MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL & WPC AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER 17, 2007
A REGULAR MEETING of the City Council & WPC Authority was held on Monday, September 17, 2007 in the Council Chambers.
Those in attendance included Mayor Ryan J. Bingham, City Councilors James F. McKenna, Thomas C. Jerram, Rick E. Dalla Valle, Andrew J. Slaiby, Marie P. Soliani (left at 7:40 p.m.), and Drake L. Waldron, Corp. Counsel Ernestine Yuille Weaver, Comptroller Alice Proulx, Purchasing Agent Shirley King, Fleet Supervisor Michael Michaud, WPC Administrator Raymond Drew, Zoning & Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer Kimberly Barbieri, and Personnel Director Thomas Gritt.
Mayor Bingham called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
MINUTES #015
On a motion by Councilor Waldron, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the Council voted unanimously to accept the minutes of the regular meeting held September 4, 2007.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC #025
On a motion by Councilor Soliani, seconded by Councilor Dalla Valle, the Council voted unanimously to open the meeting to the public.
John Schnyer, 83 Millard Street, informed the board that he was recently given notice from Planning & Zoning because he has an unregistered vehicle on his property. He stated that it’s an antique vehicle which he is in the process of restoring as a hobby and people should be allowed to do so, and he believed the notice was a restriction of his freedom. He does it at home because his family is there, it’s a nice, quiet place to work, it’s clean, and it does no harm.
As Chairman of the Ordinance Committee, Councilor Dalla Valle stated that the ordinance should be reviewed.
Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer Kimberly Barbieri stated that zoning regulations deal with all unregistered vehicles not stored within an enclosed structure. A person could have multiple unregistered vehicles as long as they are garaged. The State Statute allows people to have one unregistered vehicle. This was a regulation enacted by the City of Torrington some time ago whereby the city would rather have the properties protected, and also if everybody had one unregistered vehicle, the owner would get taxed on it. It’s one of the more controversial regulations.
Ms. Barbieri stated that anyone wanting to discuss issues such as this can write a letter to Planning & Zoning asking that it be placed on their agenda, and it will be discussed as part of the regulations.
Arthur Dimosky spoke in regard to youngsters less than sixteen being out after midnight, and inquired whether or not the city had any regulations concerning youngsters riding bicycles at night time without some type of reflectors?
Chairman of the Ordinance Committee Councilor Dalla Valle informed him that the city has no curfew on youngsters at the current time. However, the city does have an ordinance concerning bicycles and skateboards.
Councilor Dalla Valle noted that he started researching a curfew ordinance, however, the State of Connecticut recently passed a law on the matter that would supercede any curfew ordinance adopted by the city. He suggested reporting any incidents to the Police Department at the time they are seen.
REIMBURSEMENT: TERRY COLANGELO #315
On a motion by Councilor Waldron, seconded by Councilor Soliani, a discussion took place in regard to the request from Terry Colangelo for a refund of $150.00 which represents a late fee from the Building Department.
Councilor Dalla Valle asked if there was any paperwork showing that the job was an emergency.
Assistant City Clerk Joline LeBlanc stated that she inadvertently neglected to contact Mr. Colangelo to inform him that his request was on the agenda.
MOTION TO TABLE #350
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor McKenna, the Council voted unanimously to table the request from Terry Colangelo for a refund of $150.00.
PENELOPE SHARP: ENVIRONMENTAL CONS. #360
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor McKenna, a discussion took place in regard to the request to authorize the use of $700.00 from Contingency for outstanding payment for environmental consulting services to the Inland Wetlands Commission by Penelope Sharp, Environmental Consultant.
Zoning & Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer Kimberly Barbieri stated that Inland Wetlands received $2,000.00 from the applicant to cover the cost of a consultant to review an application on the city’s behalf. After using Ms. Sharp’s services and expertise, the invoice ended up being $700.00 more than what had been put in to cover the cost. Upon the denial of the application, the applicant decided not to pay the remainder, and they have not returned any phone calls.
Mrs. Barbieri said Inland Wetlands would like to pay the $700.00 and perhaps file some small claims to recover the cost.
Councilor Soliani asked Mrs. Barbieri if there was a contract with Ms. Sharp for the $2,000.00.
Mrs. Barbieri said the consultant didn’t have a contract. Ms. Sharp estimates the cost of what it’s going to take her to do the job and she thought it would be around $2,000.00. However, the applicant used her so extensively by having her attend extra meetings and doing extra work that her bill was more than her original estimate. It was a very controversial issue which went to the maximum number of days allowed by state statute. Mrs. Barbieri indicated that Inland Wetlands has never paid more than $1,500.00 for a consultant.
Councilor Dalla Valle asked Mrs. Barbieri how the city could be liable for the bill.
Mrs. Barbieri indicated that Ms. Sharp is the city’s consultant and they would like to remain in good standing with her. The reports were for the Inland Wetlands Commission, and acting on the city’s behalf to review them for the commission itself.
Councilor McKenna inquired as to how the city arrives at hiring a consultant.
Mrs. Barbieri said the Inland Wetlands regulations state that the applicant is to pay if a consultant is hired, and supply a bond in the amount being estimated for the job. She noted that Inland Wetlands will be looking to increase that amount substantially to make certain they recover any costs in the future.
Councilor McKenna asked Mrs. Barbieri if the regulations are clear that if a consultant is to be hired, that cost is to be borne by the applicant, no matter what the cost may be.
Mrs. Barbieri said yes.
Councilor McKenna didn’t mind paying $700.00 from Contingency for the consultant, but felt the city should pursue the reimbursement from the applicant.
On the previous motion, Councilors McKenna, Jerram, Slaiby, and Waldron voted to authorize the use of $700.00 from Contingency for outstanding payment for environmental consulting services to the Inland Wetlands Commission by Penelope Sharp, Environmental Consultant, and referred it to the Board of Finance. Councilors Dalla Valle and Soliani opposed the motion. On a 4-2 vote, the motion passed.
PURCHASE DUMP TRUCK #500
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Dalla Valle, a discussion took place in regard to the recommendations from the Purchasing Agent, the Fleet Manager, and the WPC Administrator to waive the bid process and purchase a 2007 4 X 4 Dump Truck from Litchfield Ford for the lump sum price of $32,989.38.
Councilor Jerram thought it made more sense to explore the 2008 model dump truck from Torrington Ford at the additional expense, versus the 2007 model being proposed.
Mr. Michaud pointed out that Torrington Ford didn’t have a 2007 model in stock. Therefore, they bid the 2008 model in its place. He noted that a comparison was done on the two models and found that the warrantee on the 2007 is the same as the 2008, and after the city has the vehicle for five or six years, the difference in resale value will be nil. The city would basically lose the $2,400.00 up front cost to purchase the 2008. Should the Council prefer the 2008 model, Mr. Michaud suggested going back for quotes on that model because the quotes received were for the 2007 model.
Councilman Jerram suggested getting quotes for the 2008 model from all the dealers who were asked to supply a quote for the 2007 model.
MOTION TO TABLE #780
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Council voted unanimously to table the recommendations from the Purchasing Agent, the Fleet Manager, and the WPC Administrator to waive the bid process and purchase a 2007 4 X 4 Dump Truck from Litchfield Ford for the lump sum price of $32,989.38. The Purchasing Agent will come back to the Council with quotes on the 2008 model.
BUCKLEY ENERGY GASOLINE BID #805
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Dalla Valle, a discussion took place in regard to the request to accept the increased cost on the Buckley Energy Gasoline Bid from February 2007 to September 2007.
Purchasing Agent Shirley King noted that there was a loop hole in the actual bid from Buckley Energy. Corporation Counsel Weaver informed her that the city could go back out to bid because of the difference in the date and the fact that this occurred five or six months ago, and there are other companies that could come in with lower figures than the original bids.
Councilor Dalla Valle noted that Buckley was clearly in violation of his contract with the city, especially because he won’t accept the 3% which he built into his contract. There should be no question that the city can throw it out and go back out to bid.
Councilor McKenna asked what grounds Buckley Energy had to come back and ask for more money when the city has a signed Purchase Order from Buckley for a price of $1.8409.
Ms. King indicated that Buckley is threatening not to deliver less than $1.9409.
Mayor Bingham suggested letting the Corporation Counsel and the Purchasing Agent figure out the best course of action to take on this matter.
VOTE TO OPPOSE #930
The Council voted unanimously against the request to accept the increased cost on the Buckley Energy Gasoline Bid from February 2007 to September 2007.
TELREPCO CORP. #940
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the Council voted unanimously to accept the Purchasing Agent’s recommendation to waive the bid process concerning the Information Technology in lieu of the State of Connecticut’s award to Telrepco Corporation.
A-VOX SOLUTIONS #970
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the Council voted unanimously to accept the Purchasing Agent’s recommendation to award the RFQ Dictaphone System for the Fire Department to A-VOX Solutions of Milford, CT.
PUBLIC HEARING #990
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, Jerram, seconded by Councilor McKenna, the Council voted unanimously to schedule a public hearing for October 1, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss and amend the Torrington Code, Chapter 75 Alcoholic Liquor Article 1, Public Consumption.
REAPPOINTMENT: ZBA #1085
On a motion by Councilor Soliani, seconded by Councilor Slaiby, the Council voted unanimously to reappoint Kathleen Perrotti to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a 5-year term to expire in December 2011.
APPOINTMENT: ZBA #1120
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor McKenna, Soliani, the Council voted unanimously to appoint Mark Trivella as an Alternate on the Zoning Board of Appeals to fill a vacancy for a 5-year term to expire in December 2010.
REAPPOINTMENT: P & Z HEARING OFFICER #1125
On a motion by Councilor Waldron, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Council voted unanimously to reappoint Joel Perlotto as the Planning & Zoning Hearing Officer for a 2-year term to expire in September 2008.
APPOINTMENT: P & Z HEARING OFFICER #1130
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Dalla Valle, the Council voted unanimously to appoint Peter Herbst, Jr. as a 2nd Planning & Zoning Hearing Officer for a 2-year term to expire in September 2008.
REAPPOINTMENT: SVCS FOR THE ELDERLY #1140
On a motion by Councilor Soliani, seconded by Councilor McKenna, the Council voted unanimously to reappoint Evelyn Lukes to the Services for the Elderly Commission for a 3-year term to expire in July 2010.
REGULAR MEMBER - SVCS FOR THE ELDERLY #1160
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the Council voted unanimously to move Archie Perez as an Alternate to a Regular member of the Services for the Elderly Commission to replace Donald Mayerjak for a 3-year term to July 2010.
BUDGET TRANSFERS #1180
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Dalla Valle, the Council voted unanimously to accept the budget transfers from 4/1/07 to 6/30/07, and referred them to the Board of Finance.
Councilor Soliani inquired about the $20,296.12 under Line Item 0010-0047-5651, for Part Time, Recreation.
Comptroller, Alice Proulx indicated that she will provide her with details from that line item after she speaks with Parks and Recreation Director Mark Lavoie.
SMALL CITIES: INQUIRING NEWS #1220
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the board voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $430.95 from Small Cities Fund #250 to Inquiring News for an Invitation to Bid Ad for project 143-232.
SMALL CITIES: REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN #1225
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $110.74 from Small Cities Fund #250 to Republican-American for an Invitation to Bid Ad for project 143-230.
SMALL CITIES: RJB CONTRACTING #1235
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $83,477.05 from Small Cities Fund #279 to RJB Contracting, Inc. for work performed on the City’s Neighborhood Sidewalk Improvements Project. (Payment upon receipt of funds from Drawdown #6.)
BUILDING DEPT. REPORT #1245
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Slaiby, the Council voted unanimously to accept the Building Department Report for August 2007.
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS #1265
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Dalla Valle, the Council voted unanimously to approve the Board of Safety’s request to accept the budget adjustments in regard to the Dispatch Center costs and referred them to the Board of Finance.
Mayor Bingham noted that Commissioner Potter had requested during the budget season to get a more realistic view at what the cost for civilian dispatchers would be if they were all combined together. This would also be beneficial information for the consultants as they continue their research.
REOPEN TO THE PUBLIC #1300
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Council voted unanimously to reopen the meeting to the public for “Agenda” items only. There was none.
BUS: DEPT. HEADS #1310
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Dalla Valle, the Council voted unanimously to consider business presented by Department Heads.
WPC Administrator Raymond Drew requested a discussion in regard to a sewer Developer’s Agreement for Neidt Road and East Hill Road. Ms. Harriet H. Lawson is proposing to extend the sanitary sewer system from the intersection of Sunrise Drive and Neidt Road to the intersection of East Hill Road and Neidt Road and along East Hill Road to her property at 54 East Hill Road. The Council accepted Planning & Zoning’s 8-24 referral in May of 2007 and approved the sewer extension. Currently, they were looking to enter into the Developer’s Agreement.
Corporation Counsel Weaver indicated that she had not seen the final draft of the Developer’s Agreement but had seen various documents as it was being developed.
Atty. Peter Herbst, Jr., representing Ms. Lawson stated that a Developer’s Agreement serves the purpose of allowing a private individual to construct a new sanitary sewer line along the city’s roads, and in the future if anyone along that section of the sewer line connects to the sewer line, the city would collect a reimbursement fee to Ms. Lawson for a period of ten years, since she is funding all the costs herself. Contrary to other Developer’s Agreements where most of the people along the road are involved with the development, this Developer’s Agreement has only one developer, Ms. Lawson, and there’s potential for six or seven other property owners to come on board at a later time. This has made him look closely at how Ms. Lawson will be reimbursed, the reimbursement rate,
and who will receive those reimbursement funds.
Atty. Herbst indicated that timing was an issue in order for this project to be completed this year.
Mr. Drew stated that the sewer extension has been approved, so technically they could start the project. However, they need the Developer’s Agreement to guarantee any reimbursement at a later point. He noted that they have accepted all the changes to the various versions of the Developer’s Agreement which were put forth by Corporation Counsel Weaver, Engineering and himself have put forward. Originally, the town of Harwinton was going to be involved, but the final draft has Ms. Lawson as the sole developer. The calculations for reimbursement appear to be correct and adequate. Atty. Herbst has made the changes requested by the City of Torrington. In speaking with Corporation Counsel Weaver just prior to the meeting, an issue in Section 3 and Section 5 was clarified. Ms. Lawson has a parcel on East Hill Road which she is seeking to split into two parcels. Originally, there was going to be a waiver for the reimbursement fee for that parcel, but she agreed that if the Council
allows her to do the split, then that new parcel would still have to pay the reimbursement fee which makes it a typical Developer’s Agreement.
Mayor Bingham asked Mr. Drew if it was his recommendation to the Council, herein acting as the WPCA, to move forward, as is.
Mr. Drew thought the WPCA, as well as the city, were well protected with the proposed Developer’s Agreement. It’s a fairly straightforward Developer’s Agreement.
Councilor Dalla Valle inquired whether or not Ms. Lawson will still have to pay the $2,500.00 connection fee.
Mr. Drew stated that the Developer’s Agreement does not include the waiver of the $2,500.00 connection fee. Once the sewer line is installed, Ms. Lawson will certify the sewer line costs to the city, she will bear 100% of the cost. The next person to connect will then pay the City of Torrington 50% of that cost which will go back to Ms. Lawson. She will not be able to collect more than the 100% she paid.
Atty. Herbst noted that the final draft was changed from the original so that everyone who connects will pay the same amount as anyone else. The second person after Ms. Lawson to connect will pay one half, the third person pays one third, and the one-third gets to be divided evenly between the two people, so everyone at that point will have paid one-third, and it keeps going down the line.
Corporation Counsel Weaver indicated that she was comfortable with the Developer’s Agreement. They had been working on getting the final points fine tuned.
ADD TO AGENDA #1790
Councilor Dalla Valle made a motion to place the Developer’s Agreement on the table by 2/3rds vote, to be voted upon at the end of the agenda. Councilor Jerram seconded the motion. Unanimous.
Mr. Drew said he believed they were comfortable with this final version of the Developer’s Agreement as it stands right now.
Corporation Counsel Weaver requested the opportunity to read through it one more time just to make certain everything is in place, otherwise, she didn’t feel there would be any reason why she would not feel comfortable with it.
The meeting continued while Corporation Counsel Weaver left the room to review the document.
BUS: MAYOR & MEMBERS #1870
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the Council voted unanimously to consider business presented by Mayor Bingham and members of the City Council.
Councilor Jerram stated that the Personnel Committee met in regard to a third step grievance brought forward by David Kisco, Local 1579 Union. He noted that it was somewhat complicated because medical issues are involved.
ADD TO AGENDA: GRIEVANCE #1930
Councilor Jerram made a motion to place the Public Works Grievance #07-01 on the agenda by 2/3rds vote. Councilor Slaiby seconded the motion. Unanimous.
MOTION TO DENY THE GRIEVANCE #1940
Councilor Jerram made a motion to deny David Kisco’s third step grievance. Councilor Waldron seconded the motion.
Councilor Jerram stated that some of the information on Mr. Kisco’s grievance is limited because of medical privacy rights. He noted that he and Councilor Dalla Valle, the only two members present during the Personnel Sub Committee meeting, were not in agreement with each other on the course of action.
Personnel Director Thomas Gritt noted that Grievance #07-01, filed by David Kisco over his termination was coupled with a CHRO complaint, which is in litigation. Unfortunately, the Personnel Committee does not have all the facts in the case, and it’s on good advice that they don’t talk too much about it because it is in litigation with CHRO. Affidavits have been filed and a hearing will soon be scheduled. The decision will come from them as to one of the major claims that’s under a grievance. It was Mr. Gritt’s belief that should take its course. Corporation Counsel Weaver and the Labor Counsel are both aware of the facts of the case and we now have an attorney representing the city in the CHRO complaint. They all feel the city has a strong case. It’s Mr. Gritt’s recommendation that the Councils deny the grievance and let the Union’s decision to go forward to arbitration. He wouldn’t want to hold up the arbitration because it takes a while to get into the queue to get
scheduled, and there’s always a potential back pay liability, so it would be to the city’s benefit to deny it and let it proceed on its own course as it will.
Councilor Dalla Valle indicated that he was the Personnel Committee member who is not in favor of denying the grievance and it’s not based on the fact that they weren’t given enough information, it’s because he didn’t see a reason to deny it based on the information that was put forth. His suggestion was to postpone the matter. The Union also asked to continue the matter.
Councilor McKenna said he was being asked to make a decision without being given any information. He felt the Council needs to get whatever information is necessary to make a decision.
Mr. Gritt said the problem with continuing the grievance is that if the Council chooses to deny it and it goes to the arbitration process, you will be that much further away from a decision and the potential back pay liability will be that much greater. He was asking the Council to trust the attorneys who represent the city in this case.
Councilor Dalla Valle stated that Mr. Gritt was fearful of the potential liability by letting it go on. He was fearful of the potential harm that the city could do to a person’s human rights by forcing the Council to take a vote without having all the facts.
Mr. Gritt stated that the vote would not do anything other than having it continue through the CHRO process. If they were to deny it at this step, it would be expedited into arbitration.
Councilor McKenna noted, that if the information provided to the Council would lend him to uphold the grievance, they wouldn’t have to go to arbitration at all.
Corporation Counsel Weaver said they should probably be discussing this matter as well as other matters they have pending, to give the Council more information by calling an executive session regarding pending litigation. That way they could be more informed. They would be discussing the CHRO factor in this case.
Councilor McKenna asked if the CHRO litigation impact on the grievance?
Mr. Gritt said it was essentially the same subject matter.
Councilor McKenna asked if he was to uphold the grievance, would the CHRO litigation continue?
Corporation Counsel Weaver indicated that the CHRO litigation is going to be going forward.
Councilor Dalla Valle said the Union stated that if the Council upholds the grievance the CHRO complaint stops.
Mr. Gritt stated, that decision isn’t up to the Union, it’s up to the grievant.
Councilor Dalla Valle pointed out that the grievant, who was sitting right behind Mr. Gritt was saying “Yes”; therefore, that’s a major impact, and that’s the reason he didn’t want to bring it to a vote.
Mr. Gritt thought Corporation Counsel Weaver should weigh in on what can and cannot be discussed in public, and he thought what they do with this grievance will impact the CHRO complaint.
MOVE TO TABLE #2350
Councilor Dalla Valle made a motion to table the third step grievance filed by David Kisco. Councilor McKenna seconded the motion. The Council voted in favor of the motion to table, with the exception of Councilor Jerram who opposed.
Councilor Jerram commended those involved in the donation of supplies and time toward a new layer of gravel for the Midget Football parking area.
RETURN TO PUBLIC PORTION #2435
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor McKenna, the Council voted unanimously to reopen the public portion of the meeting.
The Council took a five minute recess from 7:42 to 7:48 p.m.
DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT #2565
Councilor Dalla Valle made a motion to approve the Developer’s Agreement as proposed by Corporation Counsel and WPC Administrator. Councilor McKenna seconded the motion.
Greg Kenney, 55 Colorado Avenue North, stated that he is the prospective property owner of 54 East Hill Road, which is currently the topic of discussion in terms of the sewer on East Hill. He stated his concern in that the person who is selling him the property had led him to believe all this litigation was taken care of before now. She led him to believe that the property was going to have the sewer in the street three weeks after the contract was signed and that it would take another three weeks to have it done. He said he was sitting here in litigation in front of the Council to try to resolve this issue to get her the ability to install the sewer in the street. He has concerns with that, not only as a taxpayer, but as a future property owner. He said “The other thing is that she’s talking about doing a free cut on the property, again, Planning & Zoning, or through the City Council that’s never been done before.” The issue he has is that he has not yet, to date, seen any
plans to do this. The Council was just handed five pages of documents which the Corporation Counsel has reviewed. He cautioned them to take a hard look at this, and almost recommend that they table it for two weeks, so he could prepare a formal presentation. He was notified of this matter an hour before tonight’s meeting and it’s been added to the agenda. He does have an attorney representing him in this matter who is not present because he had another commitment. He found out approximately thirty minutes before he did.
His vast concern as the future property owner is, if she does a free cut or free split of this property, what will it do to his existing septic which is now existing on that property. She can’t tell him where her septic, nor the leaching fields are located. Will that require him, as an illegal septic, to hook into her sewer system, passing on that expense to him?
Councilor McKenna pointed out that the only thing on the agenda was whether or not they were going to enter into an agreement relative to payment for the extension of the sewer line, which has already been approved. Whether the property is split or not, and how it could affect his septic system, are Planning & Zoning issues.
Mr. Kenney indicated that the Council was discussing how it will be paid, and his concern is, if a split takes place and his septic system becomes illegal that will require him to hook up to a sewer at his expense.
Councilor McKenna said he didn’t think anyone could take a free split of property thereby making someone else’s septic system illegal.
Atty. Herbst, Jr. said he spoke with Mr. Kenney’s attorney this afternoon. He noted that they received approval for the extension in May. They needed to get the Developer’s Agreement approved in order to start work. They started with the City Planner, Martin Conner, who said it was a Torrington Area Health issue. He has a list of requirements from Gil Roberts from the TAHD which they have to satisfy before they can convey the property. He pointed out that Mr. Roberts wants them to locate on the map the existing location of Mr. Kenney’s septic system so he can be assured that it’s entire on his parcel, otherwise, they won’t be able to do the free split because they will be violating zoning. Mr. Roberts also wants an approved sewer Developer’s Agreement
to know that it’s not just approved but that they are actually going forward with the work.
All involved parties, including their attorneys and Mr. Roberts, will meet to discuss the matter further.
Corporation Counsel Weaver recommended the execution of the Developer’s Agreement as presented.
The Council voted unanimously to approve the Developer’s Agreement as proposed by Corporation Counsel and WPC Administrator.
ADJOURNMENT #3000
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor McKenna, the Council voted unanimously to adjourn at 7:50 p.m.
ATTEST: JOLINE LeBLANC
ASST. CITY CLERK
| 
