Town ofNew Milford...Town ofNew Milford — Special Town Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 1, 2007 @ 7...

Town ofNew Milford —Special Town Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 @ 7 :30p.m.Held in the Theatre at the New Milford High School, New Milford, CT 06776

In Re:

1. Shall the Town of New Milford sell the town -owned properties commonlyknown as "Still Meadows ", consisting of approximately 19± acres to EdmundNahom and Associates, for a cash payment of $2,700,000.00 for the purposeof constructing a Hotel/Banquet Facility and Retail

Shopping/Offices/Business, the closing of title shall be conditioned upon thereceipt of all local land use approvals for said use?

PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN OF NEWMILFORD:

Noreen Prichard, Assistant Town ClerkKenneth Taylor, ModeratorBarbara Hyatt, Barbara Brickley, Helen Cherney & Jan Hine, Registrars of VotersRon Parks, Tax Assessor

Patricia Murphy, MayorD. Randall DiBella, Town Attorney

WHEREUPON, the meeting convened at 7:30 p.m.)

Ms. Prichard: We will call the meeting to an order. Do I have any nominations for themoderator?

Jay Lewin: I nominate Ken Taylor.

Ms. Prichard: Do I hear a second?

Public Member: Second. rrf C

Ms. Prichard: All those in favor of closing the nominations, say, I.

The Public: I.rrt C__ Q o

Ms. Prichard: Opposed, Nah? co n

rnw -- i

The Public: No Opposition.) n

Ms. Prichard: All those in favor of Ken Taylor as the moderator, say, I.The Public: I.

Ms. Prichard: Opposed, Nah?

Town ofNew Milford Special Town Meeting Minutes, Tuesday, May 1, 2007 —Page I

The Public: ( None.)

Ms. Prichard: Congratulations Mr. Taylor you are the moderator.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you for that high honor. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Um,this is a Special Town Meeting convened to discuss the sale of 19 acresknown as the Still Meadows project. I'm going to go through some of therules of tonight's meeting. Uh, I then have to go through some of thedocumentation that I have here as the moderator and as soon as we getthrough some of those housekeeping matters, we will turn to thediscussion and ultimately the vote on the matter. This evening is a SpecialTown Meeting convened pursuant to Section 503 of the Town Charter todiscuss and vote on the sale of approximately 19 acres of property knownas Still Meadows in the amount of $2,700,000.00. I will be giving yousome of the rules of the conduct of this meeting. Those tonight eligible tospeak and vote, in according with Section 7 -6 of the Connecticut GeneralStatutes, as amended, must be an elector of the Town or a citizen of the

United States of the age of eighteen (18) years or more who jointly orseverally was liable to the Town for taxes assessed against him or herbased on an assessment of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00)on the last completed Grand List of the Town or who would have been soliable if not entitled to an exemption as a blind person or as a veteran or asa parent or surviving spouse of a veteran. These people are entitled tospeak and vote at tonight's meeting.

I would like to recognize our Registrars of Voters who, along with our TaxAssessor, Ron Parks, will determine eligibility to vote. We have BarbaraHine —Jan Hine, sorry, I knew that, Barbara Hyatt, Helen Cherney andBarbara Brickley. Tonight's meeting will be run in accordance withRobert's Rules of Order, revised. This is not a forum for questions andanswers. However, any questions may be asked through the Chair and ifsomeone who wishes to speak or would like to respond to a question, thatcertainly is allowed. These rules are designed to maintain a fair andorderly process. If you desire to speak tonight, I would ask everyone toplease come up to the podium to my right, your left. Please state yourname and address for the record and keep in mind that we're takingeverything down. We have our Court monitor here. Um, and except forthose Town Officials who, uh, may present a proposal, or people, uh,inaudible, proposal, we will try to have roughly a five- minute speakinglimit. We're going to be totally flexible as we don't have a ton of peoplehere tonight and, uh, we want to make sure everybody has a chance tospeak.

Alright, I would ask Noreen to read the warning.

Town ofNew Milford Special Town Meeting Minutes, Tuesday, May 1, 2007 —

Ms. Prichard:

WarningSpecial Town Meeting

May 1, 2007

The electors of the Town of New Milford and those qualified to vote in Town Meetings arehereby WARNED AND NOTIFIED that there will be a Special Town Meeting held in the

Theatre of the New Milford High School, 388 Danbury Road, in said Town of New Milford, onTuesday, May 1, 2007, at 7:30 p.m., to consider and act (as appropriate) upon the following

agenda and to decide upon the following course of action:

1. Shall the Town of New Milford sell the town -owned properties commonly known as "Still Meadows ",consisting of approximately 19f acres to Edmund Nahom and Associates, for a cash payment of2,700,000.00 for the purpose of constructing a Hotel/Banquet Facility and Retail

Shopping/Offices/Business, the closing of title shall be conditioned upon the receipt of all local land useapprovals for said use?

Dated at New Milford, Connecticut this 12 day of April, 2007.

Patricia Murphy, Mayor

Mr. Taylor: Thanks Noreen. I have in my hand a copy of the Return of Posting andPublication of the Warning of the May 1, 2007 Special Town Meeting. Itstates:

I, Patricia Murphy, Mayor of the Town of New Milford, Connecticut, hereby certify that I caused acopy of the above Warning to be posted on the Town signpost on April 13, 2007 and that I causeda copy of said warning to be published in the Greater New Milford Spectrum, a newspaper having ageneral circulation in said Town of New Milford, in its issue of Friday, April 20, 2007.

It is signed by Patricia Murphy, Mayor, dated the 27 day of April, 2007.I ask that this, along with the attached Affidavit from The New MilfordSpectrum, uh, confirming that the Return of Posting and Publication bemade a part of the record.

I also have a, uh, correspondence from the Office of the PlanningCommission dated April 30, 2007 to Mayor Patricia Murphy from theNew Milford Planning Commission, Katy Francis, Secretary, and it states:

At its April 19, 2007 Regular Meeting, the New Milford Planning Commission voted to approvethe request for an 8 -24 recommendation for the sale of Still Meadow properties.

There is a copy of the April 19, 2007 Minutes related thereto. I ask thatthis be made a part of the record also.

I also have a copy of the New Milford Town Council Regular MeetingMinutes dated April 9, 2007 and on Page 10 of 12 of that document is thereference and the discussion and the authorization from the Town Council

concerning the sale of the Still Meadows properties. I ask that that also bemade a part of the record.

Unless we have a motion to the contrary, I would ask Noreen to, again,read the Resolution that will be voted on tonight.


Jay Lewin: I move to wave the reading of the Resolution.

Mr. Taylor: There has been a motion to wave the reading of the Resolution for thesecond time. Is there a second?

Public Member: Second.

Mr. Taylor: All those in favor of waving the reading of the motion, signify by saying, I.

The Public: I.

Mr. Taylor: Opposed?

The Public: ( No Opposition.)

Mr. Taylor: Motion carries. Thank you very much. Is there any discussion concerningthe Resolution before the Town Meeting? Madam Mayor.

Mayor Murphy: Pat Murphy, 105 Chapin Road. I would like to thank everybody formaking their way down here this evening on such a beautiful night.Hopefully, it's not raining when we leave. Excuse my voice. I seem tohave caught whatever it is that's going around. I'm blaming my secretary,but.

Laughter.)

Mayor Murphy: Um, we're here this evening to consider the property affectionately knownas Still Meadow which was purchased by the Town in 1998. And, in1998, the Town purchased it with a, um, price tag of $2.175 million and itwas zoned as multi - family. And, with today's appraised value, using thesame zone, if you wanted to develop it as multi - family, it has beenappraised at $4.2 million which is how much it would have appreciated ifthat's what we wanted to use it for. However, since the Town purchased itto prevent it from being developed with the 176 condominiums that wereproposed, um, we are proposing a mixed use zone. On the Town piece,which is the only piece we legally have control over, we are proposing thatit be deed restricted and not allow any residential development at all on it.And, um, we think that this would be a good fit. The appraised value on aproposed mixed used zone is $2.7 million and that's what the developeragreed to pay which was what the appraiser that the Town hired, uh, cameup with as a value based on the zone change. Now, I don't know what thevalue would have been in 1998 if the zone had been what we're proposingnow. But, you can't compare the price today on a different zone based onwhat the price and the zone was at the time that we purchased it. So, I

don't want to mix up the two differences. I'm in support of a project likethis because it includes a hotel and a banquet/conference facility which issomething that, um, not just I think this community sorely needs, but hasbeen requested by many, uh, people in the community, many businessentities, uh, different school organizations and, um, different schools.


Because, as you know, we are rich in this area with, um, privateeducational facilities and we have pretty healthy alumni organizations.We also have quite a busy business climate at this time and one of thethings they always lament is: isn't it unfortunate that while we're hereduring the day to visit where we might want to do business, we can't havea reasonable sized business meeting with all the things that technologysupports a modern conference with today and then stay overnight in NewMilford, uh, because there aren't any facilities large enough. And, while Iappreciate the amenities that some of the lovely B &Bs provide us here inour community and around, they don't really lend themselves well to alarge business environment. So, I think that the opportunity to have someinput on the find of development that could support some of the requeststhat we've had from some of our business community is, uh, a good thing.Because normally, people just come and they build whatever makes itsway through, uh, the different land use boards and it may not be exactlywhat you might have asked for, but, in this particular instance, I think it issomething that we need. It, um, would also be helpful if, by the time by7th Grader was at her senior prom, the prom was here in Town where Icould keep a better eye on where she is rather than in Brookfield. Or, ifthe Chamber had their, uh, Gala here in our own Town. Or, if theWomen's Club had their Sweetheart Ball right here. And, I think thatkeeping the money, uh, close to our own community, uh, would be, uh, abetter thing also. In this particular instance, one of the people interested inpurchasing the property is a member of the New Milford community andhas deep roots in the community so he's easily accessible for everybodywho wanted to input how they would like to see that project which I thinkis a great advantage over someone out of town who is faceless that wecan't really get a hold of to have input with. As any other project goes inthe Town of New Milford, everything is contingent on all approvals thatare necessary through all the land use boards. And, I think that everyonewill agree that we have some very well tested land use boards that willensure that we get an environmentally sensitive and aesthetically pleasingproject when you come to this kind of design. This property is fullysewered. It also has a public water source. So, I know that such thoughtsof storm water management or protecting any of our, uh, wetlands or anyother of the environmental concerns will be, um, a major focus. I thinkour Welands Commission has — where's Roger —I don't think they've evercome up with a case they didn't win, so, I think that we can rely on theirexpertise to make sure that what we get is a very quality driven product.And, I would urge everyone's support with this project, if possible. I

know that we all don't always agree, but, um, hopefully, we can have theopportunity to, uh, give everybody the information that they need and, uh,we'll move on with this particular part of our government. Thank you.

Mr. Taylor: Because we waived the reading of the Resolution, we actually neglected tomove the adoption of the Resolution which we probably should do beforewe have any further discussion. So, is there a motion to adopt or move theacceptance of the Resolution?


Jay Lewin: Move the acceptance of the Resolution.

Mr. Taylor: Motion to accept the Resolution, is there a second?


Mr. Taylor: Any further discussion?

Vincent Nolan: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am Vincent Nolan the Economic

Development Supervisor for the Town ofNew Milford. Um, my job is to,uh, promote business growth in the community to expand the tax base ofthe community. And, the reason I wanted to speak— although the Mayorspoke eloquently on most of the reasons why we're favorable to thisproject —is the third piece of economic development. The first two are

pretty easy to see. If a project of this type comes to fruition and adds the,um, resources in terms of built infrastructure, the tax base will expanddramatically. That's a positive thing. It's something that I know, uh,those who are looking for me to succeed in our community, uh, arelooking for, uh, that to happen —tax base. That's a given. Job creation isthe second element of economic development and the jobs that we createdacross the board through the retail sector, through the hotel sector, thebanquet facility sector, uh, are all good consistent paying jobs, some ofthem higher end jobs than others clearly, that's a given. So, I don't think Ineed to speak to that. The third element of economic development that Ithink is critical and the reason why this project is potentially valuable tothe community is wealth retention. And, when we talk about wealth

retention, we're talking about dollars that people in this communitycurrently earn and spend elsewhere in hotels outside the Town, in banquetfacilities outside the Town. The Mayor referenced just a handful ofpotential events that regularly go out of Town at anywhere from $75 to100 per person. If a 300 or 400 person banquet facility were inaudible inthis location, uh, the potential for retaining on any given Saturday, Sundayor Friday evening, are tens of thousands of dollars that now go toSouthbury, to Brookfield, to Danbury and other places around the State ofConnecticut, out of this community. Wealth retention is about moneyrolling over in the community. When the Mayor hired me and asked me topromote economic development, the first thing she asked me to focus onwas jobs. And, you've heard of some of the projects that we're workingon that are job creation. The second piece is the tax piece, but the wealthretention piece is something that is not easily done because it requires thatwe put services into the community that don't currently exist in thecommunity. We have an opportunity here to create that incentive byworking in collaboration with the folks who have the right to build on theadjoining piece. We have given them the incentive to build on our piecethings that are not necessarily going to be the first highest priority of adeveloper to put their money into and that is a banquet facility and a hotel.But, these particular individuals, because of their interest in the initialproperty, have been working with us on development of a regulation that isworkable and positive for the community. We have the ability now to


bring in that hotel and banquet facility that we might not have for another4, 5 or perhaps as far out as 10 years if the market itself were to just drivethat. So, I think we have a grand opportunity to do that. The last thing Iwant to comment on is smart growth. One of the things that all people thatare involved in land use and economic development today are concernedabout is where you locate types of businesses and how does it relate toyour existing business infrastructure. The Mayor and I have been workingtowards developing a game plan for the improvement and the continuationof success of our village center. One of the things that I find positiveabout this particular proposal is that by bringing the hotel as close to thecenter of Town, our existing village, we have the opportunity to createsynergy as opposed to negative draw. If the hotel proposal were on a pieceof land south of Lanesville, in this area (pointing to map), not the samedynamic. Bringing the hotel that close to the center of our currentbusiness district is a net gain to our overall business climate in the centerof our Town. So, there are smart growth principles that apply here that sayconcentrate your important resources in the center of your community.This proposal, with our help, will allow that to happen. So, I encourageyou, for a variety of reasons, to think favorably about this proposal beforeyou tonight. Thank you.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you Mr. Nolan. Is there any further discussion?

Edmund Nahom: I'm sorry to say that the Mayor and Mr. Nolan have stolen my thunder so Imight even be shorter than I promised the moderator so bare with me. Asusual, in my presentation of anything, I study the negatives, I like to seewhat people are thinking and then I'll address the negatives. I've attendedfour Common Council meetings. I've attended a countless number of

zoning meetings, uh, concerning this particular project and various typesof submissions —not this particular one—and listened to the people —listened intently —and listened to some very valid objections and listenedto some objections that I think weren't so valid. In the Sunday editorial,the editor of The News Times said this project is fairly well conceived,however, it may impact the traffic on Route 7 too greatly to be done onthat particular piece. If he had talked to a travel engineer as I have severaltimes, he would have found that between the hours of 6:30 in the morningand 9:00 is the heavy traffic going south and between roughly 4:15 and6:15 at night is the heavy traffic coming home. That traffic is going toexist whether we have this particular retail or life use center as it is called,or we don't, because those people are going to Danbury to work andthey're coming home to New Milford to live. Any of you that areshoppers understand that when you go shopping, you don't usually goshopping in those hours. And, I travel Route 7 back and forth from ourbusiness which is just north of the Brookfield line to my home which isright off the Green a countless number of times. And, if I come up afterthose times, or before those times, the traffic, actually, with the wideningof the road, and once I get back, the construction south of Lanesville Road,actually, the trip is delightful. So, adding this to that particular situationwhere most of the traffic is going to come after the morning rush hour or


after the evening rush hour when most people do their shopping won'timpact the traffic as much as the editor of The News Times said. Too, Iwas also on the objections that we should save this piece of property anduse it for other things. Well, the other things that were mentioned was asenior center and the Public Works and those two particular things can beprobably, uh, with the revenue from this piece probably be done north ofthe circle where the property isn't as expensive. I can go on and on withevery objection that took place. And, if the moderator will permit it later, Iwill field any questions because I've done a lot of study on the subject.But, in the meantime, let me give you some of the positives. For those thatdon't know me, I live —my name is Ed Nahom —I live in the center ofTown. I am within walking distance of the Green. My home is onSummit Street. And, as I said, we enjoy this Town. We came to this

Town 16 years ago from Brookfield where we lived for 28 years. So,we're not movers and we're not coming in from out of town to affect thisTown. This is my Town and if I do something, it's going to be of quality.I say this because when I came to Town, my taxes were at a certain leveland they have increased slightly for the first seven or eight years. And, inthe last six years, my taxes have gone up 50% as most of you can attest.The reason for this is that the nahsayers have not added to the Grand Listanything other, for the most part, I won't say nothing, that's— that's—that's — that's wrong, for the most part, have kept this type of developmentdown and our Grand List hasn't increased proportionately to the amount ofhomes — amount of homes that have been built. I site the situation with a

three, four, five bedroom home that has, on a national average, 2.3 or 2.4children. That child —one child - -costs approximately $12,000.00 toeducate. 2 %2 or 2 1/3 costs approximately $30,000.00. That house is

typically paying somewhere in the $4,000.00 tax range. The reason I bringthis up is that this particular project will produce somewhere around a halfa million dollars of revenue with absolutely no impact on the schools andno impact on services because all the roads are going to be interior. Allthe sewers will be interior and there won't be any additional services thatwill be needed for the Town of New Milford. That, in itself, shouldn't bethe reason why you should vote yes. There are other things. We looked atthis and did the demographics and we think —and I say that because Idon't know what the uses are going to be yet —we think we're going tocreate between 250 and 400 new jobs. Of those, roughly 20% will bevery, very good paying jobs. About 35% percent will be at the mediumlevel. And, of course, you have those that are clerking in some of thelarger stores which will have incomes at a lower level. But, the jobs willstill be created. Jobs which are now being enjoyed by Danbury and thesurrounding towns. I was—I tried to, in fact, when you sit down andcommit to the type of dollars that we've committed to this project, notonly the piece from the Town, but the piece that we're presentlypurchasing and we commit those type of dollars, that we have to beconvinced it's not only good for us, but it's good for the Town. Because,as Mayor Murphy pointed out, we have to go through a bevy ofcommissions before we can put a shovel in the ground. Uh, we have to goto the Zoning Commission, we have to go to Wetlands, we have to go to


Sewer, we have to go to Water —all this has to be approved before —andevery one of them will have, as I often used to say when I was developingother properties, everybody takes a shot at us. Uh, we plan to do a qualitydevelopment and we plan to, uh, we plan to make you proud of us. Weplan to increase the tax base. We plan to increase the number ofjobs. Weplan to, uh, as has been dictated by the new Zoning regulations, if you'renot familiar with it, we plan to have a situation where only 30% of thetraffic exists on, uh —is that correct Vin? 30% of the traffic exits on Route7 and 70% exits on Fort Hill Road or the extension of Fort Hill Road. I

don't know —what is that road called, I'm not sure?

Public Member: Peagler Hill.

Edmund Nahom: Peagler Hill Road, I'm sorry. I don't want to say Fort Hill, becausenothing, nothing exits on Fort Hill. That road will be closed and that's,uh, this road here {pointing to map} and there is nothing at all exiting herepointing to map }. We have an exit that is across the way from, uh, theBig Y exit and that's where roughly 701 /o—we say roughly because youcan't monitor it —we hope to have 70% of the traffic exiting there andcoming to a light which would mitigate some of the problems that werediscussed in that editorial that I eluded to. We plan to have the projectpedestrian friendly and so that you can go to a store and walk through thiswhole thing. This is tough, because this here (pointing to map) represents40 acres and it's just tough putting it on one piece ofpaper. So, everythingis small. If you look at this, it's very pedestrian friendly. Uh, it looks likethe village concept where we have parking in front of the stores. Uh, it'sthe project was modeled after many that I, uh, many that I've looked at. Ivisited similar projects in Florida; South Windsor; Nashville, TN. I've

hired a very competent planner so that we can emulate those things that,uh, that we saw that were good. Uh, and when these plans are approved bythe various boards, we have the expertise to construct the buildings. As Isaid, I hope the moderator will let me take some questions. I would bemore than happy to answer any questions. I just tried to touch on all thebullet points, all the high points and I know that, uh, you guys arewondering in your mind what we're going to do with it. Well, that's whatwe're going to do. We're going to give you a nice development. We'regoing to pay taxes. And, hopefully, alleviate some of the problems thatthe Town presently has. Thank you.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you Mr. Nahom. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Wargo.

Frank Wargo: Frank Wargo, 6 High Meadows Road. Um, I'm speaking tonight as acitizen, former Town Council member, but also as the Chairman of theEconomic Development Commission. Let me put the first hat on. Um,economic development, as Vinny had mentioned and the Mayor, issomething that we need. I'm not going to go into that because you'vealready heard it. The Economic Development Commission, when weheard this proposal, we looked at both the piece in the front and the piecein the back. Kind of what would be best. The front piece can be


developed without the back piece, but it would only be part. The best use,we felt, was to put the two pieces together. So, from an economic

standpoint, I'm in favor of that. Now, let me put my hat on as the formerTown Council member. When we bought this piece, uh, we were facedwith the potential of 178 condominiums because of the sewer goingthrough there making the units affordable, um, and we felt that thatprobably was not the way that we needed to go in that area, so wepurchased it. But, because we felt we had to sell it to the Town, we didn'tthink it would stand on its own just for that reason. So, we had a surveydone. The Mayor, at that time, checked with all the boards andcommissions and the agencies in Town and said, "we're buying 19 acres inthe center of Town, would you be interested in using it ?" we checked with

the fire departments, they didn't see any need any time within the nearfuture, or even the far future, for that matter, because their houses werecentrally located already. The next one would be Public Works. It wasdecided that's a potential, but it looks, because of the aquifer situation, youwouldn't want to put it there. Ambulance wasn't going to use it. We

asked the schools. The schools said, "no, it's too small for a futureschool." Uh, how about fields? They said, "we could develop fields, butit would be too far away from the existing then high school which is nowan elementary school which now has adequate fields for that purpose."So, we're down to Park & Rec, which is the natural use for it in the future.

And, they said they didn't see it in their plans to use it. But, let's assumethat 19 acres could be used for fields sometime in the future. If we enact

what we're talking about tonight, we will sell that property, and becausewe paid down that debt and we're getting more for it than what we paid,we have about a million to a million two profit. If we took that money andjust put it to the side —this would be my recommendation —and don't useit until sometime down in the future, we find a piece of property that trulywould be good for athletic fields, by that time, we'll have that money plusany interest that we get on that money which is about $60,000.00-80,000.00 per year, and we would have a nice sum of money to developfields where the Park & Rec wants them. So, future use, it's nice to say,but I don't think the future use is something that we really need. Not inthat area. That's best use for commercial development. We can developthe park somewhere else. You don't need to be in the center of Town.One of the things we have is Sego (sp ?) Meadows. Some of us were not in

Town when we bought that, but we have a beautiful piece of propertyalong the river and we haven't developed it because quite frankly, wedon't have the money because it was going to cost too much for ainaudible crossing. But, since that time, we have access to that propertyabove the rail line so we don't have to worry about that. If you took that1.2 million and developed Sego (sp ?) Meadows, you would have a ClassA athletic facility for the Town. I think that's a better use for it. It's rightnear the Nestle fields. It makes a lot of sense. Holding this property foruse that we really can't see and nobody seems to want, I don't think makesgood economic sense. So, I encourage you to vote in favor of this, but alsopush the Town to take that money and use it for something in the futurewhich we really need and that's going to be athletic fields. Thank you.


Mr. Taylor: Thank you Mr. Wargo. Any further discussion?

George Barnett: Hi, George Barnett, 435 Forest Trail, um, it seems like I'll be the loneperson against this project. Um, I heard many different reasons not to dothis over the last few weeks. Uh, some people say this is too close to anaquifer —too big a development for that. Others say it will create toomuch traffic in an already busy area like the editorial in the newspaper.Some say it will detrimental to downtown business. Uh, many believe thatthe Town should hold on to the land for future use which was just arguedagainst. And, still others would like to just see it kept as open space. Thepoint I would like to make tonight is that even if you are in favor of thisdevelopment, you should vote against it because of the way it was handled.A decision of this magnitude should be put to referendum. This is how itwas handled in 2004 when other developers approached the Town withdifferent proposals. The voters in New Milford voted against theseproposals at that time. In addition, there is no way to justify the timing ofthis vote when there is another major land use meeting on the same night.This is truly inexcusable.

Applause)

George Barnett: This is not the only way this proposal is being mishandled. Myunderstanding is that a developer approached the Town with a proposal tobuild this hotel, conference center and some other structures. To do this,the Town will have to change the zoning for the land. No other proposalshave been submitted to the Town for this property at this time. Wouldn'tit make more sense to change the zoning and then publicly market theproperty to other developers? The Town could end up receiving a muchhigher bid or a better proposal for the property. The plan submitted to ustonight may be the best we can do with this property, but we will not knowthat until we hear plans from other developers. I ask those here in favor ofthis project to vote no at this time. If we decide to sell this property, theTown needs to first change the zoning on the property, then aggressivelymarket it to many developers and give the registered voters in NewMilford a chance to vote in a referendum. A situation where the Townstands to generate substantial non -tax revenue are rare. We need to be

sure ifwe are going to sacrifice precious land, we maximize our return andgive residents a fair vote. Thank you.

Applause)

Mr. Taylor: Any further discussion? Yes, ma'am.

Jane Gregory: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jane Gregory and I havebeen a taxpayer in this Town for a little over 22 years and a resident sincethe middle of 1994.

Mr. Taylor: What is your address, please, ma'am.


Jane Gregory: I'm sorry?

Mr. Taylor: Tell us your address please.

Jane Gregory: 11 Partridge Lane.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you.

Jane Gregory: New Milford. I've been there since 1995. I lived on another street 1994

through 1995. I'm a realtor by trade and I've actually worked in thisoccupation for 28 years, and I do work locally. Um, I have a couple ofcomments and perhaps a question as well. I understand the price for theproperty being offered is $2.7 million. But, it is contingent on allapprovals being made. So, the Town wouldn't, in fact, generate or get anymoney from this project at least until July 8, 2008 when the approvalsostensively should be agreed to. But, I gathered too that other extensionswould be agreed if, by July the 8 um, the zoning, I think, the planningand also, I think, it goes right down to the Building Department too thenthey actually give the approval to the building. So, if this is right, that'spretty well much more extensive than any developer has had to do. And,it's obviously going to take quite a bit of time. One other point that Iwanted to make, I gather that it's $50,000.00 which is the down paymentfor this property which, in commercial terms, is very, very reasonableindeed. In fact, it would be said, I think, that it's very small. The contractalso does not allow any money to be paid should there be extensions afterJuly the 8 And, that's also a little unusual. The sewer has already beenrun into this property. I think it was run in, in fact, way back in 1993 or1994 and that betterment of the sewer was based on prices being paid by afuture developer for that sewer and that sewer allocation was done on thefirst sewer that was changed in the Town. Now, we're coming up to thesecond one. So, the water and the sewer are there. I gather Yankee Gas isalso —or was at one point— interested in doing some work on it. The

recent Route 7 improvements, like the traffic light by Big Y and just whereit says, "New Milford Settled 1707 ", that was all part of improvementsthat were scheduled to be done should this property be developed byanyone. And, even the little bridge which goes across by the pizzarestaurant where it says, "Buy by slice ", all of that was, in fact, put underthe heading that whoever was going to develop Still Meadows would, infact, pay for that improvement. So, there has been considerable bettermentto the project which doesn't just include the land, thousands of dollars hasbeen spent prior to all this time by the Town or whomsoever, um, on thispiece and that doesn't seem to reflect on the price which we're being askedto accept of $2.7. To the best of my knowledge, um, I haven't really seenany documentation, it's only through conversation that I have learnedanything, but I would imagine, over the last nine years, since the Town hasbought this piece, that there has been considerable money spent or interestwhich the Town has had to spend on this piece —maybe up to half amillion. Do you think those expenses should be told? Perhaps too so we


can estimate the two point seven, whether or not an appraiser has done it,uh, and done it correctly, are really appreciated in the figures. The originalcost of $2.175 and the holding costs, the improvements on the sewer, theimprovements by the state, I presume on Route 7, all that has really got tobe added. And, if you do think in terms of this, we're actually not gettingthe money that the State of Connecticut, or the people ofNew Milford hasactually put into this piece, it seems to me by very simple arithmetic thatwe are on inaudible moneywise. I was interested to hear from our Mayortonight that if, in fact, it had gone multi - family, the price would have beenhigher. I think perhaps it might have been a great idea to have had thatappraisal and had that figure being given public knowledge more than ithas been. As far as I know, it's not available, we don't know the comps orthe comparisons that we used to create either figure of over four or the twopoint seven. It would also be interesting to know who did the appraisal.Either the appraisal on the front piece, which is owned by individualinvestors and has been inaudible since the time purchased, uh, the Townpurchase, rather, the piece in the back in 1998. The original investors, Ithink, still own the front piece. Interestingly enough, too, the front piece,uh, investors, I gather, are challenging the Town because they don't thinkthat the assessment that they're being charged on the front piece is, in fact,too high for their interest. So, here we have an appraisal in the back whichis seemingly a little low and yet we have an appraisal in the front as wellwhere they're wanting to get it probably as low as possible because theydon't want to pay any extra taxes. And, it would be interesting to knowwho did what appraisal. Maybe the appraisal for the Town was done byone person, maybe the appraisal was done by inaudible front piece whichthe Town doesn't own, could even be the same person. If it is, maybethere's a little bit of conflict of interest there. Who knows? We don't

know the name of the person. So, I think the figures should be examined alittle bit more clearly. Two point seven, to me, doesn't seem quite theright price, and I agree with the last speaker, um, who said perhaps weshould have the zoning changed, if that's what we want to do as a Townand then put it out to market. That's how most towns do it. They don't doit in quite such a rushed fashion as we're being asked to suggest and voteon tonight. So, I don't think that we should vote tonight. I think we

should do, um, definitely a, um, whatever the word is we vote on itanyway, we should vote on it. That everybody has the right to do so, notjust simply, um, the few that are here this evening. Thank you.

Applause)

End Side 1, Tape I

Mr. Taylor: Is there any further discussion? Yes, sir.

Dennis Dolan: Dennis Dolan, uh, 28 Woodcreek Road, New Milford. Uh, I am not

speaking in favor or in opposition to this proposal tonight, um, I'm reallyundecided and I think that, uh, the Town needs a little more time to getsome questions answered and to discuss and to reflect on, uh, what I think


is going to be a huge decision for the long -term impact that this project isgoing to have on the Town. Um, I believe it should go to referendum. Ithink there should be some discussion and some more information

disseminated to the whole public and not just the public that could attendthis Town Meeting tonight before such a decision is made. I do have aquestion. I know the gentleman who spoke earlier invited questions and Ido have one. If, um, one of the things we're hoping to do is to lessen theimpact on the school system with respect to taxes and so forth by increasedcommercial and industrial development, when we are putting two -bedroom apartments in, um, this project, there are going to be a certainnumber of children who are going to be living in two- bedroom apartments,and I think that would lessen the positive impact that such a project wouldhave. I would question why we're not just talking about one - bedroomapartments. The other concern I would have is that those children who do

live in those two- bedroom apartments, uh, I don't think would have asuitable area for playing and for, uh, socializing because they're just goingto be living above a retail complex in the middle of a non-residential —primarily non - residential area. So, I would invite a response to that andmy suggestion is that I think we need more discussion and a referendumbefore we finally approve this project. Thank you.

Applause)

Mr. Taylor: Thank you Mr. Dolan. Any further discussion? Yes, ma'am.

Ann Cutter: Hi, my name is Ann Cutter and I live at 47 Fordyce Road. I'm not a publicspeaker, so, uh, my question regarding this development is the impact ofthe wealth. When I called up the DEP, I was told that we were supposedto have an Aquifer Protection Commission and we don't have that. Thatwould affect the area, I believe, down here (pointing to map), my glassesare up here, so I can't read it right now, but that would affect 500 feetaround each well. Um, that would change some of this a little bit. It

would change some of the properties on the corner of, um, Peagler andRoute 7, but we don't have those regulations. We don't have anybody tobe looking at that right now. I don't know if ultimately this would be agood idea. I think we have to look from a transportation standpoint, whattypes of roads we have —this one gets flooded, Grove Street goes underland. We have a lot of work to do before we can vote on this. And, that'sall, thank you.

Applause)

Mr. Taylor: Any further discussion? Mr. Greenspan.

Larry Greenspan: Thank you. Lawrence Greenspan, 17 Terrace Place. I swore I would notget up tonight.

Laughter)


Larry Greenspan: I think the concept is excellent. And, having said that, I think there aresome very major things that have to be considered. Ann Cutter justrecently talked about the aquifer, and my question is where is UnitedWater's opinion tonight? Is there anyone here from United Water that isgoing to speak to this? Secondly, I think the concept is great for NewMilford's tax base, but I really wonder if it's good for New Milford'sdowntown. And, I think the downtown survival is the most importantelement that we can put here tonight. Now, I have no grievance orprejudice against something called Nails, but every downtown that wasfailing that I've ever visited with my wife, and we checked downtown allthe time, one of the first things that moves in is Nails, so I really worryabout this.

Laughter)

Larry Greenspan: This development, I would ask this question, is it too massive for the area?The intersection of the bridge and Route 7 is already a mess and needssome great corrections including a pedestrian crossing so that people whodon't have cars and work at Big Y can cross without any danger tothemselves. Finally, I feel that it was pushed —I really don't —I'm notagainst this —I really would like more time to examine what's beingproposed. Therefore, I am going to do something that I think is legal froman opinion that was handed down by Ken Taylor some time ago, I wouldmove that this question be put to a referendum.

Applause)

Gale Alexander: Second Mr. Greenspan'smotion.

Mr. Taylor: There has been a motion to put the question to a referendum which hasbeen seconded. And, if I could have one, uh, minute with the TownAttorney, I think I know the appropriate way to proceed with this, but ifwe could have a one - minute recess, we'll be right back just to make surethe motion is appropriate.

Tape turned off)

Mr. Taylor: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll bring the meeting back to order please.Thank you very much. After consulting with the Town Attorney, uh, it isthe moderator's, uh, opinion that the motion made by Mr. Greenspanwhich was seconded is a motion that was not in order and cannot be

considered at the meeting tonight. Is there any further discussion?

Jay Lewin: Mr. Moderator, would it be appropriate, at this moment, I don't know,but...

Mr. Taylor: Point of order.

Jay Lewin: I'm sorry?


Mr. Taylor: You have a point of order, Mr. Lewin.

Jay Lewin: Point of order. Mr. Moderator, is it appropriate, at this time, to make amotion to table this meeting until the information that is sought tonight isable to be made available to everybody and adjourn, in other words, ineffect, the meeting to another meeting?

Mayor Murphy: Second.

Mr. Taylor: There has been a point of order raised to the Chair as to whether or not itwould be appropriate for the Chair to consider a motion to table the, uh,main motion that's up for consideration tonight. Uh, a motion to table, orsometimes called a motion to lay on the table, essentially allows this bodyto take no action whatsoever with regard to the motion that's at hand. Uh,it would then be up to —the motion would then expire with regard to theTown Meeting. It would then be up to the Town Council to takeadditional action either to call a referendum, call another Town Meetingafter further consideration and deal with it at that point. So, what wouldhappen is if someone moved to table the issue right now, essentially, thismotion would die tonight with no action on it. So, it would not beapproved and it would not be disapproved.

Mayor Murphy: I second Jay's, uh, motion.

Mr. Taylor: There is no motion yet.

Jay Lewin: I move to table.

Mr. Taylor: Alright, so there's a motion to table. Is there a second?


Mr. Taylor: There's a motion to move and table, is there any discussion

concerning... yes, sir?

Frank Wargo: Am I correct in assuming this is a two- thirds majority decision?

Mr. Taylor: It is. It requires a majority vote only.

Frank Wargo: ( Inaudible, he spokefrom the audience)

Mr. Taylor: There is a motion to table which has been seconded. Is there anydiscussion concerning the motion to table?

Public Member: Move the question.

Mr. Taylor: Question has been moved. Do you want to discuss it?

Public Member: Yes.


Mr. Taylor: Come on down, please state your name and address for the record sir.

Public Member: ( Inaudible, gentleman spokefrom the audience) Point of order.

Jeff Winter: Jeff Winter, 22 Morey Road.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Winter, Mr. Winter.

Jeff Winter: Yes.

Mr. Taylor: Just hold on for a second.

Jeff Winter: No problem.

Mr. Taylor: Uh, a motion to table is debatable. Mr. Winter, you have the floor.

Jeff Winter: Okay. State my name again, or?

Mr. Taylor: No, you're good.

Jeff Winter: Um, the problem that I've seen, not just with this project, but with anumber of other projects here in Town is that the debate is endless. Thedebate doesn't stop. There is very little action. There is a time whereadditional debate is worthwhile, but right now, it's really time to takeaction. Um, for those of you who don't think this item has been discussedenough or appraised enough or evaluated enough, I mean, this has beenlooked at over and over and over again by very thoughtful people here inTown. Um, people who have looked at the environmental impact, lookedat the economic impact, the impact on roads, at the community —does thisfit, does this not fit, does this benefit downtown, does it not benefitdowntown. There are people who work on this full time as Vin has beendoing for a long time. And, as a member of the Economic DevelopmentCommission, I know that we've discussed this numerous times and it has

been brought back and revised numerous times, and I, for one, believethat, number one, we should take action on this, but number two, that wereally need to approve this, uh, to help downtown, to help the rest of theCity, to help the tax base, to help the schools, to help employment, um,and really to benefit everyone in this room tonight. So, I would ask thatwe not table this motion, that we really, you know, decide that once andfor all, that this Town is going to move forward and take some action andreally show that we are willing to take on investors in this Town who wantto invest in what we do here as a community. Thank you.

Applause)

Mr. Taylor: There has been a motion to table which has been seconded. Is there anyfurther discussion concerning the motion to table? Since hearing none, allthose in favor of the motion to table, please signify by saying, I.


Public: I.

Mr. Taylor: All those opposed, say, nah.

Public: Nah.

Mr. Taylor: Of course, the moderator cannot determine if I or Nah won. Is there a

motion to divide the house?

Gale Alexander: A motion to divide the house.

Mr. Taylor: Is there a second to the motion?

Jay Lewin: Second.

Mr. Taylor: All in favor?

Public: I.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you. Uh, we will now divide the house. I would ask that all thosein favor of the motion to table, please stand on my right, over here (hegestured). And, all those that are against it, please stand on the left andwe ask the uh.. .

Mr. Taylor: Those who want to table it, stay on my right. Those who oppose themotion to table, please stay on the left. And, try to take a seat if you could,if you would, so that it makes it easier for us to count. So, if everyonecould find a seat either on the right side or the left side. If everyone couldfind a seat, please, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Taylor: If I could have your attention please, we're going to call the, uh, assemblyto order. Keep in mind that a table means that there will be no actiontaken on the motion pending. The Town Council can take it up later ifthey want to. They can choose not to take it up. It will be up to them at alater point. Those who oppose the motion to table are seeking a voteeither yah or nah on the motion tonight. Would everyone take a seat and Iwill ask that the counting begin by our Registrars of Voters. Just to beclear, is there anyone who is not voting in the assembly today just so wedon't count. Mr. Nolan up at the top. Anyone else not voting?

Public Member: We have one five year old.

Mr. Taylor: Okay, just tell him to stay short.

The public took a few moments to take a seat.)

The Registrars of Voters took a few moments and tallied the votes.)


Mr. Taylor: Alright, we've got the results of the division of the house. Those in favorof tabling the motion are 90, those against tabling the motion are 64. Themotion to table has carried.

Applause)

Mr. Taylor: The next appropriate motion for this assembly would be a motion toadjourn.

Jay Lewin: Motion to adjourn.


Mr. Taylor: There's a motion to adjourn which has been seconded. All those in favor,signify by saying, I.

The Public: I.

Mr. Taylor: Opposed?

The Public: { No opposition.}

Mr. Taylor: Thank you and have a safe ride home.

WHEREUPON this meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.}

WHEREUPON the following documents are incorporated into these Minutes: Legal Noticedated April 12, 2007; New Milford, Connecticut Town Council Minutes dated April 9, 2007;Memorandum from the New Milford Planning Commission, Katy Francis, Secretary, dated April30, 2007 to Mayor Patricia Murphy; Return of Posting and Publication of Warning of SpecialTown Meeting dated April 27, 2007; Affidavit of Publication dated April 24, 2007; and,Resolution.)


r_

CERTIFICATION

Jr . , am* Ndding, ,NataW .lub& in and f" dw State of , and

competent autfi"itcv, da &mfiv ce%U& and notav ize that the. PugaingA uctev aw a tuw and amnate twwcupt of the tape of dw ccumnenb

that wew made in tfw above - entitled mattex fieaxd 6efow dw Speciae gown

Meeting Pw die gown of New AWfaxd on .Matt 1, ZOO in dw Jheatne ofthe New Afi(faxd X19A Sdwoe, 388 Danbutq &ad, New Atdpwd,

eonnecticut, at 7:3C p.m.

AMY HOLDINGXOTART PVZUC

UYYC01=10N8WiE80C'!'.$1,2W


NotaW Jub&lState of

New Milford Town MeetingSIGN IN SHEET e-%a

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY

TOWN OF NEW MILFORD1707 C ,

M

Town Hall

10 Main Street

New Milford, Connecticut 06776

Telephone (860) 355 -6010 • Fax (860) 355 -6002

WARNINGOffice of Patricia Murphy, Mayor

SPECIAL TOWN MEETING

May 1, 2007

L"CO ], tor? 13 A If: 0 2

The electors of the Town of New Milford and those qualified to vote in Town Meetingsare hereby WARNED AND NOTIFIED that there will be a Special Town Meeting heldin the Theatre of the New Milford High School, 388 Danbury Road, in said Town of NewMilford, on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 7 :30 p.m., to consider and act (as appropriate) uponthe following agenda and to decide upon the following course of action:

Shall the Town of New Milford sell the town -owned properties commonly knownas "Still Meadows," consisting of approximately 194: acres to Edmund Nahomand Associates, for a cash payment of $2,700,000.00 for the purpose ofconstructing a Hotel/Banquet Facility and Retail Shopping/Offices/Business, theclosing of title shall be conditioned upon the receipt of all local land useapprovals for said use?

Dated at New Milford, this 12` day of April, 2007

yor

NEW MILFORD TOWN COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

MINUTES

APRIL 9, 2007

Present: Mayor Patricia MurphyPeter Bass (7:40)John Lillis

Mary Jane LundgrenPeter Mullen

Raymond O'BrienPatricia SherryRoger SzendyTheresa Volinski (8:45)Attorney Scott McCarthyTammy Reardon, Mayoral AideRaymond Jankowski, Director ofFinanceInterested members of the public and the press

Absent: Robert Guendelsberger

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Murphy led the room in the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence.

2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

There was no public participation at this time.

3. MINUTES

Joint Budget Hearing Minutes March 26, 2007

Alm O'Brien moved the minutes of .41arch 26, 2007as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mrs.Sherfl. and carried unanimously.

4. APPOINTMENTS

Sewer Commission Special AttorneyLaw firm of Cramer and Anderson

Attorney Scott McCarthy, filling in for Attorney DiBella, stated that Attorney DiBellaand Attorney Dolores Schiesel would be the primary attorneys.

NEW MILFORD TOWN COUNCIL — REGULAR MEETING — MINUTES — APRIL 9, 2007 Page 1 of 12

Pension Committee

Jessica F. Keizer (R)filling vacancy

4/9/2007 — 11/30/2007

Mrs. Keizer was unable to attend the meeting due to an emergency. Most of the memberssaid they knew her and she would be an asset to this Committee. Mr. Lillis did not knowher and abstained from voting.

f ;" the

r ".

113 £ 9 ,

e i 's:,Wh E[ c_+`

Airs.Ote< i4 s. - P8 `1's "y 1A 2 rtFa f o " 1 . #:;1 ilY

un(fiPren, Dr. '?8a; °`_':< anal _ ir, Bass rote y in

rid s d t h-, f i1fis abstained fiwin

Ethics Commission

John J. Walsh (R) 4/9/2007 — 11/30/2010

filling vacancy left by Carrie Lee Dubray -Woods (U)]

Mr. Walsh has been a resident of New Milford for 30 years. He has three children andfour grandchildren. He works for Chicago Title Insurance Company and has been in thistype of business for 31 years. He is currently the manager of its Danbury office.

Mrs. Sherry thanked him for coming forward and felt he would be an asset to theCommission. Mr. Walsh thanked the Mayor and the RTC for asking him to volunteer.

Mr. Lillis has known Mr. Walsh for a long time and felt him to be a good choice for thisCommission.

d3r Pi $'sd iIle f? "stY7# . € }didr('tt rtrl3i'(il?L' theappointment bi rite Jjaven ref goon .1 tI alsh (E) tothe Etlti(. t } =tniA fin the Carr °w ,, ril 9 007

through N'in rber ._ 0, 20JO. 1 rtrrdon utt,

Re- appointments for the following

Housing Code Enforcement CommitteeChristopher P. Gardener (R) 12/1/2006 — 11/30/2009

t . y

fircerient Ca3tirr si r€ e jir$r the

NEW MILFORD TOWN COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES - APRIL 9, 2007 Pa 2 of 12

art s, Tire moth - 1111 eEW :S sc.t:011£9ed hv 11rs..Mer -rJrarrtl carre£l €r2£I :f *#(.'j'>

Mr. O'Brien w(wed to suspend the rules and addthe,follotving items to the agenda: extending thetears of the ambulance commnittee, extending thetern€ of the ethics o4 group, and a socialservices budget items. The motion it as seconded by41r. &-erxcl) and carried aararartia2tortsly.

ADD: AMBULANCE COMMITTEE

fir: ('Rr ieaa moved the T£sa as jaaarcil recreate the

Ambulance C onamittee with the same charge as ithad previously had and the members ( Mrs.I_untlgren, 3 O'Brien, . 11r. Szendv, Andv

Armstrong, Thomas Boek, Robert Dumas, DonnaHespe and .Iohn Orton) with the exception ofMrs.Sherg tvho cannot make the meeting nights. Themotion it .seconded by AIr..Szendv.

The motion was originally to extend the life of the committee but after brief discussionand some research by Attorney McCarthy, it was noted that the committee had expiredJanuary 31, 2007) and would have to be recreated.

Mr. O'Brien stated the committee is a little behind as it was waiting to see what theoutcome of Route 67 would be, however, the committee does intend to fulfill its charge.The committee meets on various Mondays. After brief discussion of someone takingMrs. Sherry's place, it was decided that another Town Council member was not needed.

The motion carried unanimously.

ADD: ETHICS COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP

Mr. Bass moved to extend the Ethics Committee

f 'orking Group , for 6 months from April 9, 2007with the current rnernbers consisting of Mr.O'Brien, Joseph Faitla, Phillip xVpillane, and JtqLewin. The motion was seconded bj? Mrs. Sherry.

Mr. O'Brien stated the Working Group has not finished what it would like to completebut would have something to the Town Council for review in a month and a half. Severalmore points brought forth by a member of the public need to be addressed (ex -partecommunication etc). Nothing new has come down from the State.

The motion carried aan animousty,

NEW MILFORD TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES - APRIL 9, 2007 Page 3 of 12

ADD: SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET ITEM

c; .. . iI $` R'e :$ p `':, P e t. 0 ,C

fit%' it aror lii a 4t> '?:z oval:

Mr. O'Brien stated the members received the information requested from the SocialServices Director, Peg Molina, and the City of Danbury (Mayor Boughton). He regretsthe vote he made to cut the position out before he received the information. He

understands the situation and has come to the conclusion that this position is needed. It isan important adjunct to the town's citizens. Most of the people facilitating SocialServices are townspeople with homes here that have fallen on hard times. The budget asrecommended by the Mayor should go forward without the reduction of the CounselorAdvocate position. Although the Town Council cannot reconsider the action, it can askthe Board of Finance to include the Mayor's recommendation for Social Servicespersonnel budget when it deliberates and brings the town budget to the public.

Mrs. Lundgren agreed with Mr. O'Brien and supports the Mayor's recommendation ofthe Social Services budget. She noted there is the threat from the State level that the

Crisis Center will be cut out of Danbury. This would place more of a burden on the NewMilford Social Services. The inclusion of the Counselor Advocate would not increase

taxes or the mil rate.

Mr. O'Brien stated the information from Danbury shows that Dream Homes is notdisplacing any functions presently handled by the town, but giving better coordinationamong all the town agencies in the area. Ms. Molina had also given additionalinformation on what the office does and how they spend their time.

Mr. Lillis asked if the Mayor supported her recommendation. Mayor Murphy stated thatshe does do that, but does not support the request from Social Services for increasedhours for this position.

Mr. Bass expressed his concerns for what Social Services do during the day and how Ms.Molina's schedule includes the Culinary School. Mr. O'Brien felt that the CulinarySchool and the Counselor Advocate position are two different issues. Ms. Molina worksapproximately four hours a week at the School and works far more than her 40 hours perweek. If there was time before, cutting the Counselor Advocate position would causemore of a time restraint. Mr. Bass would like the issues clarified. He also would like

assessments from the department on what its needs would be for at least the next year.

Mrs. Sherry asked if Mr. O'Brien recommended a cut in another place. Mr. O'Brien

stated he did not. Mrs. Sherry felt that this position can be cut and lived without. Shestated that people cannot afford more taxes. It was noted that the position in questionwas added two years ago.

NEW MILFORD TOWN COUNCIL — REGULAR MEETING — MIlIUTES — APRIL 9, 2007 Page 4 of 12

Dr. Mullen stated one cannot always measure the dedication of an employee. He felt thatthe town is getting a great deal of value from the Counselor Advocate position and wouldbe in favor of putting it back into the budget.

Mrs. Lundgren stated the position was added because the case load is climbing everyyear. It is impossible for one Social Worker to run the department. It is not fair to theclient's that come in. Again she stated it is a benefit to the people who need the serviceand would not raise taxes or the mil rate. She added that Peg works four hours a week atthe Culinary School and is not running it. She would be doing a lot of grant writing andspending time with her clients.

Mr. Bass stated it is a valorous thing to do, but he felt department heads should come tothe Mayor and explain where they see their departments going in the future. He

questioned why he is learning about a demand to increase the job hours now and notseveral months ago. Ms. Molina stated at a previous meeting that she had time to helpwith the Culinary School. If she has time to do that, then there is time enough time to runthe Social Services proper.

111r. . zen(ly moved to table this item. Ihe motion

ivas seconded by l -Irs. AS'herty.

Mr. O'Brien noted that if the issue is tabled, the budget will have already been sent outfrom the Board of Finance and this would essentially kill the question.

The motion FAILED vith a 3 -4 vote. Mrs.

perry, JVr. .Vzendj7, and .3 Bass voted in, favor ofthe motion. Dr. -71tcllen, A& Lillis, A& O'Brien,and MPs. Lundgren voted against the motion.

Mr. Lillis stated he would support the original motion with some reservations. He is notsure how many people this department needs to run its operations. He has received allthe materials, and although he still has questions, he felt that once the position is cut,someone loses their job and it cannot be undone. He asked that within the next few

months, the item be put on the agenda to be discussed. He is not sure what this

department does. He believed that the Town Council should have some input on what itwants the department to do.

Mr. Lillis felt that he would like to spend some time in the department to learn what itdoes as it is the department that he knows the least about. Mrs. Sherry stated that shetried to do that and was told she could not.

Mrs. Lundgren felt that Town Council members should spend time with all thedepartments to see what they do. Mayor Murphy stated she would see what she could setup.

Mr. Bass asked to see Ms. Molina at the next meeting as he has questions. He asked thatshe be prepared to explain what she sees happening in her department six months out up

NEW MILFORD TOWN COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES - APRIL 9, 2007 Page 5 of 12

to two years. He believed there should be an effort made to find the displaced CounselorAdvocate a job within the town government if the position is eliminated.

S, P

and Ir- p:as 1 ; at d in a w#',',:,t nh

5. PARKS AND RECREATION

Discussion and possible action on request to accept donation of 27" Magnavoxtelevision to be used for weight training and exercise programs.

t ie 1: ltvor and Parks and ecreation to arecept thedona of a ., >7" tlftC tele : o it "Th

aaa'" da ^3 rrs ; J ass rt J.g # xLta¢z ` i: - I ? `.`,? $ Frids d ; f " •

6. BOARD OF FINANCE

Discussion and possible action on proposed revision of Section 2 -92 of the NewMilford Code pertaining to municipal purchases.

Mr. Raymond Jankowski, Director of Finance, was present for the discussion. He statedhe was required to keep track of all assets. Most towns are a $5,000; $10,000; $12,000;and $15,000 capitalization limit. Capitalization has nothing to do with bidding, has noreflection on taxes, and has no reflection on services to the taxpayers. It is only anaccounting function that he needs for the new GASBE 34 statements. He does have tocapitalize all assets ($300 and above). He recommends a $5,000 capitalization limit. Heresearched other town and based his number on population. This is not meant to getaround the rules, it is just for efficiency.

It seems to be part of the ordinance for purchases. Mr. O'Brien could not find a reasonfor this to be with bidding ordinance. Mr. Jankowski stated it is part of Item P underMunicipal Purchases but does not know why it is there. It is nothing but an accountingordinance.

It does not mean he is not going to track the assets, but it does mean that he does not haveto follow GASBE 34 guidelines for assets that are valued less than the limit the town sets.

Mr. O'Brien suggested a resolution. Attorney McCarthy stated that Attorney DiBella hassome issues with the language in Item P.

NEW MILFORD TOWN COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES - APRIL 9, 2007 Page 6 of 12

Mr. Szendy was not sure that the size of the town has bearing on what a town capitalizesat; however, he felt that $2,500 would be a good amount. He also stated that things thathave a life of less than a year should not - be capitalized.

Mr. Jankowski stated the town has $179 million dollars in gross assets, many of whichare small assets including every road, drainage basin, sewer pipe, etc.

Mrs. Sherry did not see a problem with a $5,000 level. She is not sure it is worth

spending the time tracking everything from $300 to $5,000. She felt it should be

burdensome and trusts Mr. Jankowski to keep the books.

Mr. O'Brien agreed with Mrs. Sherry about the $5,000 level, but would like to know whatforces the town to a $300 level now because it is not in the bid ordinance.

Dr. Mullen agreed with the $5,000 level.

Mayor Murphy stated she would get information from Attorney DiBella or whether asimple resolution is okay. No further action was taken this evening.

Mrs. Volinski was present at this time (8:45 p.m.)

7. FINANCE

A. Discussion and possible action on presentation by Luis Abella of Edward Jones toestablish a 457 Retirement Plan for Town and Board of Education employees.

Mr. Jankowski and Mr. Lou Abella were present for the discussion.

Mr. Jankowski stated that the town had previously had three 457 plans and is now downto two. Some employees came to the town and requested a third choice and further askedthat Edward Jones be looked at as it is in town and they can have ready access to the firm.

No town or taxpayer funds are used. It is an employee elective plan taken out of theirsalaries. The town would be a caretaker of the funds. Mr. Jankowski stated 457 is a

government plan comparable to the 401K.

Jfr Bass moved that The Hagford Cornerstone457 Plan be accepted as one ref the enzplqyeeben- gfits. The motion was seconded by 111r..Szen(b,.

Mr. O'Brien noted for the record that the plan was requested by the employees. Dr.

Mullen wondered if the town would be looking at more of these plans. Mayor Murphystated that the employees asked for this particular one because the offices are right nextdoor.

Members did not feel they needed to hear the presentation.

l "n"'Won carried mr[mmrtnisl ,

NEW MILFORD TOWN COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - MINU'T'ES - APRIL 9, 2007 Page 7 of 12

B. Discussion and possible action on request to designate Savings Bank of Danbury asa depository for the Town of New Milford.

8. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Update on the Housatonic Avenue improvements.

Department of Public Works Director Mike Zarba was present for the discussion. He

stated that he has met with the consulting engineer and walked the site. The engineer hasa good handle on the project. Specs based on the contract are done and a draft set ofplans have been received and are currently being reviewed by the Department of PublicWorks office, the Town Attorney, the DECD and United Water. He should have

comments back by the end of the week and it should be put out to bid on April 16, 2007.His office is working with the DECD to move the project forward.

Mr. O'Brien thanked Mr. Zarba for getting in touch with Mr. Jahn about the 5K RoadRace. Mr. Zarba stated the issue would be handled.

9. MAYOR'S OFFICE

A. Discussion and possible action on request for $ 6,075.00 supplemental appropriationfrom contingency or other accounts as may be determined by the Director ofFinance for New Milford's participation in the Dream Homes Initiative, theRegional Task Force to End Homelessness.

ogjlleH ePY`5 VC ( I

fdo

6''d1 } i €C''"t fi.' = s # #

J Fed: g ?"lartL'# # ati( in fEe b t°a wn, me filli ative t e

Brief discussion ensued as to when the money could be appropriated as it is an operatingaccount. Mr. O'Brien felt that the money should not be appropriated now as it cannot becontinued in force for next budget year. Mayor Murphy stated that she intended to putthe money in the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials account. Mr. Szendystated the town could prepay the money.

NEW MILFORD TOWN COUNCIL — REGULAR MEETING — IvIINUI'ES — APRIL 9, 2007 Page 8 of 12

fFF ate %h

6w of theW Th

Ir fillski, 11r.

f 6+ f:e".! > k2 F kd. n,

Hy

8. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Update on the Housatonic Avenue improvements.

Department of Public Works Director Mike Zarba was present for the discussion. He

stated that he has met with the consulting engineer and walked the site. The engineer hasa good handle on the project. Specs based on the contract are done and a draft set of

plans have been received and are currently being reviewed by the Department of PublicWorks office, the Town Attorney, the DECD and United Water. He should have

comments back by the end of the week and it should be put out to bid on April 16, 2007.His office is working with the DECD to move the project forward.

Mr. O'Brien thanked Mr. Zarba for getting in touch with Mr. Jahn about the 5K RoadRace. Mr. Zarba stated the issue would be handled.

9. MAYOR'S OFFICE

A. Discussion and possible action on request for $ 6,075.00 supplemental appropriationfrom contingency or other accounts as may be determined by the Director of

Finance for New Milford's participation in the Dream Homes Initiative, theRegional Task Force to End Homelessness.

ogjlleH ePY5 VC ( I

fdo

6''d1 } i €C''"t fi.' = s # #

J Fed: g ?"lartL'# #ati( in fEe b t°a wn, me filli ative t e

Brief discussion ensued as to when the money could be appropriated as it is an operatingaccount. Mr. O'Brien felt that the money should not be appropriated now as it cannot be

continued in force for next budget year. Mayor Murphy stated that she intended to putthe money in the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials account. Mr. Szendy

stated the town could prepay the money.

NEW MILFORD TOWN COUNCIL — REGULAR MEETING — IvIINUI'ES — APRIL 9, 2007 Page 8 of 12

B. Discussion and possible action on 5 -year Capital Plan (please bring the bookshanded out during budget hearings with you.)

itV O'Brien mo ed the Town Council recommend

to the Board of Finance the Capital Budget aspresented br the flavor subject to the revision thatFiscal Year 2008 budget he adjusted to eonforan tothe Capital Budget recontmen tied hy the ToulnCouncil to the Board of'Finrance. The motion irtrasseconded by 11r..Szertcli.

Mr. O'Brien noted that the Lillis Building is not in the plan. He also questioned theAssessor line as it indicates a State mandated statistical revaluation but the number for

Fiscal Year 2010 and 2011 would indicate a normal physical revaluation. Mayor Murphydid not know if it is a mistake but it should be addressed.

Mr. O'Brien also had concerns about the capital improvements for Parks and Recreationfor Fiscal Year 2009. They are using monies from the Waste Management SettlementFund. He noted that takes specific action by the Town Council to do and it is not beingincluded in his motion. Parks and Recreation also requests Young's Field Parkimprovements, but no feasibility study has been done to date.

The Police Department budget shows what its personnel are and those needs needsshould be brought before the Town Council because they have already missed out on thefirst year for adding two police officers.

There are also some projects in the capital plan that he felt that the Town Council shouldmeet and deliberate on for future years. The Town Council should look at the need forthe items and see what the plans are for implementing them. He suggested doing thisbefore the fall.

Members felt they need input from the departments on their needs and wants. Lastly, itwas noted that the library expansion is not in the five year plan. Mayor Murphy statedshe extended the reservation of the property to the library. She had a recent meeting toconsider other options.

The motion carried u ith can 8 -0 -1 vote. Ylrs.

Maerry, Mrs. Volinski, r11r. O'Brien, 114r. & -endy,Mrs. Lundgren, Dr. Mullen, and A /r: Blass voted infervor of the motion. Mr. Lillis abstained fromvoting.


10. EXECUTIVE SESSION

Update pertaining to factors bearing on the sale price of the Still Meadows propertyto Edmund Nahom and his associates

Executive Session for update and review of UPSEU COPS 47 Police Union contractproposal pertaining to collective bargaining negotiations.

db.'a ?tl r r F {(' {! { AZ : ' ion, t(

I t-he Si '¢ L'i9 s . >{'; 141i;e

qnV g

tand e vF, >t.{fe a h n -t r

eis yr s' Tt_ - '{ sv?1 the f d 1)e [, ' a.o

discussio X 01111" T motion was seconded kilfr' ( Ifs' 4:.'? {r' {)a 1111 {trzrrrr {)Tr.4 )',

IL STILL MEADOWS

Discussion and possible action authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract of saleand on setting a Town Meeting date regarding the sale of Still Meadows property.

A r. O'Brien main edl the J -favor be author {i edl tieexe .., to a c{rrd>'act e?f the and to ; t ?ar n andConvene a tdm7n ineeting regarding the sale of theMill Ilecrctows prgpert;.- as discussed in ExecutiveSess d r, 2d = _ S.-no ioll Jsar Seconded lit A& Szendy.

Mr. Lillis stated he was against selling the property. He felt it should have been listedand the town should have tried to get the highest selling price for the property. He alsofelt there was someone else who was interested in the property that the town did notpursue.

Mayor Murphy stated she called the other potential buyer and she was told that the pricehe suggested was his highest and best price and it was higher than he had intended to go.

Mr. Lillis did not believe the manner in which the town went about selling the propertywas a way to get the highest and best price. He understands that it cannot be used forresidential development, but the other piece may be able to do so. He does not think thisis advisable for the town.

Mrs. Sherry stated she would support the motion and felt that it is a good offer and theproperty has been advertised and reported on by the newspapers. The town could holdonto the property forever but it cannot control what happens to the other piece. She feelsMr. Nahom's proposal is a good one.


Mr. Szendy supported the sale of the property as well. He felt it should be sold and

improved to become an asset to the town. The purchaser is willing to accommodate thetown's wants and wishes. He feels it to be a win -win situation.

Dr. Mullen felt an issue such as this should go to a vote and there are a few things that hedoes not like. He does not feel that reporting has been very good and that major issueshave been left out of the newspapers such as the potential for a box store, etc. When thetown sells the property, it loses control of it. Although he has some concerns, there arealso some positives such as bringing in more money. However, the downside to that isthat it would bring in more traffic. All in all, he would support bringing this to a townvote.

Mrs. Sherry did not understand the town's problem with big box stores. Many peopletravel to other towns to do their shopping. Along with that shopping comes eating attheir restaurants, etc. Traffic is the way of the world and she would like residentsshopping in New Milford rather than traveling to other towns and spending their moneythere.

Mr. O'Brien supports the motion and noted that right now the town has total control overthe property to do nothing The town pays on the property but does not collect anythingon it. He would like to turn a liability into an asset.

Mr. Szendy stated the town has not control over the other property, but can control thetown's property in the sale. There is a covenant on the town property for no residential.He said the town has to move forward.

Mrs. Lundgren had traffic concerns and noted there are new aquifer regulations that willbe put out by the State which could affect this area of the town. The project is large andcould affect the town's water. She is also concerned about the density of the project.

Mayor Murphy noted that through Zoning the town will get a traffic report and that thetown has a very knowledgeable and aggressive Wetlands Enforcement department. Thetown is fortunate to have judicious focus on these types of issues.

Mr. Lillis felt that the buyer should have to submit a plan before the property is sold sothe voters can decide if they want to sell the property for it or not. He also noted in thecontract there were no contingencies for obtaining necessary permits.

Mayor Murphy stated there are none. Nothing has been discussed on that issue.Attorney McCarthy would speak to Attorney DiBella about it.

Mr. Bass stated that the area is zoned multifamily and he would assume that thepredecessors did their homework when applying this zone. He felt comfortable that Mr.

Nahom is a New Milford resident and would fulfill a need and capture money for NewMilford.

NEW MILFORD TOWN COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES - APRIL 9.2007 Page 11 of 12

UP c- n

Mr. Lillis felt that something as important as this should go to referendum to have anopportunity to vote.

Mr. Szendy stated the previous motion authorized a town meeting. Members brieflydiscussed of whether they should have a town meeting or a referendum and referencedSection 7 -7 of the General Statutes. The town can remove something off a town meetingcall list five days before the meeting date to send it to referendum.

Mr. O'Brien would not support a referendum as he felt it was not needed.

I'h!`ti 3 n # ., + d!fd.•`% r'1

O'Brien, 11r•. , zen dr, and . i'lr. Bass - otcd rrgtrinstthe nuption.

Members settled upon a town meeting date of May 1, 2007.

12. PERSONNEL

Discussion and possible action on UPSEU COPS 47 Police Union contract.

Mr. O'Brien rrroi the Tfi - iirn Council frrrthor•X;;p14 -(nwr to €'' venude t]i?? g_l VE} , f - -,0 - PS 4 . pay liee

4ksP) .;. Pattdfafrr zai..! Idis.

F' ", Tld_'

Motion ruffs seconded b Air's'. - .'Yher 7 m?d earried

Respectfully submoked,

dilynn FerlowRecording Secretaryjlf

NEW W XORD TOWN COUNCIL — REGULAR MEETING — MINUTES — APRIL 4, 2007 Page 12 of 12

to-

Y eve

Ss5 <F u!fff p.'s'.1- n sf'f, F IFS`}" +t Xi tar

g I. F

gz9)gy?)Y

TA3.yFDE

SJ.t # - T.6 § k 3 y ± } P 2i 1' € # J 4a i °Ys cda2 - cif ,'ir t

5

UP c- n

Mr. Lillis felt that something as important as this should go to referendum to have anopportunity to vote.

Mr. Szendy stated the previous motion authorized a town meeting. Members brieflydiscussed of whether they should have a town meeting or a referendum and referenced

Section 7 - 7 of the General Statutes. The town can remove something off a town meetingcall list five days before the meeting date to send it to referendum.

Mr. O'Brien would not support a referendum as he felt it was not needed.

I'h!`ti 3 n # ., + d!fd.•`% r'1

O'Brien, 11r•. , zen dr, and .i'lr. Bass - otcd rrgtrinstthe nuption.

Members settled upon a town meeting date of May 1, 2007.

12. PERSONNEL

Discussion and possible action on UPSEU COPS 47 Police Union contract.

Mr. O'Brien rrroi the Tfi - iirn Council frrrthor•X;;p14 -( nwr to €'' venude t]i?? g_l VE} , f - -,0 - PS 4 . pay liee

4ksP) .;. Pattdfafrr zai..! Idis.

F' ", Tld_'

Motion ruffs seconded b Air's'. - .'Yher 7 m?d earried

Respectfully submoked,

dilynn FerlowRecording Secretary

jlf

NEW W XORD TOWN COUNCIL — REGULAR MEETING — MINUTES — APRIL 4, 2007 Page 12 of 12

a

7®7c

A

TOvVN OF NEW MILFUREhAAYORS OFFICETown Hall

10 Main StreetAPR 3 0 2007

New Milford, Connecticut 06776Telephone (860) 355 -6080 a Fax (860) 210 -2623

Office of the Planning Commission

Date: April 30, 2007

To: Mayor Patricia Murphy

From: New Milford .Planning CommissionKaty Francis, Secretary

At its April 19, 2007 Regular Meeting the New Milford Planning Commission voted toapprove the request for an 8 -24 recommendation for the sale of Still Meadow properties.

NEW MILFORD PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 19, 2007

Present: Peter Eng, ChairmanKaty Francis, SecretaryTom Morey, VChairBob Rush

Walter Kidd, Alternate (seated for Jeremy Schutz)

Absent: Jeremy SchulzMarian Schomp, AlternateJames Volinski, Alternate

Mr. Eng opened the April 19, 2007 Regular Meeting of the New Milford Planning Commissionin the Loretta Brickley Room at 7:30 pm.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

1. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING REGULATIONS TO ADD CHAPTER 145,SECTION 145 -090 OFF -SITE SIGNAGE.

No one was present from Zoning.

Mr. Morey had concerns on how the Zoning Commission was going to regulate signs onsomeone else's property.

Mr. Rush responded these signs were going to be given by special permit only. The businessowner would need to make a deal with the property owner. A written agreement must bepresented for the special permit application process. The sign size will also be regulated.

Motion by Tom Morey to denv proposed amendment to zoning regulations to addChapter 145, Section 145 -090, Off -site Signage for reasons the Planning Commissionneeds clarification in that the intent is unclear in relation to the permitting process.Motion was seconded by Bob Rush. Motion carried with a vote of 4 -1. [YES. Eng,

Morey, Francis, Kidd, NO: Rush].

2. REOUEST FOR 8 -24 RECOMMENDATION FOR SALE OF STILL MEADOWPROPERTIES.

New Milford Planning Commission - Regular Meeting — Minutes - April 19, 2007

Mr. Roger Szendy, of the Town Council, was present. He stated the Still Meadows propertywas bought by the Town to prevent residential condos. He felt this buyer satisfies the needs ofthe Town; and the Town Council has authorized a Town Meeting for the residents to vote onsuch sale. The sale would payoff the bond and the balance would go into the general fund. Thereare some agreed upon contingencies with the sale, and a proposed hotel and conference center.

Mr. Russ Posthauer, PE, added the purchase was for commercial options and a life center.

Mr. Morey read out loud to the commission from a State Statute on 8 -24 referrals. He explainedin detail why a motion from Town Council, the legislative body, for an 8 -24 Referral wasneeded. The Mayor may not authorize an 8 -24 on her own. "This process is null and voidbecause they did not request a referral to Planning. The process is flawed."

Mr. Szendy disagreed with Mr. Morey and stated in this case the Town Meeting is thelegislative body. There can only be one legislative body for a vote. Two legislative bodies maynot vote on this. His many years experience as past Planning Chairman and current TownCouncil member was noted.

Ms. Francis read out loud an email from Town Attorney DiBella. Attorney DiBella stated in hisletter the Mayor has the authority to request a referral from Planning without a Town Councilmotion. Ms. Francis added that she agrees with the Town Attorney and Mr. Morey did have theoption to vote 'no'.

Motion by Katy Francis to approve request for 8 -24 Recommendation for sale of StillMeadow Properties. Motion was seconded by Bob Rush for discussion. Planning

recommends the referralfor Still Meadows as requested in a letter dated April 12, 2007by Mayor Patricia Murphy. Motion carried with a vote of 3 -2. [YES: Eng, Francis,Kidd; NO: Morey, Rush.

Mr. Morey added this notice is defective.

3. BUCZEK SUBDIVISION — 2 LOT SUBDIVISION — POPLAR STREET

Mr. Mongeluzi, the engineer, was not present. Mr. Eng read a letter out lout for CJOJ LLCdated April 19, 2007 stating sewer would be hooked up this upcoming week.

Mr. Rush agreed to prepare a resolution for the next regular meeting. No more extension couldbe granted.

MR ENG RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM AND LEFT THEROOM. MR. MOREY TOOK OVER AS CHAIR. **

Planning Commission - Regular Meeting- - Minutes- April 19, 2007 2

4. LAKE VIEW HILLS, LLC — 205 CANDLEWOOD LAKE RD NO. — 5 LOTSUBDIVISION

Mr. Russ Posthauer, PE and Mr. Michael Mannion, Esq. were present for the applicant.Mr. Posthauer handed out various documents and maps to the commission. Such documentsincluded the following: a letter from United Water dated April 16, 2007, and an "Erosion ControlPlan and Construction Sequence for Lake View Hills" revised April 11, 2007 by CCA LLC.Mr. Posthauer explained the map plans before the commission. All grades were 15% or less anda letter from CCA, dated April 19, 2007, explaining the reasons this commission should waivethe common driveway regulations without setting any precedent for the fact it is in the lakedistrict.

Attorney Mannion clarified the "precedent" issue further reminding the commission they do notneed to do the same exception for all future applications herein for the mentioned reasons in theletter by CCA. He also read excerpts from Regulation 5.285.

As requested by Mr. Morey, Mr. Posthauer agreed to drop off a map with all colored grades byMonday.

Mr. Rush commented he liked the idea of Lot #1's driveway coming off of Maple Drive.

Mr. Posthauer explained they already have permission to come off of Maple Drive. He thenhanded out two map options to be considered in regards to open space. The first was titled "OpenSpace `A' Lake View Hills and the second titled "Open Space `B' Lake View Hills. Mr.Posthauer suggested the map titled "Open Space `B' as being more desirable.

A brief discussion began on the planned drainage. Mr. Posthauer repeated some of the same fromthe prior regular meeting.

NOTE. Katy Francis left the meeting at 8:30p.m.

NOTE: MR. ENG RETURNED TO THE MEETING.

5. CRAWFORD RIDGE — CRAWFORD & CANTERBURY ROAD — 7 LOTSUBDIVISION

Mr. Morey reminded everyone as to whether the $30 state fee had been collected. Per the filesit did not appear it had been collected. A brief discussion began on such fees and the procedures.

Mr. Vic Nelson was present. He mentioned a letter by Joe Mongeluzi, the engineer, havinganswers to Mr. Morey's concerns by the May 3rd meeting. Mr. Nelson then asked whether thecommission would consider a fee in lieu of instead of open space. The open space was notplanned near the large gully, but in the wetlands.

Mr. Eng felt excepting a fee in lieu was a win win situation for both the town and developersince the proposed open space would have been wetlands anyway, which is not buildable.


Mr. Eng asked Mr. Nelson to bring in a copy of the Assessor's card for the next meeting.

Mr. Nelson addressed the gully concerns. He stated it would be filled in and he would "pipe thewhole thing out and fill it in."

Mr. Eng noted that review letters from the various departments were still outstanding.

6. FLYNN ESTATES — WEST MEETINGHOUSE ROAD — 4 LOT SUBDIVISION

Mr. Eng read a letter out loud from Attorney Sienkiewicz dated April 13, 2007 stating he wouldnot be present this evening.

Mr. Morey had the following written comments he wished included in the minutes:

A. Application check is missing the State of CT fee.B. .07557 acres of Open Space required while 1.43 acres has been provided.

1. Does the Planning commission want just lots 2 & 3 to won the Open Space or all 4lot owners?

2. An easement along the lot lines of lots 2 & 3 should be granted to lots 3 & 4 for

access purposes to open space.

C. The possible easement to CL &P as shown on the assessors map according to the deeddescription in the schedule "A" that's provided should be shown on the A -2 subdivision map.If that easement doesn't affect this parcel.

D. Supplemental plan needs to show site line for common driveway at intersection with theTown road.

E. Soil suitability testing conducted by R.S. Gallagher Jr. & Associates.

1. Provide letter of authorization from R.S. Gallagher to use soil data. Design engineerCJOJ shall certify the data also.

F. Provide a Soil Scientist registered in the State of CT report stating that no wetlands exist onthis site. Where is the report from ESM Associates?

G. The Common Driveway maintenance agreement does not provide for easements in favor ofall the lots for drainage access to the rain garden or for maintenance of the rain garden. Alsoan easement on Lot #1 for storm retention for Common Driveway should be provided.

H. How is drainage along Common Driveway going to be controlled? There are no catch basinsat the cul -de -sac.

I. Remove the rain garden from Lots 2 & 3 and place in open space where it would better serveall 4 lots. All 4 lots can then own an undivided interest in the Open Space and Rain Garden.

Mr. Eng briefly spoke on `conditional approval' for common driveways. He explained thatgiving conditional approval means they cannot sell lots until the driveway is built to town specsand standards. This type of approval reduces the required bond needed for the builder and iseasier for the Town to guarantee the driveway is built to specs before homes are built.


7. DEER WOODS DRIVE — REQUEST FOR ROAD ACCEPTANCE

The Applicant asked the item be tabled until May 17, 2007 per an email received by Mr.Szymanski's office.

A letter from Department of Public Works dated March 30, 2007 was mentioned. Mr. Zarba,Town Engineer, was present in case there were any concerns.

A motion was made by Mr. Morey to suspend the rules to add to the agenda a bondreduction for Farmstead Acres, at Guernsey Lane, Old Hayrake Lane andWeathervane. The motion was seconded by Bob Rush. The motion carried

unanimously.

A motion was made by Mr. Morey thatpursuant to letter dated April 18, 2007from theDepartment of Public Works, they recommend a bond reduction of 51,038.82 to betaken out of the Guernsey Lane account. The total remaining bond held by the Townwould be approximately 5106,175.06. The motion was seconded by Bob Rush. Themotion carried unanimously.

8. MINUTES

Motion by Tom Morey and seconded by Bob Rush to accept the minutes ofDecember21, 2006 regular meeting. The motion carried with a vote of 3 -0 -1. [YES: Eng, Rush,Morey; ABSTAINED: Kidd]

Motion by Tom Morey and seconded by Bob Rush to accept the minutes ofFebruary 1,2007 regular meeting. The motion carried with a vote of 2 -0 -2. [YES. Eng, Morey,ABSTAINED: Rush, Kidd]

Motion by Tom Morey and seconded by Bob Rush to accept the minutes of February15, 2007 regular meeting. The motion carried with a vote of2 -0 -2. [YES. Rush, Morey,ABSTAINED: Eng, Kidd]

Motion by Tom Morey and seconded by Bob Rush to accept the minutes ofMarch 1,2007 special meeting, with an amendment to state "Special Meeting': The motioncarried with a vote of3 -04. [YES: Eng, Morey, Rush; ABSTAINED :Kidd]

Motion by Tom Morey and seconded by Bob Rush to accept the minutes ofMarch 15,2007 regular meeting. The motion carried with a vote of 3 -0 -L [YES: Eng, Morey,Rush; ABSTAINED :Kidd]


9. POCD

Mr. Eng spoke of having received a letter from Mr. Alan Chapin, Personnel Director, stating thecommission had approximately $45,000 in the bank account to hire someone to review and update the POCD. If the cost comes out to be more, an appropriation from Town Council would beneeded. He also stated an RFQ or `Written Request for Qualifications' is needed before goingout to bid. The last time around the commission had three proposals.

Mr. Eng asked that each commission member bring in any proposals or paperwork fromhome in regards to the POCD for the next meeting. A general consensus must be made as acommission in regards to which company to use.

10. ADMINISTRATION

BILLS:

Motion by Tom Morey and seconded by Bob Rush to pay $50.60 to Cramer &Anderson for legal fees in regards to Tito vs. Planning, on bill dated April 1, 2007,Invoice #68203. The motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Bob Rush and seconded by Tom Morey to pay $132.00 to Cramer &Anderson for legal fees in regards to Elmwood Drive, on Invoice #68182. The motioncarried unanimously.

Motion by Tom Morey and seconded by Bob Rush to pay $3,739.10 to Cramer &Anderson for legalfees on Invoice #68201. The motion carried unanimously.

Commission agreed to a tentative executive session next Thursday at 5:00 p.m.

Motion by Tom Morey and seconded by Walter Kidd to adjourn the April 19,2007 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:48 pm. Motion carriedunanimously.

Respectfully Submitted by,

Monika Roberts

Acting Recording Secretary


lo*"

TOWN OF NEW MILFORD1707

n

y

Town Hall

10 Main Street

New Milford, Connecticut 06776Telephone (860) 355 -6010 • Fax (860) 355 -6002

tai Ca

Office of Patricia Murphy, Mayor

RETURN OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION

OF WARNING OF

May 1, 2007SPECIAL TOWN MEETING

SALE OF STILL MEADOWS PROPERTY

I, Patricia Murphy, Mayor of the Town ofNew Milford, Connecticut, hereby certify that I

caused a copy of the above Warning to be posted on the town signpost on April 13, 2007

and that I caused a copy of said warning to be published in the Greater New Milford

Spectrum, a newspaper having a general circulation in said Town of New Milford, in its

issue ofFriday, April 20, 2007.

Signed for Record this27 Day of April 2007

a ' r''I ' 11

D' :

203) 744 -5100www.newstimesLIVE.com

NEW MILFORD MAYOR'S OFF.

TOWN HALL

10 MAIN STREET

NEW MILFORD CT 06776

501348

THE NEWS TIMES

GREATER NEW MILFORD SPECTRUM

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD SS. DANBURY

NEW ]

STAR'

On this LgT" *f, 2007 personallyappeared before the undersigned, a

Notary Public, within and for said

County and State, Jacqueline Pereiraof The News - Times, a daily newspaperpublished at Danbury in said Countyof Fairfield and State of CT, who,

being duly sworn, states on oath

that the following advertisement(s)appeared in The New Milford Spectrumon the below listed dates.

JACQ LINE PEREIRA

Subscribed and sworn to before me, on

this n2' day of APIV

A //nnJ .D. 2007

L4 "A A lVNotary Public

j

1031uq

EXPIRE DATE AD CAPTION # TIMES AMOUNT

4/19/07 5/1 TOWN MTG 1 31.36

07END DATE: 4/19/07

P U B L I S H E D DAILY S I N C E 1 883

SPECIAL TOWN MEETING

May 1, 2007

RESOLUTION

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT:

The Town of New Milford shall sell the town -owned propertiescommonly known as "Still Meadows," consisting of approximately 19j:acres to Edmund Nahom and Associates, for a cash payment of2,700,000.00 for the purpose of constructing a Hotel/Banquet Facilityand Retail Shopping/Offices/Business, the closing of title shall beconditioned upon the receipt of all local land use approvals for said use.The Mayor is further authorized to execute a contract of sale with suchother terms and conditions she shall deem appropriate.

Town ofNew Milford...Town ofNew Milford — Special Town Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 1, 2007 @ 7...

Documents

Transcript of Town ofNew Milford...Town ofNew Milford — Special Town Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 1, 2007 @ 7...