MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL & WPC AUTHORITY
DECEMBER 15, 2003
A REGULAR MEETING of the City Council & WPC Authority was held on Monday, December 15, 2003, in the Council Chambers.
Those attending included Mayor Owen J. Quinn, Jr., City Councilors Thomas C. Jerram, Marie P. Soliani, James F. McKenna, Virginia K. Kovaleski, and Drake L. Waldron, Corp. Counsel Albert Vasko, City Engineer Edward Fabbri, Superintendent of Streets Robert Lizotte, WPC Administrator Raymond Drew, and Economic Development Coordinator Christina Emery. Absent was Councilor Paul F. Samele, Jr.
Mayor Quinn called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m.
MINUTES #020
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the board voted to accept the minutes of the regular meeting held December 1, 2003.
Councilor Kovaleski requested including those absent from the meeting in the minutes.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC #040
On a motion by Councilor Kovaleski, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the board voted to open the meeting to the public.
Bridget Beauchaine, 113 Sharon Avenue, reported that the center of Sharon Avenue on December 7th had a four inch crown since the blades on the plow trucks couldn’t get to the center of the road because it was so high. As a result, she had to plow 90 inches of the road, which she thought was unreasonable. She was told the situation would be monitored over the winter months, however, there wasn’t a bit of sand delivered in the area after the storm.
Ms. Beauchaine informed the Council that she brought her safety concerns, i.e., fire trucks being able to maneuver the road, children standing at the bus stop and her own personal safety getting in and out of her home, to the Board of Public Safety. She has since been assured that the Fire Department will continue to monitor the area to make certain their trucks can access the street. She pointed out that she shoveled out the storm drain in front of her driveway, and that the street department had recently cleared the storm drains, however, they were presently re-covered with snow.
For the record, she stated that perhaps the city needed to hire a consultant on the matter.
She asked for permission to speak later during the meeting when a report was expected to be brought up.
Edie Mallick, 135 Sharon Avenue, stated that a smooth surface was the only result of the reclamation project on Sharon Avenue, and it seemed that additional drains, more uniformity, or complete re-surfacing would have been more beneficial. She was still hopeful for a resolution.
Barry Weston, 36 Oxbow Drive, spoke in regard to the property re-assessment process.
He reported that the land value on his property had increased by 72%. After doing some research, he noticed that his property had a neighborhood desirability factor of 6, which is supposedly above average, while other properties with much larger lots were assessed at a factor of 5, which was neutral. It was his opinion that the factors had been transposed.
After speaking with the Tax Assessor Brian Lastra, and looking at the tax maps, he said Mr. Lastra had indicated that the neighborhood desirability factors of the two streets had been transposed. Mr. Lastra stated that he would fix the mistake and that he would hear from him within a day or so with the new figures. When the two spoke again, Mr. Lastra informed Mr. Weston that he wasn’t going to change anything, even after Mr. Lastra confirmed the fact that all the 6's should have been 5's, and vice versa.
Mr. Weston was then directed to go before the Board of Assessment Appeals if he continued to disagree with the Assessor. Mr. Weston pointed out that the correct procedure, according to the Assessor’s Office is, “If a taxpayer disagrees with the assessment that has been placed on his or her real estate, motor vehicle, or personal property, he should first check with the Assessor’s Office to insure there are no inaccuracies in the records for this property. Once this has been confirmed, if there is still a dispute, the taxpayer has the right to meet with the Board of Assessment Appeals.”
Mr. Weston insisted that clerical errors were made on 96 properties and that Vision Appraisal should correct the assessment and issue new ones rather than have 71 property owners who are over assessed appear before the Board of Assessment Appeals. The proper procedure is to correct the property record cards.
Mayor Quinn said Mr. Lastra had informed him that no clerical errors had occurred and if Mr. Weston disagreed, he would have to appear before the Appeals Board. Mayor Quinn stated that he would facilitate a meeting between Mr. Weston and Mr. Lastra.
UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT #900
Economic Development Coordinator Christina Emery indicated that three year’s ago in November, the city entered into a contract with Sullivan and Hayes from Farmington, Ct. to redevelop a hundred acre site downtown. That contract is now expired and they were looking for a basic extension for one year to cover the remainder of the planning period. After that, the contract may be amended and revised to reflect the new construction. Mrs. Emery also stated that they had also been meeting periodically with the state, with DECD and they have extended the language of legislation which authorizes $30 million in bonding money.
Mr. Hayes indicated that three years ago, the city entered into an agreement for private development at which time it was intended to seek funding through the state or other sources to help with the redevelopment effort. A plan was presented on a conceptual basis and the city applied to the state for $30 million subsidy funds. That was granted within the first year of the contract. As a requirement for state funding, the EIE, (Environmental Impact Evaluation, which is a study currently being done), held a series of scoping sessions last summer to gather public input. That plan was completed with the help of the Downs Group and submitted to the DECD and the long, arduous process began to finalize the agreement with the DECD and to begin the EIE, which involved an RFP for the EIE work. The McGuire Group and Fuss & O’Neill were chosen to perform the EIE. The data gathering has now been completed. They have done historical assessments, a traffic analysis, and an environmental
investigation, etc., and they are now working with the DECD on a plan that could be presented in greater detail than the conceptual master plan that was presented earlier.
Mr. Hayes indicated that they have been meeting regularly with the McGuire Group and DECD and the process seems to be taking on a definitive momentum. The results of the EIE should be available during the next two to four months. This will allow them to move ahead with the next step in the approval process, the creation of the municipal development plan, which will include more specific engineering and site plan preparation. Mr. Hayes hoped everyone could agree upon a plan in place by the fall of next year.
Councilor Kovaleski pointed out that the court house wasn’t included in the scope of the original agreement signed three years ago and inquired how it would fit in the downtown redevelopment plan, since they were separate projects.
Mr. Hayes said the scope of the agreement and their charge into the agreement was to prepare a project plan, which is a defined, statutory definition of what they are doing. The area which is defined under their agreement is flexible, so they can increase, decrease or do whatever they need to do. Part of the planning process which they are undertaking involves the consideration of the court house within and as a part of the overall redevelopment of the downtown area so the discussions with DECD and all the groups they are working with to create a plan that has consensus includes the court house or excludes the court house, depending on who they are talking to in terms of their preference. The land area currently defined under the plan certainly provides enough opportunity to include the court house.
The majority of the plans they are working on includes the court house and he thought the state was aware of that. This was an issue that they needed to build a broad consensus on A) the fact that it belongs downtown, and B) specifically where in the overall plan it would be. It was their hope that the project plan that will be presented to the Council for a vote before it goes to a municipal development plan will have the court house in it as an element of the overall plan, although it will probably have a different set of economics because of the fact that it is a state court house.
Mayor Quinn stated that, because it is a state court house and a project under the auspices of public works, an RFP will be issued that will allow persons owning land that fit the specifications in the City of Torrington, he/she may propose his/her land as a potential site for the court house, whether or not it’s in the downtown area.
Councilor Jerram inquired whether Connecticut law required any proposed site for a court house be submitted by the owner of that site and no one else.
Mr. Hayes indicated that it was subject to the RFP. It could be under the auspices of the private development agreement, which the city now has in place.
Councilor Soliani inquired whether this contract would prevent a land owner from selling or developing his/her property to another developer.
Mr. Hayes indicated that the private development agreement allowed anyone having property meeting the specifications for the court house to propose it as such.
Mayor Quinn pointed out that it was a common misconception that Sullivan & Hayes were buying and selling downtown Torrington exclusively.
Mr. Hayes indicated that his company was under contract to prepare a project plan. The city was in the process of approving a master plan of development which could be executed through the private development agreement or through existing property owners being consistent with that plan of development. The first step involves land use and development criteria. Once the city agrees upon the plan of development, the city will want to enforce that plan, and one way to expedite that, and the reason the state has legislation, is to allow a private development agreement to be in place to expedite the execution of that plan.
Mr. Hayes indicated that their project plan and the EIE study should be completed at about the same time.
Mayor Quinn stated that Sullivan & Hayes will then submit their plan to the City Council for formal approval, which will give the Council the ultimate authority on their developing the plan as a developer. The plan that is consistent with the EIE finding will come back before the City Council for review and refer it to Planning & Zoning.
In terms of cost, Mr. Hayes stated that Sullivan & Hayes has spent about $300,000.00 in engineering, legal and lobbying costs for getting the legislation passed to allow for the $30 million through DECD.
Mrs. Emery added that the state has spent $350,000.00 for the EIE and another $50,000.00 matched by the City of Torrington for planning funds.
Mr. Hayes indicated that the MDP (Municipal Development Plan) which will be a more detailed and more expensive document, will be funded, partially by his group as well as the state. Sullivan & Hayes will ask the state for additional funds from the $30 million to pay for the MDP. He anticipated that being done some time this summer.
Mrs. Emery indicated that the McGuire Group, the firm hired by the state to do the EIE, was looking at a mixed use plan downtown, retail being a strong component, but also downtown housing, higher end housing, and office use to support the court house, restaurants, street scape improvements, traffic improvements to alleviate the five-way intersection problems and pedestrian connections, such as the riverwalk and linkages from the existing Park & Recreation system.
Mrs. Emery stated that legislation was extended during a public hearing held last winter with funding authorization going to Torrington Redevelopment LLC, however, several state representatives during that hearing brought up the point that, in many of the models, the funding is not directly to a developer, but to the municipality who designates a development corporation. The city was presently in the process of exploring the formation of our own development corporation for this project purpose to actually work on the MDP and be the administrator of public funds.
Mayor Quinn indicated that control of that development corporation would come from appointments of the Mayor, City Council members, and private citizens, and usually, it is 50/50, or leans more toward municipal participation.
Mrs. Emery indicated that the City Council would have to adopt a Resolution authorizing that development corporation to be its development agency for this project. Therefore, the City Council and the city would still remain very much involved.
Mayor Quinn said “That would essentially be something that could be construed as somewhat of a veto power or at least a place that the City Council would constantly be re-involved in the process, because the concern is that Jed Hayes controls downtown, which is kind of a myth, you just don’t get to buy it and sell it, that’s not the way it works. The other myth is, if you spin it to another organization, then there’s a lack of control in that. Again, that entity then could shake the downtown, which is not the intention of the Department of Economic & Community Development and certainly not the desire of this Mayor or the City Council to leave a downtown project floating in its
own little universe without having oversight and real review and monitoring by the City Council.”
Mr. Hayes indicated that their agreement was pretty clear. As a private developer, they only had the ability to present a plan to the City Council for its approval. They can’t do anything without the approval of the City Council, the state and DECD, and right now, they are only talking about land use strategies. The example of the court house is a good one. They have no financial interest in the court house. Despite that, Mr. Hayes feels the court house is an important element in downtown for many reasons and the Downtown Torrington Redevelopment and Sullivan & Hayes is spending a lot of time, effort and money to make that an integral part of the plan. Sullivan & Hayes will have no benefit from the court house other than the fact that whatever other properties they
ultimately end up owning downtown will have benefits by increased value of the court house being downtown. There is no motivation on their part in being the owner of the court house.
Mayor Quinn explained that the request before the City Council was “To extend its contract with Sullivan, Hayes, Downtown LLC, which is consistent with the legislation, until such time as the planning is done and such time as bonding is authorized where I am exploring the possibility of a Torrington Downtown Development Corporation that would be the administrative arm of the build out, but all plans, approvals would have to come from a combination of the City Council as the legislative body, and the Planning & Zoning boards for their approvals to make sure it’s consistent with the rules and regulations of the City of Torrington as well as the rules and regulations of DECD who built up the project.”
Councilor Jerram inquired whether the McGuire Group was the independent third party that was going to review the initial conceptual plan.
Mrs. Emery explained that the McGuire Group was hired by the state, independent of the city and the developer. They were developing the conceptual plan the city developed during last summer’s public hearing process with the Downs Group, and not reviewing the plan initially developed by Jed Hayes. The McGuire Group was looking at feasibility, and alternatives and would be issuing a report within the next couple of months that will be available to the public as a draft document, and there will be a sixty day review period before the final report is issued.
Councilor Jerram asked what would happen if the McGuire Group came back with a plan that Sullivan & Hayes saw as unfavorable from their initial concept.
Mr. Hayes said the ultimate bottom line in their agreement is that Sullivan & Hayes has spent three years and $300,000.00 totally at the risk of this Council, and if the McGuire Group comes back with a plan that is inconsistent with what Sullivan & Hayes think is feasible, they would lose all the time involved and money invested in the project.
Councilor Jerram inquired what would happen if the property owners in the areas identified for redevelopment chose not to participate.
Mr. Hayes indicated that it would depend on which properties they were and whether they would be significant enough to cause the project not to move forward as opposed to keeping the project from being as good as it could be. Decisions for acquisition, demolition, and relocation will take place during the Municipal Development Plan. It will be detailed in nature and will go back to Planning & Zoning and City Council for ultimate approval.
Mayor Quinn said it was important to note that constant communication was taking place between DECD, the City of Torrington, the McGuire Group, and Sullivan & Hayes.
Councilor Jerram inquired whether there was any further financial commitment from the city for extending Sullivan & Hayes’ contract for one year.
Mr. Hayes said no.
Councilor Jerram pointed out that the current bonding legislation names Torrington Redevelopment LLC as the sole recipient and inquired what would occur if that changed.
Mr. Hayes indicated that, when the legislation was originally proposed two years ago, conversations with DECD centered around the city’s ability to fund and administer $30 million worth of aid and there was a variety of structures which historically have been done where these funds have been funneled in the city. Torrington had no infrastructure in place to oversee a funding of that size and there were some issues in terms of designating DECD or the city as the recipient of those funds, so the Downtown Torrington Redevelopment was designated as the recipient with the understanding that the formation of some entity to oversee the funding would occur.
Councilor Jerram asked, “If Torrington becomes a public/private agency that administers those funds, does that preclude them from seeking other opinions as to what our redevelopment would be?”
Mr. Hayes said “The development corporation will make recommendations as to what they think will take place and will be a part of the development agreement and those recommendations will be brought before Council and Planning & Zoning for their approval. I think that the spirit of the agreement is that we have spent three years and $300,000.00 of our own money in an effort to get to the point where it is today and I think both the spirit and the intent of the agreement is, as long as we are doing what is required under that agreement, which is, I think, what we have done to date, that as long as we are not inconsistent with the plan that is being brought forth and approved either as a project plan or a Municipal Development Plan, that we would be in place as the developer. I think that the
consideration is the time and financial expertise that we have spent, we are not the ones that ultimately approve the plan, you are the ones that ultimately approve the plan. I think, what we bring to the equation is an ability to make some determination of what that plan is.” It was his belief that everyone within the process had made significant compromises in what they think could be done. He stated that there wasn’t a myriad of solutions to the issues downtown, but rather three or four solutions that could be tweaked in different directions.
Councilor Jerram inquired whether the plan would require a referendum vote.
Mayor Quinn explained that a referendum would be required for an expenditure over $100,000.00 of city money. Tweaked
Mr. Hayes assured the Council that the state will be looking to the city to make a significant investment, and there are various ways in which that can happen, but the state will not be putting in the sole amount of governmental funds into the project.
Councilor Kovaleski pointed out that the contract referred to status meetings with the development agency and requested having several more of those meetings during the next 6 to 8 months.
Mrs. Emery assured the Council that they would be kept informed as things progressed.
Mr. Hayes indicated that they were now at a point where the state has actually invested money in the project and done a lot of work and come back with specific questions. He also noted that more progress had taken place during the last 90 to 120 days than the two to three years prior to that. Not only is Torrington the largest EIE that’s ever been undertaken by the DECD, we are also the first to go through the restructured process so the state and cities don’t get behind a project and support it without proper investigation being done to make sure the project has both political and practical support.
Mayor Quinn said it was important to note the change that took place from his first meeting with the DECD, which he described as being a very bumpy ride and not a pleasurable experience, to the significant turn that has taken place over the past 90 to 120 days whereby due diligence was taking place by the city, the developer, and major players.
Councilor Jerram inquired whether a year extension was long enough.
Mr. Hayes thought a year was a reasonable amount of time, although he may come back to the Council. He was very optimistic after seeing the progress made over the last 90 to 120 days, and hoped to be in a position to start creating the MDP by fall.
MOTION #3230
Councilor Jerram made a motion to extend the contract with Downtown Torrington Redevelopment LLC to December 31, 2004 at midnight. Councilor Soliani seconded the motion. Unanimous.
BEECHER HOUSE SOCIETY # 3600
Chandler Saint, President of the Beecher House Society, Inc., spoke in regard to their wish to rebuild the Wadsworth Beecher house near the second green of Torrington as a National Historic Site, but more importantly as a National Education Center. (For the entire presentation, please refer to Tape #429. Copies of the written presentation are available in the City Clerk’s Office, as well.)
Mayor Quinn thanked Mr. Saint for his belief that Torrington was the place to site the Harriet Beecher House. He thought it was an incredible opportunity for this city. Mayor Quinn stated that David Dean had offered to perform an opinion of value for the land site at no cost to the city. On 1/5/04, the City Council will vote on whether or not to enter into a lease deal with the Beecher House Society. After an Engineering site plan is completed, the proposal will go to Planning & Zoning for a Special Exemption for educational use and a formal site plan application which will be reviewed by them, and will come back to the City Council to discuss the specifics of the proposal.
Councilor Kovaleski asked Mr. Saint how his proposal would be affected if U-Conn was to relocate to downtown Torrington in the redevelopment.
Mr. Saint indicated that the most important thing was U-Conn securing the authority to run an American Studies Program at the tri campuses. That was more important than where a specific classroom or building would be located.
Councilor Waldron indicated that his ancestors were big in the original history of that area from 1780 to 1830, when it was the center of Torrington. He thought there was a lot to be gained from this project.
MOTION #620
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the board voted unanimously to refer the Beecher House Society matter to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a Section 8-24 referral.
TORRINGTON WATER COMPANY #640
On a motion by Councilor Waldron, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Council voted to
authorize the payment of $5,701.40 from Northwest Interceptor Bond Fund #302 to The Torrington Water Company for relocating water mains associated with the East Main Street/New Harwinton Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements Phase 1 from Columbus Road to Torrington Heights Road.
CARDINAL ENGINEERING, INC. #650
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the Council voted to
authorize the payments of $20,829.38 and $14,952.50 from Northwest Interceptor Bond Fund #302 to Cardinal Engineering, Inc. for construction administration and inspection services associated with the East Main Street/New Harwinton Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements Phase 1 from Columbus Road to Torrington Heights Road.
WEST PEARL DEVELOPMENT #660
Corp. Counsel Vasko indicated that the next item should read as follows: Vote by the Water Pollution Control Authority to allow the West Pearl Development Group, LLC to connect to the city sanitary sewer on either Windtree East or Tara Drive. The reason for that is that the city is negotiating some easements on Tara Drive that are not complete yet, but when they received their Planning & Zoning and Inland Wetland approvals, they were given two different scenarios to connect to the sanitary sewer, the one on Tara Drive and the one on Windtree East.
Mayor Quinn indicated that the easements will be gained over the winter months. West Pearl Development Group, LLC will chose between Windtree East and Tara Drive.
Jay Fischer, Development Services, LLC informed the board that they were developing a subdivision on West Pearl, east of Tara Drive, west of Torringford, and Planning & Zoning and Inland Wetlands had given them the option of connecting the sewer system in two different ways and the approval from the WPCA was required to connect either way. They were willing to work with the city where the easements come into play. They presently have an easement to connect through Windtree East and when the city finishes acquiring the easements, they will connect through Tara Drive. That will allow the city to eliminate a pump station.
Mayor Quinn added that eliminating the pump station was in the long range goals of Mr. Fabbri and the Public Works Director.
The development represents 57 restricted adult units called Fox Ridge Subdivision.
On a motion by Councilor Kovaleski, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the Water Pollution Control Authority voted to allow the West Pearl Development Group, LLC to connect to the city sanitary sewer on either Windtree East or Tara Drive.
MAG & SONS CLOTHING #770
On a motion by Councilor Waldron, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the Council voted to accept the Board of Public Safety’s recommendation to award the “Fire Department Uniforms bid to the only bidder meeting all bid requirements, Mag & Sons Clothing, of New Britain for an annualized estimate of $15,992.70.
TORRINGTON HIGH SCHOOL PAYMENTS #790
On a motion by Councilor Soliani, seconded by Councilor McKenna, the Council voted to
authorize the following payments from the Torrington High School Bldg. Fund # 285:
West State Mechanical, Inc. Invoice #8527 $ 870.00
Jensen Mechanical Equip., Inc. Invoice #3604 $2,960.00
SMALL CITIES: PROJECT 143-191 #800
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Council voted to
authorize a 0% Deferred Loan in the amount of $21,000.00 from Small Cities Fund #275 for Housing Rehab. Project #143-191.
GUTOWSKI #820
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the Council voted to authorize the payment of $268.13 from Contingency to Peter & Dawn Gutowski for the city’s share of lowering the manhole on their property and referred it to the Board of Finance.
BMX GROUP, INC. #840
On a motion by Councilor Waldron, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Council voted to
renew the lease with Litchfield County BMX Group Inc. for a five (5) year term at the same rental rate of one dollar ($1.00) per year.
POLICY - TAX COLLECTOR #850
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Kovaleski, the Council voted to
formally authorize the Tax Collector to charge a five dollar ($5.00) fee to any person who was delinquent in the payment of any property tax or installment on any motor vehicle and who the Tax Collector notified the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of such delinquency. (DMV now charges the Tax Collector to do this.)
ADD TO AGENDA #930
On a motion by Councilor Soliani, seconded by Councilor Kovaleski, the board voted to add to the Agenda by 2/3rds vote, the recommendations from City Engineer Ed Fabbri in regard to the Sharon Avenue paving project.
On a motion by Councilor Soliani, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the board voted to discuss and vote on the recommendations of the City Engineer regarding the Sharon Avenue project, as stated in Mr. Fabbri’s memo dated December 12, 2003, giving alternatives to the Council for enactment on 113 and 135 Sharon Avenue. Discussions could include the City Engineer Ed Fabbri and the Superintendent of Streets Robert Lizotte.
After further review, Mr. Fabbri offered several options.
In regard to 113 Sharon Avenue, Option A was to remove a layer of brick from the catch basin in front of Ms. Beauchaine’s driveway. That would provide more positive drainage, however, it may create more issues with her getting in and out of her driveway. He felt it would probably be best to add a double catch basin in the area between Ms. Beauchaine’s entry sidewalk and her driveway, which is Option B. Mr. Fabbri explained a double catch basin to be two catch basins that come as one unit, with a double grate and twice as long. The double catch basin would be in addition to the one presently in front of her driveway, and all three would be interconnected with a drainage pipe.
Councilor Jerram inquired whether the proposed placement of the additional drain was correct.
Ms. Beauchaine indicated that the water started to pond at the beginning of her property and installing a storm drain beyond her walkway wouldn’t catch the water.
Mr. Fabbri explained that there was an area of approximately 30 feet that was fairly flat and the idea was to provide a grate capacity that would accommodate the flat area. Whether it’s five feet in one direction of ten feet in the other direction, when it comes time to install the catch basin, another survey will be done to make sure that things haven’t changed since the last time it was surveyed. His suggestion at this time was to place the double catch basin between the entry walk and the driveway.
Councilor McKenna inquired whether it would be more appropriate for Mr. Fabbri to come back to the Council with a better idea as to where the double catch basin would be installed.
Mr. Fabbri said he hoped the Council would have enough confidence in Bob Lizotte and his survey crew that they could position the catch basin in the appropriate location. He explained that there was area between the sidewalk and the driveway that measured approximately 20 feet and another section a little further up past the entry walk that measured another ten feet, and it would be somewhere in that range. It would be somewhere in between the sidewalk and the driveway, favoring the sidewalk side, and whether it’s on the other side of the sidewalk, they would re-evaluate that in the springtime and possible move it to the other side of the sidewalk.
Councilor McKenna suggested changing the motion to say that the Council would authorize the placement of the new storm sewer in such appropriate place as deemed appropriate by the City Engineer to alleviate the problem, rather than specify the location at this time.
Councilor Kovaleski inquired about the time frame for the installation of the new catch basin.
Mr. Fabbri indicated that it would be in the spring, perhaps April or May, based upon Mr. Lizotte’s schedule.
Councilor Jerram inquired whether asphalt curbing help to guide the water.
Mr. Fabbri stated that it was more of an issue that it was a low spot in the road and flat in that particular 30 foot stretch, and we need to have additional grades if we want to make it better than what’s there now.
In regard to 135 Sharon Avenue, Option A included removing the asphalt that Mr. Rollett had agreed to put in, which is currently existing along the back of the shoulder and topsoil the area, if the Mallick’s would like to have it left topsoil so they can have plants, or grass the area, if they wanted to.
Option B was to install a new curb between their two driveways. This would provide a more pleasing type of look. The curb would be backfilled for either grass or an extension of their garden.
Option C was to provide some milling in front of their second driveway to possibly increase the positive slope. This wouldn’t create a pleasant aesthetic look, but would help with the drainage.
Mayor Quinn indicated that Mr. Fabbri’s object was to do the road, but not to aesthetically please anyone.
Mr. Fabbri stated that much of the discussion that evolved around 135 Sharon Avenue dealt with the aesthetic look. One of the items was the taper on their driveway, since it was tapered on one side but not on the other. If aesthetics is the issue, they will have to install a taper to match what’s there on the north side.
Mayor Quinn recapped the situation. It was agreed that the dangerous section where there was a notch in the road would be straightened out. Mr. Fabbri’s recommendation on 113 Sharon Avenue was Option B, which was to install additional grate capacity. The actual placement would be in such a place that is determined by the City Engineer; in an appropriate spot to alleviate the water problem.
In regard to 135 Sharon Avenue, Mr. Fabbri’s said “ I had a recommendation before, which was to put in a curb. I also have Option C, which was to try to mill some area in front of their driveway, again, to try to provide some additional positive drainage, and leave what’s there as far as the shoulder goes. They did ask for a pull off area.” Mr. Fabbri didn’t have a strong recommendation on 135 Sharon Avenue. He was open to suggestions by the Council. He thought Options B & C would be something they could do.
Mr. Fabbri indicated that the another option for both properties that’s not included in his memo dated December 12, 2003, was to do nothing and re-visit the entire matter in the spring.
Councilor Jerram suggested getting a letter from each property owner stating their preference in the options recommended by Mr. Fabbri.
Councilor Waldron suggested waiting until spring to officially vote on the matter.
The Council allowed Mrs. Mallich to speak once again.
She stated that, in addition to their issues, the entire street needed some work, i.e. re- seeding and washouts. She indicated that the curb would be fine with them since it would straighten things out and look nice, however, they always had road further back and now they were losing two feet of road. “Why couldn’t we have the curb just in a little. I don’t see why, we always had road there before. And now we would just have a curb to neaten it, where they didn’t pave. I don’t see why it has to be out so far, because it makes it very narrow there.”
Mayor Quinn pointed out that her comment would be on the record. He said “The suggestion is that I hear, is that you could live with, which one?”
Mrs. Mallich said “A curbing that looks neat right across the front, but just not so far.”
Mayor Quinn, “Is B, but you would request, is there was a chance that that could go in?”
Mrs. Mallich said she would go with that.
Concerning 113 Sharon Avenue. Ms. Beauchaine said she appreciated the fact that the city was looking at another storm drain and that they would shoot a line, but didn’t think adding a storm drain closer to her driveway would work.
Mayor Quinn stated that he sent the police and fire departments to look at her issue and they reported back to him saying there was no safety issue.
When Ms. Beauchaine inquired whether the city would hire an outside engineer, similar to what had been done on Pinewoods Road, Mayor Quinn stated that that was a completely different situation. Mr. Fabbri explained why an outside firm was hired for Pinewoods Road.
In closing, Mayor Quinn said the suggestion was that there be a change in the 113 Sharon Avenue that was verbiage added by Councilor McKenna, and the recommendation for 135 Sharon Avenue was Option B, with Mrs. Mallick making a final plea on the curbing. He said “I will have this memorandum available tomorrow, or mail it out tomorrow. If you call Jayne on my staff and say if you want to pick it up or you don’t, that you’ll be able to read this and that I would take just your one written response and we’re going to say that the answer is that it could be A, B; A, B or C, or the alternative is we do nothing and leave it as it is and say, ‘You know what, we’ve built it to our specifications’, we’re going to go in there and they’re going to say
‘This is a satisfactory road, it may not be an A road, it may not be a B road, but it’s a satisfactory road’ and understand that there is also an option that the city says ‘We’ve done it and if you don’t like it, then you’ve got to take matters into your own hands however you see fit and go from there.’
Mayor Quinn said no action would be taken today.
MOTION #2190
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the board voted to table the matter so Mayor Quinn could do what he said he would and they could respond back to this letter and the matter will be placed on the next City Council agenda.
Mayor Quinn said he would have this available to the interested parties; just call his office.
Councilor Jerram suggested putting it in the mail to Ms. Beauchaine and the Mallich’s.
Mayor Quinn said “I’ll throw it in the mail, it’ll be two weeks anyhow. Good suggestion.”
SECTION B:
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the board voted to
consider business in Section B.
FRIAR ASSO. #2260
On a motion by Councilor Waldron, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the board voted to
authorize the payment of $114,224.00 from the Torringford School Building Fund #314 to Friar Asso., for Invoice #7 of eleven installments under the Bidding & Negotiations Phase.
BUS: DEPT. HEADS #2270
On a motion by Councilor Soliani, seconded by Councilor Kovaleski, the board voted to
consider business presented by Department Heads. There was none.
BUS: MAYOR & MEMBERS #2330
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor McKenna, the board voted to
consider business presented by Mayor Quinn and members of the City Council.
Councilor Jerram reminded property owners to clear their sidewalks of snow and ice.
Mayor Quinn asked to be informed of anyone in violation of that ordinance and he would refer the matter to the Police Department.
Councilor Soliani reminded the board that Mr. Rollett would be making a presentation to the Council and the Board of Finance on the municipal buildings projects on January 26, 2004.
Councilor McKenna thought the Street Department had done a fine job clearing the streets after two significant snow storms.
Mayor Quinn agreed with Councilor McKenna.
Everyone wished each other all the very best for the upcoming holiday season.
ADJOURNMENT #2490
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the board voted to
adjourn at 9:15 p.m.
ATTEST: JOSEPH L. QUARTIERO, CCTC, CMC
CITY CLERK
| 
