New Petition part 2

[Ironrod]

Lou,

You stand corrected...

The caller phoned in to correct a statement by one of the hosts of Wethersfield Live (Mary Beth) who stated that no one came forward with an alternative to the recommendation to improve Cottone Field. In fact, a mionority decision of the Artificial Surface Football Field Advisory Committee (ASFFAC) recommended that DiCiccio Field (situated inside the track) be improved instead of Cottone Field (see link: wethersfield.net/html/gov/tow/boe/whs/cotfld/scheme-f.html). I make this claim as voice of authority because I authored this recommendation.

Regarding your claim that the track field size would not safely accomodate a field...this claim was substantiated by a 'requirement' that the soccer field have a 15 yard runout between the sideline and track surface. In fact there was only a 7-8 yard runout at the track field. Before you celebrate that this concern was ligitimate, check out the runout on the new Cottone field (along the east sideline)...it is 5 yards to the asphalt apron. I wonder what ever happened to the 'requirement' that so many promoters of Cottone Field claimed was necessary to ensure safety to our athletes???. In fact, the track site would have accomodated a wider runout and the track itself would not have needed to be disturbed.


Next point: You claim the bleachers were required at the track site and the additional +/- $500,000 would have made this alternative cost prohibitive. That fact remains that the existing bleachers at Cottone Field ALSO need to be replaced at a higher cost (to pay for the removal of the existing bleachers before new ones can be installed) because they are unsafe and obsolete. Those who think to the contrary are only fooling themselves. In fact, the majority decision of the ASFFAC AND the Town has acknowledged the bleabhers do not conform to town code or comply with ADA standards. The contractor who installed the turf (RAD) was instructed not to move or touch the bleachers or else the Town would have been 'forced' to upgrade them to current standards. So, instead of addressing this issue as part of the field renovation project the recommendation was made to address this at some future time. That future time may come sooner rather than later depending on how long it will take for handicapped residents to demand equal access to spectator seating or, God forbid, a 4 year old falls through the existing unsafe bleachers.

If you add the cost to replace bleachers at Cottone field, then it would have cost 12% LESS to improve the track field rather than what was the decision to improve Cottone Field. And, by the way, the track field would have represented a much better choice for the school and community - if you don't belief me just take a look at where every other high school in the surronding towns (i.e. Avon, Farmington, Simsbury, Bloomfield, Windsor, Conard, Hall, Newington, Rocky Hill. etc., etc.) have suituated their football field - INSIDE THE TRACK! Sometimes it makes sense to go against the grain, but this time it did not.

So lets try to keep 'misrepresenations' to a mimimum.

[LouS]

Thank you for the response.

I also think, and correct me, that the existing track configuration did not allow for a "regulation" type soccer field, which would tend to eliminate CIAC playoff games, where Cottone Field was able to absorb this size field.

If in fact the bleachers will need replacing (at some point they will), the cost of this part of the project, whether at Cottone or the new site would still have been an excess fee that would have made the project undoable at that time.

It is my understanding that until the bleachers get moved or become unsafe, that they will be grandfathered in, relative to the ADA. Hopefully, since no one has had a mishap since they were installed we can get through a few more years without an accident.

I have always agreed that a facility inside a track and right near the high school would be great. However, I believe Cottone Field is one of the only high school fields with a bowl type carve out. If anyone saw the 2,500 fans at the last Thanksgiving home game, there is a shot of the crowd all along the hill from the visitor bleachers to the score board, and is an awesome vantage point to view a game.

Plus, I would gather that the proximity to the practice field put added weight on the selected option, from what has been revealed.

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

LouS, Ron, et al.,

With the completion of Cottone Field, I thought there would be little use for many of the supporting documents that that phase of the controversial project generated. I removed them from the site where they had been active to one of my archives. The link which Ron referenced in his recent post relied on two files both of which I have just restored moments ago so that a visitor might see what he was talking about. Hope you find this helpful.

p/s: In fairness to the host of this forum, when you click on the link which Ron provided in his recent post, you will be opening a new window. The document you will be reading in it has nav' links at the top. One of these is [Home] which will not take you back to Bill's site. You will need to close this window i.e. [X], instead of "backing" out of it or trying to go "home". kes

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

For whatever it is worth, according to Bonnie's 4/1/2005 report to the Council, she will not be attending the Council meeting tonite 4/4/2005; Ms. RaeAnn Palmer will be standing in for her:

"I will be away from the office beginning tomorrow A.M. until late on Wednesday evening. The Chief will be in charge and Rae Ann Palmer will be standing in for me at Monday's meetings"

[LouS]

Last night's council meeting, not including a few personal attacks (which did not impact the "hearing" portion of the meeting), I thought went well and was extremely well presented by both sides of the issue.

The council, although I support the initiate and would have supported a decision to accept this, did a responsible job of offering its opinion and submitting the question to referendum. I was personally pleased with the support for the lights and, as it appeared, a majority support for accepting the public's vote.

It was quite apparent that the WTXA took a "time out" and I am very interested to know why there was no representation from them (individuals spoke as themselves).

John Cascio put into perspective a question about setting suggested parameters about petiton circulators, relative to age, etc., that up to his input appeared to be an attack on the petition, its supporters and specifically challenging the circulators; but stripes do not change so I guess I can accept that diatribe.

Thanks to all council members for allowing the public to speak and we look forward to you supporting the vote.

Just Say NO and YES
Question 1 Vote NO to the WTXA
Question 2 Vote YES for the Lights

[RGarrey]

I agree that the speakers at last night's meeting for the most part stuck to the issue, stated their case and remained civil. I am pleased that this question will now go to the voters.

I will vote against the referendum in May and here are a couple of points that I took from last nights meeting. One is in reference to a comment by a speaker who stated that there are lights at Mill woods and in school parking lots that exceed the 14' height limit as stated in the P&Z code. To me this is a strong argument against exempting the Town from P&Z approval. These lights must have gone through the P&Z process and the commission granted an exemption based on the individual merits of each case. The system works. Lights at Cottone field should go through the same process and be approved or diapproved by the commission based on it's own merits.

My second point is in response to a number of speakers who claimed that they would rather see decisions made by our elected council not an appointed commission. I don't agree. Councilors are typically elected based on recognition and popularity. Appointments to commissions for the most part are based more on an individuals expertise in the commissions particular area.
Also if you have been watching the council over any period of time, and I don't just mean this council but any council, it is a very partisan group that can be very politically motivated in it's decision making. I don't want P&Z decisions made by these politicians, I want them made by the people who were appointed by both parties based more on individual expertise and not because of popularity in the community.

I also want to thank all the people on both sides of the issue who do not make this personal. We need to teach the younger generation that it is okay to disagree and still remain good friends and neighbors. When I coach I always tell my kids that in each contest you should always try your hardest to win while never breaking the rules. But at the end there will always be a winner and a loser and you need to accept both gracefully and shake hands at the end.

[standish]

There's high risk of boring you all. Nonetheless, here are my comments from last night: The long-term ramifications of this "anti-zoning" Town exemption ordinance are of far greater significance than its short-term effort to circumvent the Planning & Zoning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals for lights on Cottone Field. Nor is the proposed exemption a fair and reasonable way to approach even that issue. The process of checks and balances currently in place must supersede any immediate desire to move forward with a single issue, no matter what one's position on that issue.

I don't believe we want to grant future Councils the ability to impose anything they want, or do anything they want to do, either to, or on, any town property... Public Hearing notwithstanding. Council is not bound to follow the sentiment of a Public Hearing in any case.

Fifty years of embedded, organic community values, as expressed in our carefully defined plan of development and zoning regulations, take precedence over a given Council's supposed "Vision". Nor does any given Council exercise either expertise or perspective at the same, high level of competence as those engineers, real estate attorneys and other experts appointed to P&Z by previous and current Councils. Many of these appointees have served on P&Z for more years than some on Council have been out of college. Furthermore, Council will apply political considerations, not the narrow confines of good zoning practices, to its decisions. The last thing Wethersfield needs is politically motivated "spot" zoning.

If this exemption wins, we all lose. Since this issue is thrust upon us and Council must either adopt an ordinance or put it to referendum, you must leave such a critical decision to the electorate. To do otherwise is to personally usurp authority and fly in the face of important safeguards. That's an insider's game. Don't play it!

[tomterific]

Last night's Council Meeting contained a key moment during the council's deliberation on the Petition. Councillors at the prior meeting had asked that the Town Attorny be present for what would probably be technical and legal topics re: the petition. He was not. The explanation given: the town has used up the hours that are covered under his annual retainer; it would cost $160 per hour for him to appear; the town is running low on contingency fund. So, the Town Manager, before leaving for her long weekend, decreed that he not be present. This left the council (as well as the public (i.e., citizens-voters) to their own wits as far as figuring out the legalistic details of the topic. It would have cost the town about $320 for him to appear. BAD JOB ALL THE WAY AROUND. Therrien showed short-sightedness; Mayor should have been aware and obviously did not want the lawyer there. WE ALL LOSE, whether you want lights or not.

[tomterific]

I'm still waiting to hear some facts from the pro-lights folks who spoke at last night's Public Hearing on the "Miller Petition", What I heard from many of the proponents was a series of personal attacks on the people who are no-lights. For the people on the fence about this issue, it oughta be clear that the pro-lights people had nothing to say, thus the attacks. I'd think that the pro-lighters would have realized how they sounded. All they did was hurt their own cause.

[LouS]

tomterrific,

what facts would you like to hear. There are so many, I don't know where to start.

And please let me know what the prolighters stated that were not factual, but merely attacks.

The only personal attack I witness was at Council woman Kitch and I didn't appreciate that as I have never validated these attacks.
Thanks

[tomterific]

I've just gotten a chance to look at the videotape of the Council Meeting of April 4th. Miller & O'Connor did launch a series of personal attacks against the Taxpayers Association members. I also saw that the score for citizens speaking about the Petition was 14-5 against waiving P&Z regulations.

[LouS]

From my recollection, and yours is probably fresher, I believe that the Association, made up of members, was being referred to.

Also, as you know, the opposition of a particular proposal tends to push for more "face opposition" at the event. After speaking with a couple of those presenters, I found that they were more concerned with making sure council did not adopt it and put it out to referendum.

Finally, whether it was 14-5, 14-0, or even the opposite, the fact remains that this was a very small turnout. Each and every council meeting has its vocal minority and I believe that this will follow here. The actual pro and con attendees, by numbers, showed just the opposite.

Should be very interesting.

[standish]

I agree that teams of non-voting high school students certainly count for something as attendees at a public hearing, but, not as voter turn-out. All in all, there were attendees to the regular Council meeting who weren't even aware there was a public hearing and hadn't intended to speak on the issue. Yet, they extemporaneously spoke against giving Council the power to override zoning regulations when they understood what was at stake. I sensed that, even some of the students began to have second thoughts about exempting Council, though, they still want the lights. Of course, these are two, separate issues, and the lights can be pursued without granting Council such Draconian powers.

[tomterific]

None of the 14 citizens who spoke against the "town P&Z exemption" were students; Standish seemed to have confused those 14-5 speakers with some HighSchool students who apparently were there to observe.

[standish]

Actually Tom, I was responding to LouS's comment: "The actual pro and con attendees, by numbers, showed just the opposite." I agree that all of the speakers opposed to the exemption were adults. I believe LouS was suggesting there was a larger ratio of non-speaking attendees in favor of exempting the town (many of whom were high school athletes), than those against.

However, those who attended to speak against the exemption were primarily motivated by concerns for good government. I think it would also be fair to say that, those who spoke to exempt the town from zoning primarily wanted to light Cottone Field.

How many people will come to a council meeting to speak for "good government"? For that matter, how many will come to the polls for same? We have an uphill fight to educate voters as to the larger issues... then get them out to vote.