| [Print] |
| Bottom of Page |
Home:
|
| [Home] | [Back] | | [Print] | |
|
[[ Editor's note: on Monday, June 2, 2003, the following resolution, which had been tabled for some 6 months from the time of its origin in the autumn of 2002, was taken from the "table" during a regular Council Meeting and was not officially acted upon, and further it was not returned to the table; thereby, the Council allowed the resolution to die. However, the underlying problems have not been resolved. After a prolonged, wet spring, the Winding Brook Turf Farm resumed (during the July 4, 2003, weekend) its purportedly unauthorized occupancy of lands within Town's Mill Woods Park and resumed the noisy pumping of waters from the Goff Brook within that Park. Matters related to these actions of the turf farm are now within the legal courts of Connecticut, as well as before other state and federal agencies which have administrative powers. The neighbors in the vicinity of the purportedly unauthorized pumping continue to be harassed by the noise as various departments of the Town of Wethersfield, as well as the Town Council, continue to turn their backs on these actions of the turf farm. 7/27/2003 ]]
~ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ENTER INTO WHEREAS, the Town of Wethersfield (hereinafter referred to as 'the Town") owns certain lands commonly referred to as Mill Woods Park; and WHEREAS, a portion of said lands were (sic) acquired by the Town from the Morgan family; and WHEREAS, members of the Morgan family operate a turf farm known as Winding Brook Turf Farm, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Winding Brook") on property that abuts Mill Woods Park on the west; and WHEREAS, Winding Brook requires water to irrigate its crops; and WHEREAS, a stream known as Goff Brook runs through the said Mill Woods Park; and WHEREAS, with the consent of the Town of Wethersfield, Winding Brook placed a pump on land owned by the Town of Wethersfield and draws water from Goff Brook for irrigation purposes and WHEREAS, noise from the pump and other environmental concerns have been the source of complaints by some neighbors; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to memorialize the terms and conditions of a license by: which the Town will permit Winding Brook to draw water from Goff Brook; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to alleviate and minimize any inconvenience and disturbance to neighbors. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Interim Town Manager is authorized to enter into a license agreement with Winding Brook Turf Farm for the purpose of allowing Winding Brook to place one generator and pump (hereinafter referred to as "the equipment") on Town Property and to draw water from Goff Brook solely to irrigate its turf farm as presently exists upon the following conditions:
PURPOSE: To enter into a license agreement, which will allow Winding Brook Turf Farm to place certain equipment on town property for the purpose of pumping water out of Goff Brook in order to irrigate their crops. PREPARED BY: Joseph Swetcky, Jr., Interim Town Manager INTRODUCED BY: Mayor Kitch Breen Czernicki DATE: November 6, 2002 {{From a hard copy which was faxed, exported into TIFF, and OCR'd into MsWord and saved as TXT file and converted into HTML webpage here by Dr.Ken (who is not responsible any errors found in this final copy). 11/23/2002: 14:30 }} ~ ~ ~ Table of Contents (T.o.C.)
0. Goff Brook,Mill Woods, TOW GIS Map section [Back] to return
1. George A. Ruhe, 11/25/2002: You already have this, but I would like to share a few thoughts. With the Million + $ plans for Mill woods this should never be agreed to. It sounds like another plan a la Kelleher Court where, I'm fairly certain the residents on Randy Lane may be in for a surprise, and where the town ends up being a bad neighbor. The town gets nothing out of this and it does set a dangerous precedent. In addition to potential pollution from oil spills associated with refueling the pump, there will be gas emissions from the diesel or gas engine , as well as erosion as a result of vehicular traffic to the pump. (There is some at this point already.) The proposal as presented, in effect creates a corridor across the entire strip of Mill Woods between the stream and Winding Brook Farm. To even contemplate the construction of a " temporary building or structure " on town land and especially in Mill Woods borders on the absurd. The entire venture smacks of a "Sweetheart Deal " that can have no effect but negative to what has been described as a "Gem of a park". I believe the entire town should be made aware of this issue through broad distribution of this proposal. 2. Peter H. Maxwell, 11/25/2002 Isn't this the water that feeds our swimming hole? Can this result in polution of that swimming hole or an inadequate water supply? Is water quality partially dependent on the existing flow of water? 3. Paul E. Courchaine, 11/25/2002. This reads as an action which is putting legality around a situation which already exists. What is the level of noise pollution? Were existing neighbors notified when the operation started? Are all the current neighbors residents when this went into place or are they new residents? I can understand neighbors' concerns based on the answers to the above, but I would hate to have the town end up in a situation like Glastonbury, when all the new "Mac Mansion" owners complained of country smells, and force the closure of one of the best sources of fresh poultry in central CT (Greyledge Farms). 4. Ken Sokolowski, 11/27/2002: At this point, I have questions, not answers. Consider these: When and under what circumstances was this land obtained from the Morgan's/Winding Brook by the TOW (Town of Wethersfield), by gift or bequest, by eminent domain, or by foreclosure for unpaid taxes? Prior to the town 'acquiring' the land, why did not the Morgan's or Winding Brook Turf Farm, at that time, obtain a formal easement or license to access the water source? Does Winding Brook have any legal "right" to the waters of Goff Brook which leads to and through Mill Woods? Has the Winding Brook (private business) been using town (public) property (Mill Woods land) with or without paying for that privilege? How long has this arrangement been sanctioned by the Town? If no payments for the use of Town land have been made (for the pumping station and pipes), why not? How has the Town (public / taxpayers) benefited from this "arrangement" with Winding Brook? In what way has the Town not benefited from this arrangement? Does Winding Brook have on site wells to satisfy its need for business water? Is water not available from MDC for this purpose? What exactly does it mean to "memorialize the terms and conditions of a license"? Will ALL boards and commissions of the Town, through which this question may pass, notify all of the abutting AND affected neighbors of any and all meetings regarding discussions concerning this proposal? Will neighbors, abutting and affected, and citizens at large be noticed and invited to participate in the discussions (via commentary) before the Rec/Park Board and the PZC? What a Section 8-24 review; why this kind of review versus any other kind or commentary or action by the PZC? What department(s) of the Town shall have jurisdiction and responsibility for deciding the nature, materials and structure of the "temporary" edifice to enclose the mentioned generator and pump? Will this structure follow the building code? What "regulatory agency" or agencies (other than those of the Town) DO have jurisdiction over this body of water and involved lands? What agencies MIGHT have jurisdiction? Why does not this "license" assert and require that any permits from such agencies be also filed with the Town to assure the Town that such permits have indeed been obtained? What department(s) of the Town shall have the jurisdiction and responsibility for determining the adequacy of noise and pollution control measures? Why are not precise decibel levels ('at the property line') specified in this 'license' so that Winding Brook will be bound to them instead of relying on a vaguely worded "reasonable level." Reasonable to whom, the affected neighbors? If Winding Brook is denied access to Goff Brook's waters, might this threaten its use of the land as a turf farm? If turf farming becomes impossible at this location next to Mill Woods, might Winding Brook consider selling this land for (housing) development? If such development takes place, will this cause a loss of business-derived tax revenues to the town; will this not cause an increase burden on the Town to provide increased services to the new development? Is it in the Town's interest to keep Winding Brook in this location by acquiescing to this 'license?" If farmers can't profitably use their land for farming it seems to me that their only recourse is to sell off the property to developers. Is retention of this open space valuable to the town of Wethersfield? If so, it would be in the town's best interests to reach an agreement with the owners. Has the feasibility of utilizing electric power for pumping been considered as an alternative to internal combustion? It seems to me that any efforts that can be made to preserve open space and have it productive too are deserving of support. If it is a tax equity issue why aren't those same people looking at the tax basis for the Country Club which would be an excellent office park like the one in Rocky Hill where the Marriott is? Winding Brook has been a good neighbor for hundreds of years and it seems to me that a new agreement is in order but one that encourages rather than discourages. Dear Mayor, Manager and members of Town Council, When we first moved to our new house on Randy Lane in 1985, I was thrilled to now have three bathrooms instead of one. But this wasn't the only amenity that made moving satisfactory. Perhaps the best feature of this house was the sprawling backyard, home to a beautiful brook and Mill Woods Park. This water source produced wildlife such as an egret, beavers, geese, turtles, ducks and cardinals. It was our own private wildlife sanctuary. As a family, we would sit on our back deck enjoying the sights for hours until the pump would come on forcing us inside for the remainder of the day. As this became a regular occurrence, we began keeping windows and sliding glass doors shut to keep out the unbearable noise. Meals that we normally would have eaten on the back deck were brought inside. We had learned shouting over the pump was fruitless. We did very little entertaining in the backyard despite the beauty of it. It was hard to plan something around the pump. You just never knew when it was going to cough on to its obnoxious drone. For this reason, I knew I was really taking a risk by planning to have my graduation / going away party outside in the backyard in August of 1995. I wanted to spend my last day in Wethersfield outside with friends and family before leaving for college the next day. I wanted everything to run smoothly. I was up early that morning cleaning up the deck when the pump went on. I panicked. I knew what this meant. It would still be on when my guests arrived. I decided to place a call to Mr. Morgan and explain my predicament hoping he would sympathize and turn it off just this one time. After leaving a message on his answering machine, I waited for silence from the pump. None came. As the clock ticked down the hours until guests would be arriving, I grew wary. Instead of calling the party off, I called the Wethersfield Police. An officer pulled up to our house and I met him in the driveway. While he sat in the car, I explained the situation. Seeing how visibly upset I was, he offered to make a trip to see Mr. Morgan. Fortunately, this story has a happy ending. Instead of being blown away by the pump, we were able to enjoy live music at the party. Guests were able to communicate with one another and a good time was had by all. Two years later, my younger sister chose not to have her high school graduation party outdoors. She just couldn't risk the pump ruining her day. Regards, Audrey Aloi, Online Editor, Time Inc. 8. Section 8-24 Review by PZC: {{ Editor's note: The following underlining and italics are mine. This paragraph (Sec.8-24) was included in this discussion since, according to the agenda of the Council for its meeting of 12/2/2002, the acting manager will be recommending to the Council that such a referral be made to the PZC. To wit: 'Town Manager's Commentskes }} Sec. 8-24. Municipal improvements. No municipal agency or legislative body shall (1) locate, accept, abandon, widen, narrow or extend any street, bridge, parkway or other public way, (2) locate, relocate, substantially improve, acquire land for, abandon, sell or lease any airport, park, playground, school or other municipally owned property or public building, (3) locate or extend any public housing, development, redevelopment or urban renewal project, or (4) locate or extend public utilities and terminals for water, sewerage, light, power, transit and other purposes, until the proposal to take such action has been referred to the commission for a report. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a municipality may take final action approving an appropriation for any proposal prior to the approval of the proposal by the commission pursuant to this section. The failure of the commission to report within thirty-five days after the date of official submission of the proposal to it for a report shall be taken as approval of the proposal. In the case of the disapproval of the proposal by the commission the reasons therefor shall be recorded and transmitted to the legislative body of the municipality. A proposal disapproved by the commission shall be adopted by the municipality or, in the case of disapproval of a proposal by the commission subsequent to final action by a municipality approving an appropriation for the proposal and the method of financing of such appropriation, such final action shall be effective, only after the subsequent approval of the proposal by (A) a two-thirds vote of the town council where one exists, or a majority vote of those present and voting in an annual or special town meeting, or (B) a two-thirds vote of the representative town meeting or city council or the warden and burgesses, as the case may be. The provisions of this section shall not apply to maintenance or repair of existing property, public ways or buildings. 9. Peter H. Maxwell, 12/02/2002: I fully support the agricultural use of this parcel (I wish it was still a strawberry farm!). I support the limited use of the brook water for agricultural irrigation, when the water flow exceeds that required for the swimming pond. Such uses should not be permitted to impact water quality or quantity in the town's swimming pond. There do not appear to be adequate environmental safeguards proposed in the Council resolution to ensure the protection of the adjacent parklands or the swimming facility. There may not be adequate environmental safeguards at present, whether or not the resolution is approved. Other watershed neighbors, besides the turf farm, ought to be reviewed for adverse environmental impact on the brook water. Excessive lawn treatments may be a problem that has been overlooked. |
|
Goto Top of WebPage |
Published: 2002.11.25 Revised: 2003.07.27 ŠK.E.Sokolowski 2002-2003. All rights reserved. |
Comments? |