the entire by-law, rule, resolution, section, or paragraph, and is subject to all the limitations as to notice and vote that may be placed by the rules on similar amendments. It is a main motion without any privilege, and therefore can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the assembly. It cannot be made if the question can be reached by calling up the motion to reconsider which has been previously made. It may be made by any member; it is debatable, and yields to all privileged and incidental motions; and all of the subsidiary motions may be applied to it. The motion to rescind can be applied to votes on all main motions, including questions of privilege and orders of the day that have been acted upon, and to votes on an appeal, with the following exceptions: votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo; or where it is in the nature of a contract and the other party is informed of the fact; or, where a resignation has been acted upon, or one has been elected to, or expelled from, membership or office, and was present or has been officially notified. In the case of expulsion, the only way to reverse the action afterwards is to restore the person to membership or office, which requires the same preliminary steps and vote as is required for an election.
===========SUMMARY ============
The #1 Public Official told the Chair of the PZC to have items placed on the agenda, and contacted P&Z commissioners to convince them to vote a certain way. The Chair did what the Mayor told him to do (the PZC took an item on it's agenda that had already been decided upon) and the commissioners contacted voted the way they were told (rendering an opposite decision on the same question upon which it had already issued a letter just one month previous). They should have instead "rescinded" their previous opinion and amended it to state a new opinion. End result is the same outcome, and some will say it's semantics, but rules of process are there for a reason.
As a refresher:
The BOA should be familiar with the process of disposing of City property since they passed the ordinance at their recent mtg of 2009Feb11.
The Mayor asked PZC to render an 8-24 referral on the parcel and the PZC had it on their agenda for Mar10. The PZC had a majority vote say that it was appropriate to be sold. Although the Mayor stated that his office has the prerogative to ask for referrals at any time and for any reason, at the BOA mtg of 2009Mar12, the BOA stated that the Mayor hadn't followed the disposition of land process that is in place and they would correct that going forward. This is referencing the City of Shelton Ordinance #839 process.
Once they sorted this out at the BOA mtg of 2009Apr9, the BOA began following the defined process. At that time they asked the CC and PRC to give their opinions. At the CC mtg of 2009May6, the CC both visited the site and looked at the maps provided us by Asst Corporation Counsel Ray Sous, collectively as part of the request, and had a split vote over a recommendation. We decided to investigate the UConn Farmlink program further as it may apply to this parcel, and informed the BOA of such action. At the CC mtg of 2009Jun3 the CC had further data regarding the program and to summarize: under the conditions presented, recommended not selling with the resulting letter that was sent to the BOA on Jun10.
At the Jul9 BOA mtg, (pg15) the BOA recognized the CC and PRC response (both unanimous not to sell) and voted to take the next step of requesting PZC comment under CGS Sec 8-24 regarding the City disposing of the parcel. At the Aug11 PZC mtg (pg26) the PZC evaluated and responded unanimously not to dispose of the parcel. A letter was written and communicated to the BOA promptly for their consideration at the upcoming Aug13 BOA mtg. The BOA on Aug13 was flummoxed by the unanimous PZC negative response and wanted to take time to read the minutes (which weren't available being that the PZC mtg was held 2 days previous) to understand more fully how the PZC decision was arrived at.
The BOA could have proceeded immediately on Aug13 under the process toward sale by attempting a 2/3 majority vote in order to over-ride the PZC referral opinion on the planning perspective, and gone on further by obtaining an appraisal. They chose to wait and read the minutes when they became available, which brings us to last night.
The PZC Chairman stated during the meeting that the Mayor contacted him to have the issue put back on the agenda, and it seemed obvious that the Mayor had communicated to several members that they should reconsider their previously rendered opinion. It was stated by P&Z Commissioners that they didn't have maps and all the data available to them at their Aug meeting. If that was the case then they should have tabled the issue, but I would be surprised if that statement was correct as the PZC minutes indicate a packet was distributed and the CC had all data including maps available to it back in May when it visited the site. Outside of my passion of this being a CC subject, I was curious and did some research on whether last nights PZC action was even appropriate.
The PZC operates under Roberts Rules of Order. A motion was made at the Aug11 PZC mtg and the action (sending the opinion letter to the BOA) was accomplished.
If there is ever a question about an action during a meeting, a body may take up a "motion to reconsider". That doesn't apply as the decision was made in a previous session that is closed.
Article VI, Sec. 36. Reconsider.1 This motion is peculiar in that the making of the motion has a higher rank than its consideration, and for a certain time prevents anything being done as the result of the vote it is proposed to reconsider. It can be made only on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day, a legal holiday or a recess not being counted as a day. It must be made by one who voted with the prevailing side. Any member may second it. It can be made while any other question is pending, even if another member has the floor, or after it has been voted to adjourn, provided the chair has not declared the assembly adjourned. It may be made after the previous question has been ordered, in which case it and the motion to be reconsidered are undebatable.
If the session in which a motion is made has closed, and the body wanted to change it's mind, the appropriate direction would be to have a "motion to rescind". Rick had already taken action by delivering a letter to the BOA stating the PZC decision on the 8-24 referral. Such action could be "undone" since the BOA took no action after receiving the PZC letter, and thus there was left open a possibility that a "motion to rescind" would be capable - but that wasn't the way the PZC handled it - they simply voted on an 8-24 referral issue and put themselves in the position of again flip-flopping in what is the 3rd time of stating an opinion on the same issue.
Article VI, 37. Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Any vote taken by an assembly, except those mentioned further on, may be rescinded by a majority vote, provided notice of the motion has been given at the previous meeting or in the call for this meeting; or it may be rescinded without notice by a two-thirds vote, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The notice may be given when another question is pending, but cannot interrupt a member while speaking. To rescind is identical with the motion to amend something previously adopted, by striking out the entire by-law, rule, resolution, section, or paragraph, and is subject to all the limitations as to notice and vote that may be placed by the rules on similar amendments. It is a main motion without any privilege, and therefore can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the assembly. It cannot be made if the question can be reached by calling up the motion to reconsider which has been previously made. It may be made by any member; it is debatable, and yields to all privileged and incidental motions; and all of the subsidiary motions may be applied to it. The motion to rescind can be applied to votes on all main motions, including questions of privilege and orders of the day that have been acted upon, and to votes on an appeal, with the following exceptions: votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo; or where it is in the nature of a contract and the other party is informed of the fact; or, where a resignation has been acted upon, or one has been elected to, or expelled from, membership or office, and was present or has been officially notified. In the case of expulsion, the only way to reverse the action afterwards is to restore the person to membership or office, which requires the same preliminary steps and vote as is required for an election.
===========SUMMARY ============
The #1 Public Official told the Chair of the PZC to have items placed on the agenda, and contacted P&Z commissioners to convince them to vote a certain way. The Chair did what the Mayor told him to do (the PZC took an item on it's agenda that had already been decided upon) and the commissioners contacted voted the way they were told (rendering an opposite decision on the same question upon which it had already issued a letter just one month previous). They should have instead "rescinded" their previous opinion and amended it to state a new opinion. End result is the same outcome, and some will say it's semantics, but rules of process are there for a reason.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Letter to Editor - HuntHrld
On WedAug12 there were opinion letters to the editor in the Huntington Herald from BOA President John Anglace, and Citizens United Chairman Chris Panek. The following is my response submitted for their publishing:
** On FriAug14 I was asked to revise my letter to be >500 word limit of the Huntington Herald. The revision caused a slightly different version to be submitted and hopefully printed next week. I offer the trimmed version at the end of this entry. **
Editor,
As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I hope to offer some clarity on the issue of Shelton selling real-property (real-estate) which was commented on in recent letters to the editor by John Anglace and Chris Panek.
The City acquires real-property for basically two government purposes. Either to provide for City needs toward infrastructure (schools, firehouse, roads, etc) or preserving community quality of life (open space, woodland forests, agricultural soil lands, fields for recreation, etc). At times the City can suffice without buying the land as a whole ("in-fee") by stretching taxpayer dollars to buy only partial ownerhips for "rights" such as an easement to utilize the property (ie: sewer or water line), or protect the property (purchase of development rights on farm and forest lands).
No matter the reason for acquisition of either easment or full ownership rights, a fair amount of thought goes into the decision process before action is taken. Likewise, if such ownership of land is sought to be disposed of or sold, there is a thoughtful process in place to make such decision. In Shelton, that is spelled out in Ordinance #832, which was recently reviewed and unanimously adopted on 2009/Feb/11.
Through its own volition or via a request received, the Board of Alderman (the City's fiscal authority) may wish to consider selling City owned real-property. If the property is signficant (having fair market value over $10k) and the BOA decides it has an interest in selling, they move into this defined process. The BOA requests commentary from the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission who respectively offer input on the environmental and recreational value of the property to the City and a recomendation. The BOA considers this information provided to determine if they wish to proceed, and if so, they request comment from the Planning & Zoning Commission as a formal "8-24" referral to receive their recomendation from a planning perspective.
The process continues further, but it is to that point that we have reached. The City (Mayor's office) received a request(s) and/or decided to sell five parcels of City land, and began asking for input from City agencies. The PZC responded to the Mayor's request, however the BOA halted that endeavor by bringing attention to and beginning the ordinance defined process with requesting of input from the PRC and CC. As this applies for 2 of the 5 parcels discussed in the letter to the editors (279 Soundview Avenue, 58 Perry Hill Road), the PRC and CC both returned unanimous negative comments toward a sale. The BOA then determined that they still wished to proceed and requested a referral from the PZC. Subsequent to publishing of the letters to the editor, the PZC on TueAug11 also returned a unanimous unfavorable referral toward a sale for both parcels. At this juncture, if the BOA wishes to proceed they must over-ride the PZC unfavorable referral by a 2/3 vote (super majority) to have the property appraised for valuation, and schedule a public hearing. On ThuAug13 the BOA decided to instead defer that decision until it had seen the minutes of the PZC meeting so that they could more fully understand how they arrived at their unanimous unfavorable opinion toward a sale.
I have served on the Conservation Commission for over 10 years, during which time the public has strongly supported open space acquisition, enjoying the passive recreation uses upon them and the ambience they provide to our education campuses and community at large. While I hope that unfavorable opinion from the CC, PRC, and PZC regarding selling property (some of which was just purchased last year) would collectively persuade the BOA that disposal at this time is ill-advised, I am confident that an educated public will make their desires known to the Aldermen if they continue to pursue the disposal process to the next step of obtaining an appraisal and scheduling a public hearing. Too further that education beyond what can be written in a letter to the editor, I invite readers to review further info on such issues via the blog I have maintained since 2006. http://www.sheltoncc.blogspot.com/
Tom Harbinson - ChairmanShelton Conservation Commission
submitted Aug14 10:20am
** Trimmed version below as requested by the newspaper to meet 500 word count limit ***
As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I offer some clarity regarding Shelton selling real-estate which was commented on via recent letters to the editor by John Anglace and Chris Panek.
Shelton acquires property for basically two government purposes: provide for infrastructure needs (schools, firehouse, roads, etc) or preserving quality of life (open space, forests, agricultural lands, recreation fields, etc). The City might suffice without buying the land as a whole ("in-fee") by stretching taxpayer dollars to buy only partial ownerships ("rights") such as an easement to utilize the property (ie: sewer or water line), or protect the property (purchase of development rights on farm lands).
No matter the reason for acquisition of either easement or full ownership, a fair amount of thought goes into the decision process before action is taken. Likewise, if such ownership is sought to be disposed of or sold, there is a thoughtful process in place to make such decision that is spelled out in Ordinance #832, which was recently revised and adopted on 2009/Feb/11.
The Mayor's office received a request(s) and/or decided to sell five parcels of City land, and began asking for input from City agencies. The PZC responded to the Mayor's request, however the BOA halted that endeavor, brought attention to and started the ordinance defined process by requesting input from the PRC and CC. As this applies for 2 of the 5 parcels discussed in the editorials (279 Soundview Avenue, 58 Perry Hill Road), the PRC and CC both returned unanimous negative comments toward a sale. The BOA then determined that they still wished to proceed and requested a referral from the PZC. Subsequent to publishing of the letters in the paper, the PZC on TueAug11 also returned a unanimous unfavorable referral toward a sale for both parcels. On ThuAug13 the BOA decided to defer anymore decision until it had seen the minutes of the PZC meeting so that they could more fully understand how they arrived at their unanimous unfavorable opinion toward a sale.
I’ve served on the CC for over 10 years, during which time the public has strongly supported open space acquisition, enjoying the passive recreation uses upon them and the ambience they provide to our education campuses and community at large. While I hope that unfavorable opinions from the CC, PRC, and PZC regarding selling property (some of which was just purchased last year) would collectively persuade the BOA that disposal at this time is ill-advised, I am confident that an educated public will make their desires known to the BOA if they continue to pursue the disposal process to the next step of scheduling a public hearing. In order to further that education beyond what can be written in a letter to the editor (and even this letter was revised under request to fit within the newspaper’s word count limit), I invite readers to review further info on such issues via the blog I have maintained since 2006. www.sheltoncc.blogspot.com
** On FriAug14 I was asked to revise my letter to be >500 word limit of the Huntington Herald. The revision caused a slightly different version to be submitted and hopefully printed next week. I offer the trimmed version at the end of this entry. **
Editor,
As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I hope to offer some clarity on the issue of Shelton selling real-property (real-estate) which was commented on in recent letters to the editor by John Anglace and Chris Panek.
The City acquires real-property for basically two government purposes. Either to provide for City needs toward infrastructure (schools, firehouse, roads, etc) or preserving community quality of life (open space, woodland forests, agricultural soil lands, fields for recreation, etc). At times the City can suffice without buying the land as a whole ("in-fee") by stretching taxpayer dollars to buy only partial ownerhips for "rights" such as an easement to utilize the property (ie: sewer or water line), or protect the property (purchase of development rights on farm and forest lands).
No matter the reason for acquisition of either easment or full ownership rights, a fair amount of thought goes into the decision process before action is taken. Likewise, if such ownership of land is sought to be disposed of or sold, there is a thoughtful process in place to make such decision. In Shelton, that is spelled out in Ordinance #832, which was recently reviewed and unanimously adopted on 2009/Feb/11.
Through its own volition or via a request received, the Board of Alderman (the City's fiscal authority) may wish to consider selling City owned real-property. If the property is signficant (having fair market value over $10k) and the BOA decides it has an interest in selling, they move into this defined process. The BOA requests commentary from the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission who respectively offer input on the environmental and recreational value of the property to the City and a recomendation. The BOA considers this information provided to determine if they wish to proceed, and if so, they request comment from the Planning & Zoning Commission as a formal "8-24" referral to receive their recomendation from a planning perspective.
The process continues further, but it is to that point that we have reached. The City (Mayor's office) received a request(s) and/or decided to sell five parcels of City land, and began asking for input from City agencies. The PZC responded to the Mayor's request, however the BOA halted that endeavor by bringing attention to and beginning the ordinance defined process with requesting of input from the PRC and CC. As this applies for 2 of the 5 parcels discussed in the letter to the editors (279 Soundview Avenue, 58 Perry Hill Road), the PRC and CC both returned unanimous negative comments toward a sale. The BOA then determined that they still wished to proceed and requested a referral from the PZC. Subsequent to publishing of the letters to the editor, the PZC on TueAug11 also returned a unanimous unfavorable referral toward a sale for both parcels. At this juncture, if the BOA wishes to proceed they must over-ride the PZC unfavorable referral by a 2/3 vote (super majority) to have the property appraised for valuation, and schedule a public hearing. On ThuAug13 the BOA decided to instead defer that decision until it had seen the minutes of the PZC meeting so that they could more fully understand how they arrived at their unanimous unfavorable opinion toward a sale.
I have served on the Conservation Commission for over 10 years, during which time the public has strongly supported open space acquisition, enjoying the passive recreation uses upon them and the ambience they provide to our education campuses and community at large. While I hope that unfavorable opinion from the CC, PRC, and PZC regarding selling property (some of which was just purchased last year) would collectively persuade the BOA that disposal at this time is ill-advised, I am confident that an educated public will make their desires known to the Aldermen if they continue to pursue the disposal process to the next step of obtaining an appraisal and scheduling a public hearing. Too further that education beyond what can be written in a letter to the editor, I invite readers to review further info on such issues via the blog I have maintained since 2006. http://www.sheltoncc.blogspot.com/
Tom Harbinson - ChairmanShelton Conservation Commission
submitted Aug14 10:20am
** Trimmed version below as requested by the newspaper to meet 500 word count limit ***
As Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I offer some clarity regarding Shelton selling real-estate which was commented on via recent letters to the editor by John Anglace and Chris Panek.
Shelton acquires property for basically two government purposes: provide for infrastructure needs (schools, firehouse, roads, etc) or preserving quality of life (open space, forests, agricultural lands, recreation fields, etc). The City might suffice without buying the land as a whole ("in-fee") by stretching taxpayer dollars to buy only partial ownerships ("rights") such as an easement to utilize the property (ie: sewer or water line), or protect the property (purchase of development rights on farm lands).
No matter the reason for acquisition of either easement or full ownership, a fair amount of thought goes into the decision process before action is taken. Likewise, if such ownership is sought to be disposed of or sold, there is a thoughtful process in place to make such decision that is spelled out in Ordinance #832, which was recently revised and adopted on 2009/Feb/11.
The Mayor's office received a request(s) and/or decided to sell five parcels of City land, and began asking for input from City agencies. The PZC responded to the Mayor's request, however the BOA halted that endeavor, brought attention to and started the ordinance defined process by requesting input from the PRC and CC. As this applies for 2 of the 5 parcels discussed in the editorials (279 Soundview Avenue, 58 Perry Hill Road), the PRC and CC both returned unanimous negative comments toward a sale. The BOA then determined that they still wished to proceed and requested a referral from the PZC. Subsequent to publishing of the letters in the paper, the PZC on TueAug11 also returned a unanimous unfavorable referral toward a sale for both parcels. On ThuAug13 the BOA decided to defer anymore decision until it had seen the minutes of the PZC meeting so that they could more fully understand how they arrived at their unanimous unfavorable opinion toward a sale.
I’ve served on the CC for over 10 years, during which time the public has strongly supported open space acquisition, enjoying the passive recreation uses upon them and the ambience they provide to our education campuses and community at large. While I hope that unfavorable opinions from the CC, PRC, and PZC regarding selling property (some of which was just purchased last year) would collectively persuade the BOA that disposal at this time is ill-advised, I am confident that an educated public will make their desires known to the BOA if they continue to pursue the disposal process to the next step of scheduling a public hearing. In order to further that education beyond what can be written in a letter to the editor (and even this letter was revised under request to fit within the newspaper’s word count limit), I invite readers to review further info on such issues via the blog I have maintained since 2006. www.sheltoncc.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
