Council agenda 10/6
I don't have time to comment right now, but thought you may want to see this... of interest to at least a few people... volunteer firefighters pension and Strathmore dam...
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The only sensible action for the dam is to have the realtor remove it.
Why should the town get involve with dam maintenance.
There are other dams in Cheshire, are we going to se3t a precedence of maintaining all dams.
Fiske has been trying for years to pawn off the dam on the unwilling neighbors with the collaboration of "progressives" like Marty Coburn, who are enablers for this avaricious developer
"collaboration of "progressives" like Marty Coburn, who are enablers for this avaricious developer"
Marty Coburn should not be called a progressive. He is a prodeveloper and does their bidding. For the NE, he was against any restrictions in the town plan, the zone change. He was overwhelming for the housing and went out of his way to silence opposition from members.
Some facts about the Strathmore Dam. In 1976 the Town and the Developer ( Fiske) entered into a covenant that detailed the possibilty of having an association in the neighborhood or to have the land trust or the town take the open space and pond.
The developer had to do this after the development was 90 percent complete( before 1980).
The developer nor the town ever acted upon the covenant.
The dam was inspected in 1976, 1995,1996 and 2006, 2007. Each time the town recieves copy of these reports. The dam was classified and still is as a Class B hazard( the potential to cause loss of life, property, or both). The PZ commsion( Marty Cobern) stated to the Developer to fix the property and then and only then will any request be taken. That still has not been done.
The town has allowed other developments around the pond to pass all the drainage into this pond creating a retension dam. The sewer lines sit directly below the dam and if the dam breaches and destroys the lines who is responsible. The nieghbors who have NO control over the dam.
It still is unclear if the property is currently insured. Good luck on collecting a dime if that dam breaches.
The developer attempted to build on the open space in 1999 and was denied by P&Z. The developer denied this , and then Tali Madelis spoke and informed the council that the developer did in fact bring plans forward that were denied.
The DEP does not want the dam taken down is what has been told and now some say let the homeowners take the hit. The homeowners 100 percent stood tall and said no. The neighborhood has been denied the ability to save a nest egg for repairs and for insurance. they do not want an association, and the town failed to act as did the developer.
If the developer folds the state gets the land , and then the town gets the land.
The precedence has been set a long time ago. the town and developer have no excuses why the covenant was not acted upon. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the pond and dam to be brought back to the original condition and the town has established placing sewers and drainage onto this property without ever consulting a nieghbor.
I appreciate the town for taking some responsibility but the developer needs to take care of the open space area and not try and stick it to the town and the tax payers of this neighborhood.
In this election year everyone should watch and see who has the stuff to stand up and do the right thing.
Whatever happens with this dam issue is better than what has been happening (exactly nothing)
Fisk has offered to repair the dam and subject it to inspection if the town takes it from there.
Does anybody really think we can force the neighborhood to form an association?
What happens if we continue to do nothing? Eventually the state will throw this in the town's lap and we get the problem with no mitigation from Fisk.
Maybe we will get help from the state, maybe not.
As I see it, the smart thing to do would be to at least consider Fisk's offer, tweak it where necessary and do what is best for the town and the Strathmore neighborhood.
My feeling is that everyone (developer, homeowners and town) bear some responsibility for this.
My preference (though I don't think it will happen) would be to simply take down the dam.
Folks, why should the homeowners bear ANY of the burden of three decades of neglect by the town and the developer?
We will find out tomorrow night who is for the Cheshire homeowner and who is for the a powerful special interest developer who now lives in Woodbridge
Was the requirement for a association in the deeds? I think it was. I think that the home owners should take the property and the dam. I am not sure why the town should have to. It is their dam let them maintain it.
Thanks for showing up, Marty
Lots of deeds also have provisos that ban the sale of the property to nonwhites. A restriction that is left unenforced for thirty years is equally worthless.
A real association has a resale package. None was every drawn up. So now, we should be forced to join something that doesn;t exist. Thank you Mr. Kafka
We are as interested in owning this dam as we would be owning a levee in New Orleans
Post a Comment