Budget Negotiations Break Down as Republican |
HARTFORD – Senate Republican Leader John McKinney (R-Fairfield) and House Republican Leader Lawrence F. Cafero, Jr. (R-Norwalk) today announced that legislative Republicans will not participate in future negotiations to close the FY11 budget deficit. During a Friday night meeting with Governor M. Jodi Rell and Democratic legislative leaders, the Republican leaders were presented with two proposals to close the FY11 deficit, neither of which incorporated any of the cost saving measures included in the Republican plan offered on April 15. "I’m afraid that the news of some extra revenue has given license to the people in charge of our state to forego any effort to rein in out of control spending and make the structural reforms our government desperately needs," said Senator McKinney, referring to the recent news that state tax revenues are up $400 million over previous estimates. "Republican legislators have long viewed this fiscal crisis as a wake-up call and an opportunity to make long-term structural changes to reduce the size and cost of our state government. Neither of the proposals we have been presented with accomplish those goals." "It is unfortunate that we have been forced to abandon negotiations with the Democrats and Governor Rell on the budget. But there was no possibility to even discuss any of the myriad of options we have put forth: agency consolidations, voluntary retirement, a smaller government that we can afford, structural changes in the way we do business as a state – changes that could save hundreds of millions of dollars," said Representative Cafero. "The big losers are state taxpayers, I’m not sure there were any winners.’’ Legislative Republicans put forth a balanced budget proposal on April 15th that achieved $736 million in savings. Highlights of the proposal include: The hallmarks of the savings:
The budget also makes significant investments in job creation and retirement security:
Senator McKinney said he was hopeful that public pressure would persuade state leaders to change their course and reengage in negotiations that involved real structural changes to government. He warned, however, that even if the final product put forward by Democrats does not include tax increases, it can not necessarily be championed as a victory. "We need to remember that we are making adjustments to a budget that already raised taxes $1.2 billion on Connecticut families and businesses," he said. "The proposals we have seen make no effort to reduce those massive tax increases." Office of Fiscal Analysis ... http://www.cga.ct.gov/ofa/ |
Thursday, September 30, 2010
CONNECTICUT BUDGET DEFICIT ... AND THE PROCESSES ...
PITY THE FOOL THAT CAN'T READ THE 'TEA LEAVES' ...
According to census data, personal and corporate income tax revenues are down $13.9 billion and $4 billion from 2006 levels, respectively. Of the 43 states that tax personal income, 29 experienced revenue declines from last year, while 28 of the 46 states that tax corporate income experienced declines.
The income tax losses have been partially offset by gains in other areas, particularly property taxes, which are up $16.5 billion from 2006. Tobacco and alcohol taxes and motor vehicle and licensing fees are all up significantly from 2006 levels.
However, states face an estimated $115 billion budget gap over the next two years, according to a recent report issued by the National Association of State Budget Officers, largely because many states built budgets around anticipated income tax revenues.
With the potential for deep municipal aid cuts looming less than 10 months away, Connecticut municipalities' longstanding cry for a new alternative to the property tax could be answered next year at the Capitol.
All three of the gubernatorial candidates support giving communities new revenue-raising options. And legislators did important prep work last spring when they created incentives to encourage cities, suburbs and rural communities jointly plan their economic futures.
"We sometimes forget that the crisis before the state budget crisis was the property tax," Rep. J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, said Tuesday. "We need to see the whole picture and come up with good public policy alternatives and I think there is a growing sentiment that now is the time to make some important changes."
One of the "changes" that likely won't occur next year, Sharkey said, is any dramatic reduction in communities' reliance on a property tax that - according to the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities - provides 68 percent of the annual revenue for the average municipal budget in this state.
THAT MEANS 32% OF THE MUNICIPALITIES BUDGET IS DEPENDENT ON THE REVENUE SHARING FROM THE STATE.
That's not because legislators' don't recognize the burden, he said. But with nonpartisan legislative analysts projecting a $3.4 billion deficit built into the 2011-12 budget, an amount equal to 18 percent of current spending, tough choices will be needed just to help communities avoid major tax hikes.
But if state and local governments take steps now to diversify the municipal revenue stream, communities will have a more stable fiscal base as they recover in the coming years, he said.
Sharkey, who co-chairs the legislature's Planning and Development Committee and spearheaded a 2009 task force charged with finding ways to help communities control rising property taxes through regional cooperation, was careful not to endorse any one solution.
The legislature's Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee endorsed a bill last year to increase the state's hotel tax and share of portion of that revenue with communities based upon the amount of hotel commerce conducted within it. Sales, income and utility taxes also have been mentioned by different legislators as possible vehicles for revenue-sharing programs.
Former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee and a longtime advocate for municipal revenue diversity, has said repeatedly on the campaign trail that the property tax is the most regressive levy in Connecticut, falling particularly hard on middle-income households.
Malloy said the key to any revenue-sharing option is not to create system that pits one community or one region against another. "We don't want to create additional incentives to strip mall the rest of Connecticut's highways and byways," he said.
Greenwich businessman Tom Foley, the GOP nominee for governor, insists he can close the state's budget shortfall without tax hikes, a charge Malloy disputes.
But Foley said rather than sharing new portions of state tax revenues with communities, he would give cities and towns the option of levying new types of taxes. "Why are we telling cities and towns to limit their revenues to the property tax?" Foley said, agreeing that it is a regressive levy. "I think that state government has no business telling towns how to run themselves, and that includes how to raise revenues."
Foley did not propose any specific new taxes he would allow communities to levy.
Under current law, cities and towns can tax real and personal property taxes and real estate transactions, though the latter is a relatively small portion of the municipal revenue stream.
Regardless of which new revenue options might be provided, communities will be expected in a tough economy to demonstrate a willingness to stretch those dollars, Sharkey said, adding that the legislature and Gov. M. Jodi Rell took a big step this year to encourage that.
They enacted a new law that allows communities to form regional economic development districts that would then become eligible to apply for state and federal development funds
If communities are going to receive a new share of state revenues, they likely will be asked to complement that with new, regional cost-saving programs, Sharkey said, adding these could involve joint purchasing of equipment or services or other cooperative ventures.
A natural role for these new regional economic development districts would be to distribute revenues shared by the state and oversee regional efficiency programs, Sharkey said.
Democrats, who currently hold large majorities in both the state House and Senate, generally have been receptive to new municipal revenue options, though they generally have been opposed both by Rell and by her predecessor and fellow Republican, John G. Rowland.
Rep. Vincent J. Candelora of North Branford, ranking House Republican on the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, said Tuesday that he believes GOP lawmakers are more wary about how revenues might be distributed than they are about the concept of revenue-sharing itself.
"The cities do hold considerable influence among the Democrats," Candelora said. "Fairness of any system has always been a concern."
A similar warning was raised earlier this year by Chester First Selectman Tom Marsh, a third-party candidate for governor.
Marsh said he also favors giving cities and towns a new slice of state revenue streams but worries that any regional distribution system would be biased in favor of Democrat-dominated cities.
But James Finley, executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said that while mandatory regional government "is counter to the political culture when you look at the history of Connecticut. I don't think voluntary regional cooperation is a lost cause."
Finley noted that the Capitol Region Council of Governments, a 29-community, regional entity centered on Hartford, has a strong track record of cooperation that dates back more than two decades.
In recent years the council oversaw development of a regional database linking all municipal police departments and currently is preparing a new computer network to help developers navigate the numerous land use boards that operate within the 29 member cities and towns.
"When you put money behind the notion of regionalism," Sharkey added, "people want to come to the table."
Can Local Taxing Authority Work In Connecticut?
What works in other states may not work successfully in Connecticut. We're a small state, divided 169 ways. Other states are geographically larger, have unincorporated areas that get few services, and have county governments. One concern about granting municipalities the power to levy additional taxes is that municipalities that are poorer and have higher property tax rates will most likely be the ones that choose to levy additional taxes. In a small state like ours that might make the poorer/high tax communities even less competitive over time when it comes to attracting business investment, homeowners, etc. That would be counterproductive. But inadequate state funding of non-education municipal aid is pushing more and more communities – particularly Connecticut's most distressed municipalities -- to look at local option taxes because of their desperate need for non-property tax revenues.
Local Option Taxes
Local-option taxation allows citizens of the municipality to decide what mix of taxes works best for their community.
As proposed in the bill before you today, municipalities would be allowed to levy local-option taxes on sales, food/beverages and lodging as a way to take pressure off of property taxes. For example, locally levied sales taxes and hotel occupancy taxes would be able to be considered in municipalities where those industries are strong.
If every municipality were to enact a 1% sales tax – a highly unlikely event -- it would increase local revenue by $500 - $550 million. Is there any other proposal out there that would deliver so much to relieve property tax pressures and continue local services?
CCM estimates that a 1% tax on food and beverages would raise about $42 million statewide, while a 3% lodging tax would raise in the neighborhood of $15-20 million.
PILOT payments to municipalities for non-profit colleges and hospitals have fallen behind. Before budget cuts in 2003, municipalities were reimbursed for 73% of property mandated to be tax-exempt by the state…but just 54% now. Pequot-Mohegan grants, which also contain a PILOT factor in their distribution formula provided $135 million before 2003 cuts, just $62 million now. A local-option hospital-bed tax would be a way, at no-cost to the State, to allow hard-pressed municipalities to recoup some of the revenue lost due to the state-mandated property tax exemptions and falling reimbursements.
WATCHDOG ...
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN CITIZENS DON'T GET INVOLVED IN GOVERNMENT!
As former City Manager Robert Rizzo, Mayor Oscar Hernandez and the others were rounded up during Tuesday morning raids on their homes, residents across the city honked their car horns, burst into cheers and staged impromptu celebrations.
The eight were scheduled to be arraigned in court Wednesday on charges of misappropriating more than $5.5 million in public funds.
"They used the tax dollars collected from the hardworking citizens of Bell as their own piggy bank, which they then looted at will," District Attorney Steve Cooley told a news conference in Los Angeles soon after all eight were taken from their homes in handcuffs.
At City Hall in Bell, where one in six residents lives in poverty, people gathered to laugh and applaud as someone played the Queen song "Another One Bites the Dust."
"I got so excited that, oh my God, I couldn't breathe," said Violeta Alvarez, who has lived in Bell for 31 years. "I'm excited. I'm happy. I have tears of joy in my eyes."
Rizzo, who was making nearly $800,000 a year, was booked on 53 counts of misappropriation of public funds and conflict of interest. Messages left at his home and with his attorney were not returned.
Others taken into custody were former assistant city manager Angela Spaccia, Vice Mayor Teresa Jacobo, council members George Mirabal and Luis Artiga and former council members Victor Bello and George Cole.
"I seen them take out Mirabal in handcuffs," longtime resident Hassan Mourad said after the arrests. "I seen them drag him out."
At the mayor's house, police briefly used a battering ram when Hernandez didn't immediately come to the door.
Spaccia was making $376,288, and four of the five current City Council members were paying themselves nearly $100,000 a year.
Authorities said Rizzo made $4.3 million by paying himself through different employment contracts that were not approved by the City Council. Meanwhile, council members paid themselves a combined $1.25 million for what Cooley called "phantom meetings" of various city boards and agencies.
Rizzo also was accused of giving $1.9 million in loans to himself, Spaccia, Hernandez, Artiga and dozens of others.
Rizzo, Spaccia and former Police Chief Randy Adams, who was making $457,000 a year, resigned and the council members reduced their salaries to about $8,000 following the disclosures. Adams was not arrested.
Cooley said there was no evidence the former police chief illegally obtained his $457,000 salary. The figure was $150,000 more than the Los Angeles chief of police gets paid.
"Being paid excessive salaries is not a crime," Cooley said. "Illegally obtaining those salaries is a crime."
Cooley said his investigators have pored over more than 60,000 pages of documents and more people could be arrested.
His office began investigating last March, four months before the Los Angeles Times reported the salaries, which brought national attention to the small city of 40,000 people.
Cooley praised the Times, saying the scandal occurred in part because residents and much of the news media paid little attention to what was happening at Bell City Hall until the story broke.
Since the scandal broke, public officials, city managers and others have said the situation in Bell showed why people must insist that elected officials communicate honestly and openly with them.
"One of the problems that was obvious with Bell was the lack of transparency and the lack of involvement on the part of the public," Dave Mora, West Coast regional director of the International City/County Management Association, said recently.
Bell's interim chief administrative officer Pedro Carrillo said the arrests marked a sad day for the city.
"It is clear that Rizzo and Spaccia were at the root of the cancer that has afflicted the city," he said.
Interim City Attorney Jamie Casso said he expected Bell could carry on business as usual, adding that Carrillo and Lorenzo Velez — the one council member who wasn't arrested — were meeting regularly. Velez was not taking a high salary.
The district attorney's office is one of several agencies investigating Bell.
Last week, Attorney General Jerry Brown sued eight current and former officials of Bell, accusing them of defrauding taxpayers by granting themselves salaries he said were far higher than warranted for the jobs they were doing.
Artiga was not named in the lawsuit but Adams was.
Earlier this month Bell officials confirmed the city was also the target of a racial profiling investigation by the federal government for allegedly targeting young Hispanic drivers for traffic stops to raise revenue.
___
Associated Press Writer Thomas Watkins contributed to this report.
___
September 22, 2010 03:17 AM EDT
Sunday, September 12, 2010
RUB-A-DUB ... THREE MEN IN A TUB ... AND THEIR THE SAME PERSON
Mr. Wesley Marsh
Chairman Board of Finance
New Fairfield, CT
Dear Mr. Marsh,
I would appreciate your reading my statement below regarding a BOF member who is in Conflict of Interest into the record during Correspondence and Announcements portion of the next BOF Meeting.
Thank you,
Doug Thielen
TOM EDWARDS IS IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Edwards is a member of both the Permanent Building Committee and the Parks & Recreation Commission. As such, he cannot be seated as a member of the Board of Finance [BOF] because being a voting member of the BOF constitutes a conflict of interest to his sworn fiscal responsibility.
The two aforementioned organizations continually request major appropriations and approvals from the BOF and, at minimum, Mr. Edwards needs to recuse himself on all of those occasions. Nor should he be permitted to argue the merits of a proposed approval since he is inherently biased by being a regular/permanent member of one of the two boards that periodically request monetary approvals from the BOF. The best and cleanest way to eliminate any conflict of interest is to ask Mr. Edwards to either resign his positions on both the other two committees on which he serves or resign his position on the BOF.
If you will kindly check with the Secretary of the State, Mr. Edwards' conflict of interest will be confirmed.
Doug Thielen
SEE FOR YOURSELF THE IMPACT OF POLICY ON YOUR TAXES!!!
The calculator is a tool to help you understand how current tax policy affects real families and what would happen if we changed that policy. With this version, you'll be able to compare today's law—with all of the 2001-2003 tax cuts still in place—against two alternatives to see how different taxpayers would make out: 1. tax law if all the 2001-2003 tax cuts (often called the "Bush tax cuts") expire, as is scheduled to happen in 2011; 2. tax law as proposed in President Obama's 2011 Budget, which would let the 2001-2003 tax cuts expire only for high-income taxpayers. The calculator is not tax preparation software—it leaves out lots of details you’d need to know to complete a tax return. But it will give you a general idea of how the federal income tax affects real people.Note: the Tax Calculator estimates the impact of proposed tax policies on typical taxpayers. It it not a tax preparation tool. For ease of use, many items that would be included on actual tax returns are omitted. Numbers generated by the Tax Calculator cannot be applied to specific tax returns. How to Use the Calculator1. Sample Taxpayers. The easiest way to see the effects of tax policy changes is to select and compare our sample taxpayers (below). For each sample taxpayer, income and expense variables can be modified but basic demographics are fixed. 2. Create Your Own Example. To examine a different family composition, create a customized analysis by submitting answers to questions about a hypothetical taxpayer's personal status, income, and deductions. 3. Need help? Click on a variable for more information on each term within the calculator. |
© 2010 Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Contact Us
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
SPORTS COMPLEX GOT CLUBBED ... IS IT OVER, PERHAPS!
FOR FURTHER DETAILS ON THIS ISSUE SEE PRIOR VIDEO'S OF THE ZONING COMMISSION. OH, SORRY EVEN THOUGH THE ZONING COMMISSION WAS MEETING IN THE NEW FAIRFIELD TV STUDIO THE TOWN'S VIDEO EQUIPMENT WAS SILENT ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
ALL MEETINGS OF COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE NOT JUST THE BOARD OF SELECTMAN, BOARD OF EDUCATION AND BOARD OF FINANCE. THIS VDIEO WAS TAKEN WITH A FLIP $150 HAND HELD PIECE OF EQUIPMENT RUNNING ON TWO AA BATTERIES. THERE IS NOT EXCUSE FOR THE TOWN TO BE SELECTIVE IN THEIR USE OF THE NEW FAIRFIELD T.V. STUDIO.
ALL MEETINGS OF COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE NOT JUST THE BOARD OF SELECTMAN, BOARD OF EDUCATION AND BOARD OF FINANCE. THIS VDIEO WAS TAKEN WITH A FLIP $150 HAND HELD PIECE OF EQUIPMENT RUNNING ON TWO AA BATTERIES. THERE IS NOT EXCUSE FOR THE TOWN TO BE SELECTIVE IN THEIR USE OF THE NEW FAIRFIELD T.V. STUDIO.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
DON'T PEE ON MY LEG AND TELL ME IT'S RAINING ... JUDGE JUDY
Mr. Merullo was the Director of Park and Recreation when this project began as a "Sports Complex" ... and I saw a set of plans Mr. Merullo showed me for the five acres the Town owns on Gillotti Road abutting the High School for a "Sports Complex".
This location at 52A RT 39 is 5.3 acres has been offered to the Town on a different occasion and was refused for a number of reasons all of which were reasonable.
A Public Hearing called for ... perhaps a Town Meeting should be called for to truly access the opinion of the 'entire' town for a change of neighborhood and character of a wet land area.
SOME HISTORY ...
A Special Permit Application 22-09 was filed with the Zoning Commission for a Multi-purpose Recreational Building and Outside Field and Sports Complex. 52A RT 39 LLC, Applicant, Steve Merullo, agent/member. Mr. Merullo is an employee of the Town and at the time was the Director of Park and Recreation. Enough said! The Zoning Commission agreed to hear the Special Permit Application under the old regulations. Ms. Fox then Chairman read regulations 3.1.2A into the record and Mr. Merullo's attorney affirmed that this special permitted application would not be used for any municipal purpose. Further, the commission chairman did not feel the special permitted application would fit into the character of the private residential neighborhood considering it was a commercial facility. After some discussion the commission chairman further expressed her opinion that the special permitted application was not permitted.
WHEN AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, USE SEMANTICS, CHANGE CHAIRMAN AND RE-APPLY ... A PLOY USED FREQUENTLY ... "THESE ARE NOT TAXES, THEIR REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS ..."
The Original Application Number:22-09, Now up from the ashes as Special Permit 10-13 – 52A Route 39 – Multi Purpose Country Club – 52A Route 39 LLC with Steve Merullo it’s Member/Manager and the same cast of characters.
The "new" Commission Chairman" stipulated that they would hear this "new application" under the old regulations. The attorney reviewed for the commission the 'new' application for a country club describing the hours of operation for inside would be 7:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week. Outside the hours would be 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m., with the lights turned off at 10:00 p.m. There would be 3 basketball courts and an interior track and they expect over 100 cars per day. He also explained there would be different levels of membership available. There is no food permit or restaurant, no lockers, no shower facilities, no meeting room, no low impact facilities for older residents such as a pool, the list goes on.
The "Country Club" was a steel fabricated building, how charming! The attorney further stated they added a tree buffer row addressing some of the issues of the residents at the Birches, notably Mrs. Dianna Peck, John Hodge's secretary. Further it was stated or rather "felt" there would be no affect on an easement from the empty storage facility.
Mr. Moran, the "new" commission chairman asked, "if they had a traffic study done, they had not and he stated they have to do a full study. Mr. Merullo explained the traffic analysis.
IS THE FIX-IN OR PERHAPS ARE THE APPLICANTS DOING LAPS ...
Mr. Moran reviewed the regulations. He asked the ZEO to ask for comments from the Planning Commission re: Plan of Development. Mr. Moran also would like comments from the Board of Selectmen. He would like to ask the Town Attorney if this application for a sports facility would fall
under a “country club”.
MORE PUBLIC COMMENT ... NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!!
Diana Peck, New Fairfield asked Mr. Gallagher to review the proposal. He explained there was a 5.3 acre parcel in R44 zone. Ms. Peck expressed concern over the buffering between the project and The Birches.
Mr. Hugh Billecki submitted a letter and photos outlining his concerns and requested the Commission not approve the proposal for several reasons.
Ms. Karen Hanley, New Fairfield Youth Lacrosse approached the Commission and spoke in favor of the application. She submitted a statement for the record.
Ms. Ellen Moore, 42 Rt. 39 approached the commission objecting to the proposal stating it was denied once it should be denied again.
Mr. Walter Wolyniec spoke against the proposal because it is a dangerous road.
Mr. Greg Bontempo, NF Soccer club spoke in favor of the proposal.
Ms. Linda Fox, 43 Rt. 39 lives across the street from the project. She is concerned about the traffic, lights noise in a residential neighborhood. She asked if the bridge was going to be widened, she felt only one car could safely pass.
Mr. Mike Evans, President NF Soccer explained the 500 participants would benefit with this facility in town.
Mr. Mike Dapolite felt the soccer players could be more competitive if they were able to practice year round.
Mr. Merullo explained this was more than just for basketball, lacrosse and soccer. This would be a multi-sports venue for old and young.
Public Hearing continued to the July 1, 2010 regular meeting and was rescheduled through extension to:
Events for 9/2/2010
This location at 52A RT 39 is 5.3 acres has been offered to the Town on a different occasion and was refused for a number of reasons all of which were reasonable.
A Public Hearing called for ... perhaps a Town Meeting should be called for to truly access the opinion of the 'entire' town for a change of neighborhood and character of a wet land area.
SOME HISTORY ...
A Special Permit Application 22-09 was filed with the Zoning Commission for a Multi-purpose Recreational Building and Outside Field and Sports Complex. 52A RT 39 LLC, Applicant, Steve Merullo, agent/member. Mr. Merullo is an employee of the Town and at the time was the Director of Park and Recreation. Enough said! The Zoning Commission agreed to hear the Special Permit Application under the old regulations. Ms. Fox then Chairman read regulations 3.1.2A into the record and Mr. Merullo's attorney affirmed that this special permitted application would not be used for any municipal purpose. Further, the commission chairman did not feel the special permitted application would fit into the character of the private residential neighborhood considering it was a commercial facility. After some discussion the commission chairman further expressed her opinion that the special permitted application was not permitted.
WHEN AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, USE SEMANTICS, CHANGE CHAIRMAN AND RE-APPLY ... A PLOY USED FREQUENTLY ... "THESE ARE NOT TAXES, THEIR REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS ..."
The Original Application Number:22-09, Now up from the ashes as Special Permit 10-13 – 52A Route 39 – Multi Purpose Country Club – 52A Route 39 LLC with Steve Merullo it’s Member/Manager and the same cast of characters.
The "new" Commission Chairman" stipulated that they would hear this "new application" under the old regulations. The attorney reviewed for the commission the 'new' application for a country club describing the hours of operation for inside would be 7:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week. Outside the hours would be 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m., with the lights turned off at 10:00 p.m. There would be 3 basketball courts and an interior track and they expect over 100 cars per day. He also explained there would be different levels of membership available. There is no food permit or restaurant, no lockers, no shower facilities, no meeting room, no low impact facilities for older residents such as a pool, the list goes on.
The "Country Club" was a steel fabricated building, how charming! The attorney further stated they added a tree buffer row addressing some of the issues of the residents at the Birches, notably Mrs. Dianna Peck, John Hodge's secretary. Further it was stated or rather "felt" there would be no affect on an easement from the empty storage facility.
Mr. Moran, the "new" commission chairman asked, "if they had a traffic study done, they had not and he stated they have to do a full study. Mr. Merullo explained the traffic analysis.
IS THE FIX-IN OR PERHAPS ARE THE APPLICANTS DOING LAPS ...
Mr. Moran reviewed the regulations. He asked the ZEO to ask for comments from the Planning Commission re: Plan of Development. Mr. Moran also would like comments from the Board of Selectmen. He would like to ask the Town Attorney if this application for a sports facility would fall
under a “country club”.
MORE PUBLIC COMMENT ... NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!!
Diana Peck, New Fairfield asked Mr. Gallagher to review the proposal. He explained there was a 5.3 acre parcel in R44 zone. Ms. Peck expressed concern over the buffering between the project and The Birches.
Mr. Hugh Billecki submitted a letter and photos outlining his concerns and requested the Commission not approve the proposal for several reasons.
Ms. Karen Hanley, New Fairfield Youth Lacrosse approached the Commission and spoke in favor of the application. She submitted a statement for the record.
Ms. Ellen Moore, 42 Rt. 39 approached the commission objecting to the proposal stating it was denied once it should be denied again.
Mr. Walter Wolyniec spoke against the proposal because it is a dangerous road.
Mr. Greg Bontempo, NF Soccer club spoke in favor of the proposal.
Ms. Linda Fox, 43 Rt. 39 lives across the street from the project. She is concerned about the traffic, lights noise in a residential neighborhood. She asked if the bridge was going to be widened, she felt only one car could safely pass.
Mr. Mike Evans, President NF Soccer explained the 500 participants would benefit with this facility in town.
Mr. Mike Dapolite felt the soccer players could be more competitive if they were able to practice year round.
Mr. Merullo explained this was more than just for basketball, lacrosse and soccer. This would be a multi-sports venue for old and young.
Public Hearing continued to the July 1, 2010 regular meeting and was rescheduled through extension to:
Events for 9/2/2010
| Start Time | 7:30 PM |
| End Time | 11:00 PM |
| Title | |
| Zoning Commission Special Meeting | |
| Location | |
| Town Hall Conference Room | |
| Extra Details | |
1. Special Permit 10-23, 11 Sunset Dr. B.H. For an accessory apartment above their existing garage. Section 3.1.2k – Accessory apartments. Edward & Caren Silva, owner/applicant. THE PHOENIX ... COULD IT BE THAT A COUNTRY CLUB HAS AN ALTERNATE PURPOSE? | |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)