New Petition part 2

[oldetowne]

second OLR report on same topic from 2002:

June 7, 2002
2002-R-0549

MUNICIPAL ZONING EXEMPTION

By: John G. Rappa, Principal Analyst


This memo answers the remaining questions your constituent asked you about the statute under which towns can exempt themselves from their zoning regulations. (OLR Report 2002-R-00535 answered the other questions on this subject. ) The questions were:

1. How many towns have exempted themselves from zoning regulations?

2. How many have rescinded their exemption?

3. How much have non-exempted towns spent on legal fees defending decisions regarding town projects?

An informal survey of 33 towns found that five exempted themselves from zoning (Attachment 1). We did the survey by posting the above-stated questions on the Listserve maintained by the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (http: //www. ccapa. org/). We received 14 responses conveying information on 21 towns. Most of the respondents were town planners. We supplemented this survey by contacting planning offices in 12 towns with populations between 20,000 and 30,000 people.
The towns that exempt themselves from zoning are East Granby, Enfield, Kent, Newington, and Somers. Although exempted, East Granby and Newington submit proposed town projects to their planning and zoning commissions for review and comment. Enfield's legislative body exempted the town projects from zoning approval in November 2001 after the planning and zoning commission denied approval for a proposed school project.

Windham does not exempt itself from zoning, but its zoning regulations designate municipal uses as permitted, as of right uses. This designation still requires it to seek zoning approval, but the approval is based strictly on whether the project complies with the applicable zoning regulations.

South Windsor's legislative body considered but did not exempt town projects from zoning after the planning and zoning commission rejected a proposed town project. But the council decided not to adopt the exemption after residents opposed it.

None of the remaining 28 towns reported having rescinded a prior exemption. We contacted nine of them to learn if proposed town projects are typically opposed by residents or denied approval by their planning and zoning commissions. Most reported no problems. Cheshire noted that major projects are approved in referenda before they come before the planning and zoning commissions. Some commented that towns should be held to the same standards as private developers.

Two towns reported litigation triggered by proposed town projects. Enfield appealed the planning and zoning commission's denial of a proposed school and is currently negotiating an agreement under which the legislative body would retain jurisdiction over the project until it receives a certificate of occupancy and the commission would regain jurisdiction over other projects. The legal costs are not readily available. New London is also facing litigation, but the issues are different. The city is being challenged because it took land by eminent domain for economic development purposes.

'''''' if you want to see the chart, here's the link:

search.cga.state.ct.us/ and look for OLR report 2002-R-0549

[LouS]

Great feedback from all.

[standish]

Dear OldTowne,

The responses by Mr. Rappa appear as though they may have been made to a Wethersfield Town Council member (reference to constituent) who might have been contemplating an ordinance exempting the town, or aiding those interested in pursuing a petition to that effect. How did you come by them?

[standish]

Oops... just noticed the dates on the OLR reports. I'm still curious as to who asked the questions and how these reports came into being.

[oldetowne]

I think it had something to do with a senior center in Westport, but I may be wrong.

[RGarrey]

I too am very concerned about this petition. The issue of lights on the field are minor compared to the possible long term effects of the town being exempt from these very important safeguards. Remember, this council, whether you like them or not, is only in power temporarily and no one knows what the future could bring. Every town building, park or piece of property is a neighbor to someone, whether a residence or business. Those "neighbors" will be forced to follow the P&Z rules but there will no guarantee that the town will.
Someone mentioned my program as a venue to discuss this important issue. Two weeks ago I brought this topic up and I will be discussing it again tomorrow night at 9:00 pm when we go on the air live on channel 14. We will open the phones early to discuss this and I urge that people on both sides call in as this makes for a real debate on the issue and it makes for better ratings (ha-ha).

[SyZyGy]

The so-called "Miller" Petition has been filed to allow the Town to ignore zoning reg's for Town properties (Everybody else has to follow the rules, homeowners and businesses!).

The Public Hearing has been scheduled for April 4, 2005, less than 2 weeks away.

There are only two options for the Town Council (since they have already chosen not to pocket veto this petition (as they had done for the WTPA peditions almost a year ago, with the guidance of the Town Attorney ). (Gee, I wonder why that is!):

1. Approve the (no-rules-for-the-Town) petition so that it takes effect immediately upon passage.

To do so would really take testosterone-laden gonads and brass breasts (as the gender may be). I don't think you will find any of these on the Stienmertz-fashioned Russ'ian council. In this case there would be no referendum. All registered voters would not have a chance to weigh in. Putting this before the public runs the risk that the Miller-ProJox / Land-grab referendum might lose and lights over the Cottone, Syn-Turfed Field would be restricted to a height dictated by our Zoning Reg's and the ZPC and ZBA.

2. Deny the (no-rules-for-the-Town) petition, forcing it to referendum for the "public" to decide.

This would be a safer political move on the part of the Dem's - comparable to Pontius Pilot washing his hands before handing over Jesus to the mob. (Remarkable that this is playing out around Easter, isn't it!). First, they say that the petition was good (Clerk-approved and Attorney-silent). Then they say, even though 'we have been given a manadate to govern and govern we will', we must let the public decide. If the petition passes, they say, 'it is the will of the public; we cannot take credit or blame'. And, furthermore, 'we cannot as a Council erase this new ordinance' (just take advantage of it!). Or, if the petition fails, they will say, 'the public has spoken; we will have to live with the decision' (until we can engineer some other way to sneak around our Charter, Code, or concerns of the Wethersfield's guiet citizens.

So we will have to wait until April 4th.

We can expect the Miller-lites crowd to be there. And, Danny O's bulked-up (roids?) crowd. (Maybe Danny, Jay, etc., will get all the jox out of their sweats and into shirts, ties and blazers!). And we will hear from the WTPA which will (appropriately) drip righteous indignation. Leigh will rise to new heights that we should expect from one of the most blue-blooded families in Town. (Would someone PLEASE wake up the Wethersfield Historical Society and the Historic District Commission!) And Jimmy Clink will be there, dancing on the end of Sherley's strings (didn't the Dem's stick him on some inconsequential board or commission in Town?), flailing away at the WTPA, pack and persons. Russ will look concerned and try to "act" mayoral. Julie will try to tie this into something educational. Forrest will feel everyone's pain (but will eventually go along with the Uber-Council's wishes). And Andy. Yes, Andy, will be thinking about how this will open the door to his vision of a development agency and the Town's taking of previously sacrosanct private lands for private development by prominent engineering and architectural firms. Christine will offer some meaningful insights. And Jack Karangekis, if he can be shaken out of his stupor, will offer some poorly cobbled comment (yes, I think he can manage one) and (between chews on his Wrigley's) will follow lock-step with the others to his right (at the dias!).

I wonder if the WGTV-16 (Town's Channel) will be working that evening. I wonder if Gary S will be away on another vacation. I wonder if Bonnie, dear Bonnie, has trained someone to serve as a back up for Gary if he is away again or if the Clerk throws the wrong switch for say 19 minutes or so.

I can hardly wait! I am sure there will be some surprises.

[oldetowne]

Nice summary. My bet is that the Council will pass it and the public be d**ned. They refused to let $1.4M on the turf go to the public and refused to let the WTXA petitions go to the public. They have cut down on the opportunity for public comment and, if last night's show was any indicator, the Council meetings will start to look more like the House of Commons debates shown on CNN.

The only possible reason that they would NOT do so is if the Clerk can confirm that it can be put to referendum at the same time as the lights ordinance in May so that the disinformation and misinformation being propagated about that one can have the effect of carrying both in favor of the lights.

[LouS]

Whether there is agreement with the questions this latest petition raises or not, due process is being followed.

As I have stated previously, this council was elected, in part, by a population that was responding to the way they responded to questions about lights and fields. There should be no surprise to anyone that this council would not view any petition from this sector in a favorable or at least open minded way. If the republicans had demonstrated this during the past regime, they would still be in office.

Due to the current process, lights at Cottone Field would be out of the jurisdiction of the town and its boards and put into the hands of a judge. You may not like the petition for what it may allow to hapen (other than the lights), but you have the ability to change the council to reflect this ilk. You do not have the ability to change a judge for the same result.

Newington seems to have done this without (to my knowledge) any negative impact. Any act by the council would still need to meet safety, wetlands, and P&Z in regard to workmanship and specs, as well as with the town engineers.

I agree that to many this may seem as if the sky is falling, but...

And in this town I really dislike (although it apparently is the way of the world) the direct diatribe and negative personnal comments about those that are serving. Heated debate and disagreement is fine, but hiding behind these pages seems to make everyone more aggressive. At least when Mr Rhue does his inappropriate and over the top attacks, it is in person.

And oldetowne, what disinformation or misinformation are you speaking of. To my knowledge the referendum that is currently set will prohibit sports lighting all over town. There is not any language about "grandfathering". In the event that this one is rejected those that are prolighting will be no closer than they are currently. That is why the current petition was not worth spending the money on (one sided).

I (a little) wish that this 2nd petition goes to referendum. Only to see where everyone stands. To say the least it will be very telling.

[LouS]

And lastly, there should be ample time, that is one reason for the timing of this, to have it scheduled in conjunction with the current referendum question. The 2nd goal was to not have the town spend money on an additional polling date.

[SyZyGy]

oldetowne wrote: The only possible reason that they would NOT do so is if the Clerk can confirm that it can be put to referendum at the same time as the lights ordinance in May so that the disinformation and misinformation being propagated about that one can have the effect of carrying both in favor of the lights.

You are right. However, I am sure that the Clerk is not going to make that decision. The Clerk will defer to unnamed "lawyers" to make that call. Then the Russ'ian Council will look to their 'advisor(s)' for a thumbs up or down.

After the public hearing and their vote to deny the petition, you can be sure that they WILL schedule it on 5/24/2005 so that it DOES appear on the same ballot as that of the delayed and modified (via "settlement") WTPA petition.

Heaven forbid that the "2nd" petition be put to the public at any other time, thereby costing the property owners of Wethersfield another $15-$20,000. The current Council generated this cost once before in pocket vetoing the 1st "lights" referendum, despite anything that their lackeys (-e.g., Jimmy Clink) say. The Council doesn't want a second $15-$20,000 hung around their necks again - especially in an election year.

If the WTPA petition fails and the PZC-bypass petition is wins, Danny'O, Lou'S, Bob'P and Brian'D can start collecting all of the checks and promises that they say have been eagerly waiting in the wings. Then with the lights beaming down on the Cottone Field neighborhood, John'M will smile to himself knowing.....

[SyZyGy]

LouS wrote: Due to the current process, lights at Cottone Field would be out of the jurisdiction of the town and its boards and put into the hands of a judge.

Think so? Can you say I N J U N C T I O N ? There is an old saying (probably promulgated by an old lawyer): you can sue anybody over anything.

Dear members of the public, have you asked yourself why LouS and the pro-lites people are SOOOOO afraid that this question (lights or not) might "be put into the hands of a judge"?

When exactly did the judicial system (judges) become the 'bad guys'?

Are Danny'O (brother of a US Federal Attorney (for CT)) and his brood afraid that the judge might just follow the rule of law with impartiality as in blind justice, with no favors to either side? What are they afraid might be learned during depositions during the "discovery" phase of a court action?

Are the "stadium lights over Cottone Field" people so impetuous, narrowly focused and impatient that they must have their way ASAP? Is this the real reason why they keep saying that the PZC-bypass petition would minimize the risk of being "taken to Court"? (Notice I said "minimize", not eliminate.)

Maybe this is some of the "misinformation" of which oldetowne speaks.

[standish]

Then with the lights beaming down on the Cottone Field neighborhood, John'M will smile to himself knowing.....

OldTowne - Are you suggesting that there might be an ulterior motive for this petition and that advocates for the lights could have been duped into carrying someone else's heavy water?

Intriguing...

Lou - I agree that Council ran on the lights and field, but, these were not the only issues... a lot of time and money was spent on support for those who would stand up for The Cove. The Republicans were not listening on that issue and paid the price.

[oldetowne]

This whole topic has become so tainted by hyperbole and posturing on both sides that it will be remembered as one of the most unfortunately periods in this town's history.

Frankly, I don't care as much about whether the lights are put in or not as I do about "the process". I will readily concede that exemption of municipal property from zoning is permitted by state statute and that it is something that the Town Council can do - petitions or no petitions. When I referred to "misinformation" and "disinformation", I was alluding to the fact that no official statement has been issued by the town - or anyone - as to what the effect of the proposed ordinance will be. I have only heard proponents and opponents floating out red herrings and disaster scenarios as examples of what would or would not be permitted. Frankly, that whole issue is moot because that proposed ordinance was DOA a year ago.

If the lights are important to those who wish to install them as an indicator of the town's willingness to be progressive and forward thinking and to enhance the quality of life of our students and adults alike, and LouS has clearly articulated that position, then fine.... Work through whatever process you need to install the lights. But don't saddle the rest of us with a life sentence of giving the town staff and future Councils a blank check to stick whatever it is they want wherever they want to whenever they want.

And, finally, please, please, please don't keep reminding us that the election of the current majority by the smallest voter turnout in the history of municipal elections is a mandate for anything. Their legacy will be one of double digit tax increases, mind numbing lip service about the Cove, deteriorating infrastructure, divisive behavior, and the end of civil discourse.

[oldetowne]

Leigh - You said: "OldTowne - Are you suggesting that there might be an ulterior motive for this petition and that advocates for the lights could have been duped into carrying someone else's heavy water?"

I think that was szyzgy. I am a cynic, not a conspiracy theorist.