Willington Issues is a forum designed to discuss the various issues affecting the Town of Willington, CT. It will concentrate on political and Governmental matters but can delve into recreational and school concerns.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Viewer Posts
If you would like to see an issue on this blog site that I haven't covered, please send me an email at johnwpatton@msn.com or post a comment on this issue and I will try to accomodate you as best as I am able. Thank you all for using this blog.
79 comments:
Anonymous
said...
A discussion of why the First Selectman does not get the health benefits every other full time employee gets would be interesting.
That is easy. The first selectman job in a small town like ours is not a full time job. The everyday work is done buy the town employees. This also goes back to the question of why the job is not set up for average Joe? The CEO of any business or municipality is not an average Joe. They need a background of some sort other than running the dump. They need business or municipal or management experience. The idea of taking a person that has no experience other than working for someone to be a CEO is almost laughable. It is a part time job. This was set up by a group of people from selectman to board of finance that did a study of the position. It was not decided by the selectman who would receive the benefits. Maybe it is time to set up such a commission again!
conrad certainly misses the point here. The town does want the average joe to represent us. Forget the CEO nonsense. The people running for office all have management experience. This includes Mr. Patton who I believe has "no experience other than working for someone". Get a grip and look at the management experience of all of the candidates for First Selectman and you will find Mr. Eldredge has far more experience than Mr. Patton.
Are you kidding??Handling approximatly $10 million in tax dollars! It is like---in the words of our First Selectman "fossimills" in the library call and "veerhicles" on the tax rolls and his statement "I don't know anything about municipal finance!" I want someone who can read-write-add and subtract in the CEO seat and we don't have it! Remember that the average Joe has some form of education and can apply it. It doesn't mean they have to have a PHD or Masters. High school is fine whether taught formally or home schooled but they need to be able to think and LEARN!
I would be interested in knowing opinions regarding Emergency Services in our town. Why the need for two Fire Deparmtents, one department paid, the other not etc..It seems to me that one unit would provide a better service, better budgeting etc. It is very rare to have two seperate departments in a town of 6,000.
What is the amount in our rainy day fund currently and what was it two years ago? Also where is it being held? Hopefully monies in our capital budget are not being considered as rainy day funds as these funds are earmarked for capital improvements, such as our new library. The Board of Finance has the job of recommending the final budget for the townspeople to vote on. Then the townspeople vote on how they wish to spend THEIR monies.
The issue of having two fire departments was voted on by the people of Willington. In a very large turnout at the polls residents voted by a 2 to 1 margin to continue with this setup. To revisit this issue so soon after the townspeople made their wishes known would not be productive.
The town voted on the formation of a Fire Commission, not consolidation. These are two very seperate and distinct issues. And frankly, the issue was so grossly politicized that most people voting didnt even know what the vote meant. In a nutshell, this was an attempt to provide a better more coordinated service to the Town and nothing more. It was and remains a sad missed opportunity in my opinion.
Here we disagree. You seem to be saying that the people of Willington did not know what they were voting for. I have great faith in the people of our town as a whole. They are the people that decide, by voting, what they want. It is our system. To say, in essence, that the people voted the wrong way is a disservice to our comminity. As merits exist for all positions in any issue, we should all honor the vote of the citizens.
Seems like you could start a new thread on what transpired this past weekend with the flooding. Maybe reprinting the Chronicle article from 10/18 would be an interesting conversation starter.
Without a doubt. Reprint the article and comments that follow. This is an issue that should be discussed. As the town pays for all phone records they become subject to FOI. We will discover through these records who called who and at what time. Good idea on your part.
The Sentinel add I saw is not correct. Semprebon was omitted from P&Z, Ridzon was incorrectly included on the Democrat line, and the independent candidates (eg, Tulis) were completely omitted. John, how are you planning to correct the mis-information?
As far as the vote on the Fire Commission; the question posed to the town was "should there be a fire commission"? Not should they consolidate. These again are two seperate things. The Commission was to coordinate major purchases and attempt to streamline the operations, not make one department. Like I said, obviously, people didnt know what they were voting for, including yourself.
re: fire department vote You are working under the assumption that the people of Willington are simple minded. That is not the case. The people understood exactly what the vote was about regardless of the language used.
The Reminder typeset the advertisement sent to them and never sent a proof for approval. There were many misspellings including the name of the Sentinel Party. As the Reminder will not recall all of their papers, they will have to run a corrected version next week. Thanks for the heads up.
Reminder add by Sentinel Party This is typical of operation of the Sentinel Party. They place add and do not even ask for or review a proof. After very harmful information is printed they do not even notice that it was incorrect (I am not talking about typos). When the problem is pointed out to them of course someone else is at fault. This is how Willington was run under Patton. If someone notices an error it was not my fault. Better people would say: I should have proof read the add first and it is my fault. I will correct the error.
In response to Semprebon, a proof was requested for the ad in the reminder although no proof was recieved. The mistakes were noticed immediately after the paper hit the streets and several calls and e-mails were sent to the paper asking for a correction to the problem. Believe it or not, mistakes do happen and this mistake is not our fault. For the amount of time it took to produce this ad, not to mention the price, do you actually think we would spell our own name wrong throughout the ad?
It is your fault. The Sentinels have made a habit of picking on the slightest issue to say the Democrats and Republicans are at fault. Try to take respnsibility for your actions. If, as you say, a large amount of money was spent on this ad (I stand corrected as to typo of add) why would you not at least proof read? As I said before, somebody else is always at fault according to the Sentinels. This may be the reason that voter faith in the Sentinel Party has diminished.
How about a positive discussion on how to get more people out to vote in the upcoming election and how to inspire more to get involved in public service.
What have Democrats and Republians done to be criticized for? Something can always be found. The difference is between constructive and self-serving. Calling the Democrats the devil and the the Republicans as like Saddam Hussien and collectively as the Taliban is not constructive. Nor is the threat of a restraining order by Mr. Patton against people in town that did vote. Boomerang has the right idea. Let us have positive discussion on getting people involved both in voting and public service.
boomerang said let us have a positive discussion on getting more people to vote and be involved in public service. That is the best idea I have heard in a long time. All political parties have contribited to the atmosphere that we currently have in Willington. This situation, I think, has caused people to stay away from voting and wanting to serve in government. The best way to resolve this is for everybody to understand they will not always get exactly what they want all of the time. If (in the case of Willington) a tri-partisan sense of cooperation is created people will most likely be more interested in our town government. This is not to say different opinions should not be aired.
Patton threatened to get a restraining order against the voters? He has really gone over the top this time. When did he do it? That information should be publicized and people should know he did that and when. Was it in a meeting or in the newspaper?
I would like to see the letter from Kathy Demers to the Chronicle (Oct. 19) about Ralph Tulis posted here. The letter contains information that voters should be aware of, and not everybody gets the Chronicle.
Re: restraining order Mr. Patton's quote can be found in the Chronicle edition of September 14th 2005. It appears in an article written by Kimberly Wetzel concerning the outcome of the Republican Primary election held on Sept. 13, 2005. Patton did not state specifically agaist whom he would seek the restaining order just that he felt he should get one. It is my opinion that if you feel you should seek a restraining order based on the outcome of an election, and do not identify the person or persons that you will take this action against, you refer to the electorate at large. In the interest of fairness maybe Mr. Patton would publish, on this blog, the entire article. That would erase any concerns of a statement being taken out of context. Otherwise a copy of the article can be obtained from the Chronicle.
Yes. I read it again too. It was clearly meant to be a joke! I guess some people don't have a sense of humor, or maybe just don't understand sarcasm when they see it.
That's great. Patton says things to the Chronicle as a joke. I quess that means the Chronicle is like the Sunday Funnies. Bet the Chronicle likes that. Best to inform the Chronicle they are being used this way. I really missed the point here. I was under the impression that the welfare of Willington was the issue. Then this Blog must be a joke.
Anonymous said... "That's great. Patton says things to the Chronicle as a joke. I quess that means the Chronicle is like the Sunday Funnies. Bet the Chronicle likes that."
Why don't you come up with a REAL issue instead of exploiting this non-issue? If you keep beating this dead horse then the joke will certainly be on you.
That seems to be the most popular sport. You can check out issues regarding Town finances, Senior Housing, Recreation, or Library. They are not as popular but there are questions and answers on those issues. If you have other issues, please specify and I will try to accomodate.
It seems there is no alcohol allowed in the new Senior Center. It seems to me the Seniors are probably the most responsible citizens in town and can handle a glass or wine or whatever. They are also careful who else may use it. Does anyone know why this policy is in effect why not change it. The story I hear is "it is a town building" So?
Did I just read an apology from the Reminder to Willington voters for the mistakes made last week in the Sentinal ad? It said that the Reminder was the cause of the mistakes.
I'm relatively new in town and I've heard from several people that it's really difficult to get a permit to do something as simple as putting a deck on your house. Is this true, and if so, is anyone doing anything to make it better?
Welcome to town. The answer to your question is "it depends". The size of your house lot, location of your house on the lot, size of the deck and where it is going, where your septic system and well are, all affect the permitting process. I am currently applyng for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to put a dormer on a house because it is too close to the road. If it was only fifteen feet further back, the permit would have been simple. I also have to go through the health district because of State regulations. I did email your question to the zoning agent to see what kind of answer she would have to your question.
Some people would have you believe it is difficult to do anything in Willington. But then those comments are heard about any town's Building Department when an applicant doesn't start with an understanding of the information needed to process an application. Truth be told, if you can meet a few simple requirements, it's easy.
(1) In order to get a building permit for a deck, you need a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. As with most towns, Willington has zoning regulations that specify distances for Front Yard, Side Yards, and Rear Yard. If the deck you want to build intrudes into that yard space, it becomes a problem. If it does not, then it should be easier.
(2) If you have an A-2 survey of your lot showing the house and other key features (specifically your driveway, well, and septic system) and the property lines, then it should be a simple matter to sketch your proposed deck on a copy of the lot survey map (to scale). When presented to the office staff, it would then be a relatively easy task to check the yard distances to determine zoning compliance. If it complies, you can then get a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and you're on your way to a building permit application.
(3) If you do not have an A-2 survey of your lot, it becomes a bit more difficult because you'll need to obtain one (or a partial A-2 survey) to ensure that your proposed deck meets the setback (yard) distances. OR, if the required setback(s) (yard) distances are doubled, a plan drawn to scale showing the house, property lines, and the proposed deck should suffice. Once accomplished, go back to (2).
(4) If your desired deck will intrude into any of the setback (yard) distances, all is not lost, but it gets a bit more complicated. You will need to get a Zoning Variance which hinges upon proving a hardship not created by you or a prior owner. Hardship vary, but typically they relate to physical features of the land on your lot that would prevent you from choosing any other possible location. Obtaining a Variance requires a visit (at a meeting) with the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Once the pertinent facts are explained to the ZBA, they will likely do a site walk (to see for themselves) and hold a Public Hearing (so your neighbors have an opportunity to object or support). When the Public Hearing is complete and closed, the ZBA will decide whether or not you have a valid hardship, and if so, will likely grant a variance. Once granted, you're on your way to a building permit.
There are some common sense things to consider. You can't construct a deck over any portion of your septic system (gets in the way of repairs, should they become necessary). You can't build a deck (or most anything) in a wetland. Consideration of your neighbor(s) is important, which is why we have the setback (yard) distances in the first place.
To the poster that was told about the hassles of pulling a permit in this town, you weren’t being lied to as I had nothing but problems with that. First off let me say I wasn’t asking for anything illegal to be done or any “special” favors, I was asking for common sense for my situation.
The rules and regulations are so nicely written but there is one main problem and that is called non compliant lots that were built with NO monument markers should have something grandfathered in as long as you have property pins and/or proof of your boundaries.
I had to pay $800 for a ZLS to put an above ground pool in my yard where there once was an INGROUND pool.*
The factual information I had on hand was: 1. Original mortgage survey with measurements showing location of property pins. 2. 3 property pins were located using a medal detector and the original mortgage survey. ALL 3 pins correlated with the original survey. 3. My property is non compliant with the new zoning laws as it is less than 80,000 sq ft so to fall into the 50 ft. sideline rule (no ZLS needed for that) it was impossible unless I knocked my house down. 4. A copy of the “aerial” survey from the Town Hall showing the exact location of the “inground” pool on my property.
Even the Surveyor was shocked that I had to hire him to come out and measure my exposed pins and also because of the other facts I had on hand. No one could come out and measure my pins, no one wanted to hear what I had on hand, and all I heard was the "you need a ZLS” speech.
*Original inground pool was 40 feet long and butted up to the neighbor’s property line; I was facing my 30 foot pool down towards my backyard leaving more than 25 feet from the pool to the neighbor’s property line.
So poster you were told the truth it’s nothing but a hassle to pull a permit in this town.
I understand your frustration but your arguments, unfortunatly, highlight why you had problems.
1. An aerial survey is just a photo that is not acurate because of perspective. They are further distorted by elevation changes. 2. "more than 25 feet" How much more 1 inch or 20 feet? That makes a difference. 3. "3 pins located" "correlated with the original survey" I'm guessing that the 3 pins were used for the ZLS. Unfortunatly, pins are not permanent and do get moved. 4. "Original mortgage survey " Was this just a copy of the records on file, or was an actual survey done to verify pin positions done?
I'm really not looking to argue with you but put yourself in your neighbor's shoes who want's to have confidence that the town is fairly enforcing the regulations. Most of all, put on the zoning agent's shoes, that has to be 100% sure what you are building conforms to the regulations.
#1: The reason for the aerial survey was for proof that there was a pool 40 feet long, as some seemed to forget it existed. Would the neighbor have allowed the previous owner to place it on their property? I would guess no, so that was proof of at least 40 feet from my house to the sideline.
#2: I have 27 feet from the wall of my pool to my neighbor’s property line. I am not an idiot to not know the “difference” between 1 foot and 25. I also had a signed letter from my neighbor stating that he didn’t care if my pool met his property line since if we fixed the inground, it wouldn’t be moved.
#3: Pin location correlated with original mortgage survey, as stated before. Main reason why my surveyor didn't have to do much. So I guess my pins were not moved.
#4: This was obtained from Gardner and Peterson the developer of this neighborhood, minus any monument markers as there aren’t any.
You say you aren't looking for an argument, sort of sounded like it to me with some of your questions and comments. You seemed to have missed where I stated we have non compliant lots and if you do not have one of those, you will never understand.
Welcome to the blog Mr. Rodriquez and thanks for the comments. I have allowed anonymous contributions because people can use anonymous screen names anyway. I don't believe that there is any more personal animosity here in this Town than other Towns - it just seems that way at times. I can appreciate your gossip comment as I am always amazed to find out what I have done from people I don't even know. After sixteen years in politics, I have just learned to accept it as a fact of life. The one positive about the anonymous postings is that people can and do share the gossip they have heard and have it verified or rejected by other people who may know the actual events.
The "viewer posts" post does seem to have turned in to a free for all but it is the most popular. You can check out issues regarding Town finances, Senior Housing, Recreation, or Library. They are not as popular but there are questions and answers on those issues and a little less name calling. If you have other issues you would like to see posted, please specify and I will try to accomodate.
Stay with it and hopefully more and more people will use this as a way to have serious discussions about issues.
Ah Ha, "Gardner and Peterson", now I understand your predicament. If you live in the Lucerne, St Moritz area, the monuments placed by "Gardner and Peterson" are off by between 3 and 10 feet in the opposite direstions depending on if you come from the Stafford direction or up Village Hill. Really, I'm not arguing with you in any way. I'm sure it was difficult getting a permit for anything where you only have 2 feet to spare. If the pool installer mis-located you pool by 25 inches, it would be non-conforming.
There is a term called Caveat Emptor. I know you don’t want to hear that, and I know you just want what you want. Non-conforming lots exist, and when you buy one you unfortunately inherit the problems that come with them. Personally, I would not buy a lot without an A-2 Boundary Survey.
The Zoning Regulations have a section specifically addressing non-conforming lots and uses. The goal of that section is to reduce the non-conformities as much as can be.
How long was the previous pool gone before you tried to construct a new one? My guess is that the prior use (the pool) had been gone long enough to be considered abandoned. That in and of itself helped to reduce a non-conformity. Simply because it was there at one time is not enough to allow creating what would be considered a new non-conformity. The fact that the original pool butted up to the neighbor’s property line is irrelevant - when was it built? If it was constructed before 12/15/1970, there were no Zoning Regulations in Willington, so it would have then been unrestricted with respect to distance from the property line.
Regarding the mortgage survey - they are typically used to diagrammatically show the lot and the house on it. They are not precise, nor are they intended to come close to the accuracy of an A-2 survey. They are simply what they are labeled - a “Mortgage Survey” - used to satisfy the bank or other entity holding the mortgage. My guess is that you live in the Lucerne Drive/St Moritz area - a subdivision that was started in the mid-1960s, well before Willington had its current subdivision regulations. At that time I believe the Board of Selectman had the responsibility (by ordinance) for reviewing/overseeing land division. You would be lucky if you were able to find any pins from the original subdivision layout.
I also think you mean “CLS”, not “ZLS”. The term refers to Connecticut Land Surveyor or Connecticut Licensed Surveyor.
Allowing the creation of a non-conformity simply on the basis of “my neighbor doesn’t care” isn’t enough if the current regulations do not allow it. Your future neighbor may decide to insist that the regulations be enforced.
Gardner and Peterson were not likely the “developers” of your neighborhood - they are an engineering and surveying consultant - there were several contractors involved its construction with varying degrees of success (or not).
I’m sorry that you can’t do what you want on your property. It’s an unfortunate consequence of not knowing what you ultimately want to do, combined with not knowing what you would be allowed to do with the existing constraints on your lot.
The majority of our permits and regulations are in place because of state and federal laws and guide lines. Health, safety and environmental concerns lay the ground work for local boards and commissions to establish P&Z and building codes. Much of the content of our regulations are the result of written law. It is not as you may think just a group of private citizens with personal agendas. Some say our regulations are too stringent, others say they are not tough enough. The answer may lie somewhere in between. Regulations need to be fair to everyone and at the same time stringent enough to protect the town against unwanted development. I do know that it is not easy sitting on the other side of the table. I say to those who have issues, get involved, you can make a difference. I think ZLS is Zoning Location Survey.
I very much agree with the original “pool” poster as I also live in this neighborhood, if this is the neighborhood in question. If you lived in this neighborhood you wouldn’t be agreeing so quickly with the town’s zoning rules and regulations.
It was so quickly judged about the poster stating about “the neighbor not caring, but a future neighbor might”, obviously how it was taken wasn’t what they meant. I don’t think it matters what year the original pool was installed as it wouldn’t have been allowed to be placed on the neighbor’s property. That is probably where the “aerial” survey statement came into play. I understood what the poster was saying as some didn’t.
If I am reading correctly, the missing or incorrect monument markers seem to be a known fact to the town, then why wasn’t this problem fixed by the town? So it’s up to the home owners now to fix the mistake?
I am sure the original poster meant ZLS, which is zoning location survey as we all need one of those to “move a rock” in our yard as stated.
A question for the other poster, how does one get involved to change things? Wouldn’t that be like “fighting city hall”? Sounds like a losing battle if you ask me.
To person that references fighting city hall over zoning: I agree with your entire comment. You are quite correct in it is like fighting city hall. The fight with city hall is an ongoing one. If you have some time contact either the Democratic or Republican parties in town. They are always looking for people to serve on Zoning Boards. If you do not have that amount of time to give please let them know what your problems are. There is no quick fix but we all have to start somewhere. Planning and Zoning has instituted a "present to speak" period for every meeting. This was not allowed in the past. Basically you can speak about an issue that you feel is a problem. The town government is much more responsive than in the past. Give it a try and the best of luck. You may be pleasently surprised.
Anonymous said: "If you have some time contact either the Democratic or Republican parties in town. They are always looking for people to serve on Zoning Boards. If you do not have that amount of time to give please let them know what your problems are."
You mean the Dem-Reps, right? Or are they now called the Republicrats? I heard all you have to do is volunteer and they'll get you in via a handy political tool: cross-endorsing. This way there's no need to campaign, talk about the issues or be accountable for your actions.
Oh, and I also heard that the Sentinels are always looking for people for all of their boards.
anonymous said "... If I am reading correctly, the missing or incorrect monument markers seem to be a known fact to the town, then why wasn’t this problem fixed by the town? So it’s up to the home owners now to fix the mistake?"
The town did not create the problem. The people that created the problem are the ones who subdivided the land and built the houses. Why would you automatically assume the town needs to pay to fix the problem. Who else would you suggest pay to fix it? Maybe homeowners in another part of town who have conforming lots and accurate surveys? It's the subdivisions problem and you need to live with it or fix it.
As far as "fighting city hall", I agree with the previous poster that the best way to do it is to get involved. The Democrats and Republicans are always looking for people to help to make a more sensible planning and zoning department. The sentinals were in charge for many years and you can see where we are now. We are just starting to fix the problems. It will take a long time and we need all the help we can get.
Years ago, when a third party was started, I thought "great", maybe that will end the bickering between the two parties. I even supported them, at first. Now it seems clear that those who continue the petty bickering ARE the third party.
Comment on bickering. I moved into town about six years ago and I have watched the political dynamics of the town. The Sentinel Party members seem to be the only ones who give answers to my questions. The bickering or sniping seems mainly aimed at them and Patton in particular. My first exposure to politics was the bus parking lot on Ruby Road. The two main parties spent a year and many town meetings trying to derail a perfectly reasonable proposal. Patton was accused of all sorts of skullduggery by the opposing players. The fire commission proposal was something I opposed and voted against but the question needed to be raised. Even here, the main political parties took the issue and politicized it. Like the poor, political bickering will always be with us. I commend all the people who are willing to do the work I am not willing to do and that is be in the public eye.
Comment on Bickering The only political party that was involved in the fire department issue was A Sentinel Party. John Patton and Jack Lewis, with a majority on the BOS proposed a fire commission. The issue went to town meeting and then to referendum. The call to meeting and adjournment to a town vote was brought about by many citizens signing a petition. In no way, shape, or form were any political parties, other than A Sentinel Party, involved with this issue. The people in town voted by a large margin to not have our fire departments controlled by politics. This was, and remains, the outcome of that vote. Should you have any substance to your comment that other political parties were involved please post it here. Patton has a history of proposing endless committees and commissions for reasons unknown. His latest proposal is a Commission of Boards. Figure that out. I am unable.
Regarding comments on bickering and the Fire Commision; this issue was politicized from the start by the Republicans who solicited one of the Fire Departments that didnt want this commission. From there an alliance was formed that basically served each others interests. Politically, the Republicans do not like anything that Mr. Patton initates. This is obvious through the years. Of course the benefit to the Fire Department was that they had some people in their corner to fight their fight. On at least three occasions at the transfer station, Republicans agressivly approached people encouraging them to vote against the commission. Literature was distributed townwide by the Republicans against this commission. As far as politizing the issue, the other political parties did this not the Sentinels. I always found it bizzare that the people who did the most lobbying against this commission were not even firefighters, it was the other political parties who happened to not be in power at the time. But like I mentioned before, if Mr. Patton thinks its a good idea the Republicans and Democrats have to by virtue disagree. And unfortunatly, their insistence over the past few years to abide by this foolish mindset has eroded this town and the faith of the administration to all time lows. I can not conceive how anyone can actually believe for a second that the present administration is doing a good job, in the best interests of the people. Their leadership or lack thereof is simply an embarrassment to this community as evidenced by the recent flooding as well as their lack of responsiveness in general to simple questions. They are in local politics for two reasons and two reasons only; to keep the most competent individual out, and for their own personal financial gain. The current administration may be trying as hard as they can as they have said. I however, demand more out of the First Selectman's Office. I demand fiscal accountability at all times. I demand that this person be well versed in municipal finance, be accesible to the people and most of all not motivated by the financial perks of the job. The various town entities need to be able to function without constant harrassment. In alot of cases what you see as far as character of these individuals in power presently is all too often not the case behind closed doors. This town needs to be brought under control again by competent leadership with a vision for the town who is not motivated by greed, and power. Lets put Mr. Patton back where he belongs; in the Office of the First Selectman so we can get back on track.
The Sentinels, the original self-professed party of "REFORM", has become the entrenched,self-serving autocracy. The prophetic old adage of: "Follow the money" has been proven again in Willington, much as it is currently being proven so dramatically in Hartford and Washington(where right-wing, religious zealots have captured our democracy) ! ! ! !
I heard that part of this bickering was caused by a lawsuit between Patton and the leadership of the republican party. Was or is there a lawsuit and what was it about to cause all of this bitterness.
I was talking to a person in town who was saying that Mike had made "all of these promises" to him at the dump and that is why he voted for him. In language than I can't print, he said Mike didn't keep any of them and won't be voting for him this time.
The comments that the Republican Party solicited a fire department, formed an alliance with them, and distributed literature opposing the commission are completely unfounded. They are also harmful to Willington.
The fire departments do not take a position for or against any party or candidate. It is an insult to even suggest they do.
The Republican Party did not solicit a fire department or distrubute any information to the townspeople.
This type of misleading information is a large part of our current problems in Willington.
I suggest you go to the fire departments and ask the members before uttering this type of nonsense.
Hopefully your comments are a result of being duped as the alternative is not attractive.
Re: Fire Commision & Republican Party: It was no secret that certain members of the Republican Party offered assistance to one of the Fire Departments. This fact was discussed openly between the Fire Departments and was confirmed. In fact, they were quite open about this fact. And as far as the Fire Departments being non-political, please dont be shocked but they are very political. It is crucial to form alliances between the Boards in the town to ensure the operation is supported. Of course, administrations can have their personal views on the FD's as well. We have seen for the past two years of discriminating, and disparaging comments made toward one of the FD's. I personally accept the marriage of politics into the FD's as a necessary business. Lets face it, we are entrusted with over a quarter of a million dollars every year by the townspeople. With this funding and our dedicated staff we need to provide emergency services 24/7. And compounding these already difficult tasks are the uncertain times we live in. All of this is a huge job that required professional people with the vision to stay prepared. In closing, there is no need to ask someone form the fire department about the last posting. I posted it, and I have been a high ranking officer for many many years and I am committed to serving this town for many years to come irregardless of the administration that is elected. Of course, I would rather work with an administration that has a vision for the future, and shares the same concerns as other townspeople. Make sure you vote on Tuesday!!!
The answer is that I have been involved in a lawsuit with Rob Hisey and Peter Latincsics for the last 5 years. They are part of the leadership of the Republican Town Committee and Hisey and Latincsics served as the front for the Willington Republicans Political Action Committee. So I guess that much is true.
As I was successfully defending my property from illegal use, they were using the political process to damage me as much as possible. Their latest vessel to do that is the Republican party.
You seem to believe that if someone is involved in a community issue that means that their political party is behind their actions and that they represent their party in whatever they do.
That is not the way this country works. We are all individuals and have the right to hold and act on our opinions. We all also have the right to affliate with a political party if we choose.
Should you disagree with my opinion or actions that is your right. By no means do my actions represent any political party.
If a member of the Sentinel Party committed murder, or said murder was OK, whould I be justified in saying the Sentinel Party supports murder.
This comment by Willington Taxpayer is a classic example of misinformation to make people believe something that is not true.
If you are interested in the truth of the matter, read on.
The original question was that it was heard that a lawsuit between Patton and Republican leadership was the cause of bickering.
The lawsuit that Patton refers concerns water use rights. Patton is not a party to that lawsuit. Nor as he states is the property in question "my property".
The boundry lines in dispute have not been resolved. The State Supreme Court has ruled that these lines must be established and adhered to by their ruling. Currently this case is starting all over again in Superior Court under rules that have never been established in CT. It is scheduled for a pre-trial hearing in late March to set a trial date. After the Superior Court makes a determination, it will most likely result in appeals through the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court.
Concerning Republican leadership, Patton is once again attempting to mislead. The Republican Town Committee is the leadership of the Republican Party. This committee is comprised of 30 members. Two of the members happen to be defendants in the lawsuit Patton refers. They were not members of the committee when the lawsuit was filed.
Patton also refers to these same two people as a "front" for the Willington Republicans(a political committee). These two people formed a political committee under State rules and filed all forms and information required stating purpose of the committee, members of the committee and a detailed financial report concerning activities of the committee. All of this paper work can be found at the Town Clerks office. So according to Patton if you put your name to activity, tell everybody what you are doing, and put it all in the public record you are a "front". No rational person could agree that this was a "front".
So what you have is: Patton said that he guesses it is true there is a lawsuit between Patton and Republican leadership. In fact both Patton and the Republican leadership are not named in any lawsuit. He is misleading.
Patton said he was "successfully defending my property from illegal use". In fact Patton does not own the property in question and is not named as a party to the lawsuit. Also this lawsuit has not been settled as it is currently back in Superior Court with any judgement subject to appeal.
Patton said that two individuals served as a "front" for the Willington Republicans political committee. In fact these individuals complied with all requirements and were open and honest in their intentions and opinions. They were the committee and said so. This is no front, it is political expression.
In short Patton has make every effort to mislead you.
Should anyone wish to check the above you will find information at the Town Clerk's office concerning Willington Republicans and the court case can be found online or through the Clerk of the Court.
The name of the case is Ace Equipment Sales, Inc.,ET AL v. Thomas Buccino ET AL. case number CV00-0072150S
If anyone can find Patton's name or the Republican Party name in this lawsuit please post it here as soon as possible.
I stand corrected. Hisey and Latincsics are not a front, they are the leaders of the Willington Republicans Poltical Action Committee. They are also part of the braintrust (the group that handles strategy) of the Republican Town Committee and Hisey handles their correspondance. They did join the Republican Town committee after the lawsuit started and began their long-running campaign against me.
As far as the case goes, I successfully defended 99.5% of my property from trespass and I am now working on the other .5%. My family owns Ace Equipment Sales in case anybody is wondering and I handle legal matters for the company. I didn't mention it before because I didn't believe it was relevant how I control the property.
I gave a simple correct anwswer to a simple question.
Re: Fire Department & Republican Party; Whew.....it was just the facts as I saw them unfold. I was privy to everything I said. Dead issue.....and nice analogy...great touch!
Nothing "nasty" was written about the Sentinel Party. If you will reference the Chronicle Bob admitted, in the newspaper, after the election that all three "Primary Republicans" candidates "were Sentinels".
Everything written was a political opinion and seems to have, for some people, the inconveience of also being true.
The opinions expressed were not in support of a party at all. A primary is, by definition, an election to determine which candidates will be on a party ballot.
Now of a matter of course a party committee, after endorsing a slate, should not and is not allowed to use party funds to support any candidates in a primary. Otherwise the "deck becomes stacked".
Notice here that the "Primary Republicans" were a Political Committee which distributed information. The "Willington Republicans" were also a political committee that distributed information.
Both political committees supported and or oppossed candidates in this primary. All of this information is available through the Town Clerk or the Sec. of State.
It would be informative to know your reasons that Sentinels should have preference over other citizens of Willington in expressing their point of view.
After admitting that two people were not a "front" as he had stated, he now desribes them as "leaders of Willington Republicans Political Action Committee".
Here again he is wrong. Willington Republicans was a political committee formed to express the view of two individuals concerning a primary election in Willington. As required by law, these two individuals filed all information required by State and Local governments.
These two individuals were the only members of this political committee, as shown by the required information properly filed. This information is public record.
If anyone wishes to consider a group of two as "leaders" of a group made up of only two, so be it.
In my opinion, this thinking would qualify as a paranoid delusion.
His statement that these two are part of a "braintrust" of the Republican Town Committee and that one of them handles correspondence, is equally paranoid.
The Republican Town Committee presents all correspondence to the full committe for their consideration and voted upon for response. The Chairman, or Secretary, handles the presentation and response. This is well proved by review of minutes of meeting of the Committee.
He refers to the "case" by saying that he has successfully defended 99.5% of "my" property. He also states that he didn't believe it was "relevant how I control the property".
Property lines have not been determined in this case, and will probably take many years for this to go through the court system.
Most important, note that Patton does not believe it relevant how he controls property that he does not own.
Think of that in political terms. He does not feel it relevant how he controls property he does not own, as long as he had control.
Nobody controls the townspeople of Willington except themselves.
YOUR attitude is the one that is lacking. You are all nastiness all the time. You are the reason why the rest of us cannot have discussions about issues facing the town. You give politics in Willington a bad name. You intimidate those of us who would like to learn how things work in town government.
You say, "Nobody controls the townspeople of Willington except themselves." Of course! Who wouldn't agree with that?
What I might suggest is that you take that to heart and start controlling YOURSELF and stop with the mudslinging.
Oh, and if you want us to have all the "facts" then maybe stating your name would help us get to the bottom of things.
Boomerang, Good point on stating my name like all the rest of you. I was thinking of Boomerang II or Willington Taxpayer II. Which do you think is better?
I have come away from the selectman's meeting last night with many questions. Is this blog a dead thing or can it continue as public forum? Are the issues concerning Willington a continuing and ever changing being with a life of its own? Is the board of selectmen the central body for leadership in the town due to the fact that they see or can see, the overall picture of the town, unlike any other board. Can the selectmen wear blinders and say thats ok we'll get a grant! Every action can create a reaction. A zoning issue can affect the schools, a zba issue can affect the overall commercial developement of the town, a school issue can create far reaching tenticles that could change the future of the town for better or worse! My question is shouldn't the BOS be the balancing point?
79 comments:
A discussion of why the First Selectman does not get the health benefits every other full time employee gets would be interesting.
That is easy. The first selectman job in a small town like ours is not a full time job. The everyday work is done buy the town employees. This also goes back to the question of why the job is not set up for average Joe? The CEO of any business or municipality is not an average Joe. They need a background of some sort other than running the dump. They need business or municipal or management experience. The idea of taking a person that has no experience other than working for someone to be a CEO is almost laughable. It is a part time job. This was set up by a group of people from selectman to board of finance that did a study of the position. It was not decided by the selectman who would receive the benefits. Maybe it is time to set up such a commission again!
conrad certainly misses the point here. The town does want the average joe to represent us. Forget the CEO nonsense. The people running for office all have management experience.
This includes Mr. Patton who I believe has "no experience other than working for someone".
Get a grip and look at the management experience of all of the candidates for First Selectman and you will find Mr. Eldredge has far more experience than Mr. Patton.
Are you kidding??Handling approximatly $10 million in tax dollars! It is like---in the words of our First Selectman "fossimills" in the library call and "veerhicles" on the tax rolls and his statement "I don't know anything about municipal finance!" I want someone who can read-write-add and subtract in the CEO seat and we don't have it! Remember that the average Joe has some form of education and can apply it. It doesn't mean they have to have a PHD or Masters. High school is fine whether taught formally or home schooled but they need to be able to think and LEARN!
I would be interested in knowing opinions regarding Emergency Services in our town. Why the need for two Fire Deparmtents, one department paid, the other not etc..It seems to me that one unit would provide a better service, better budgeting etc. It is very rare to have two seperate departments in a town of 6,000.
How about taking on a "rural legend" such as:
-The town's "rainy day" fund has been washing away over the past 2 years. True or False?
What is the amount in our rainy day fund currently and what was it two years ago? Also where is it being held? Hopefully monies in our capital budget are not being considered as rainy day funds as these funds are earmarked for capital improvements, such as our new library.
The Board of Finance has the job of recommending the final budget for the townspeople to vote on. Then the townspeople vote on how they wish to spend THEIR monies.
The issue of having two fire departments was voted on by the people of Willington. In a very large turnout at the polls residents voted by a 2 to 1 margin to continue with this setup. To revisit this issue so soon after the townspeople made their wishes known would not be productive.
The town voted on the formation of a Fire Commission, not consolidation. These are two very seperate and distinct issues. And frankly, the issue was so grossly politicized that most people voting didnt even know what the vote meant. In a nutshell, this was an attempt to provide a better more coordinated service to the Town and nothing more. It was and remains a sad missed opportunity in my opinion.
Here we disagree. You seem to be saying that the people of Willington did not know what they were voting for. I have great faith in the people of our town as a whole. They are the people that decide, by voting, what they want. It is our system.
To say, in essence, that the people voted the wrong way is a disservice to our comminity.
As merits exist for all positions in any issue, we should all honor the vote of the citizens.
Seems like you could start a new thread on what transpired this past weekend with the flooding. Maybe reprinting the Chronicle article from 10/18 would be an interesting conversation starter.
Without a doubt. Reprint the article and comments that follow.
This is an issue that should be discussed.
As the town pays for all phone records they become subject to FOI.
We will discover through these records who called who and at what time.
Good idea on your part.
The Sentinel add I saw is not correct. Semprebon was omitted from P&Z, Ridzon was incorrectly included on the Democrat line, and the independent candidates (eg, Tulis) were completely omitted. John, how are you planning to correct the mis-information?
As far as the vote on the Fire Commission; the question posed to the town was "should there be a fire commission"? Not should they consolidate. These again are two seperate things. The Commission was to coordinate major purchases and attempt to streamline the operations, not make one department. Like I said, obviously, people didnt know what they were voting for, including yourself.
re: fire department vote
You are working under the assumption that the people of Willington are simple minded. That is not the case. The people understood exactly what the vote was about regardless of the language used.
To Semprebon:
The Reminder typeset the advertisement sent to them and never sent a proof for approval. There were many misspellings including the name of the Sentinel Party. As the Reminder will not recall all of their papers, they will have to run a corrected version next week. Thanks for the heads up.
Reminder add by Sentinel Party
This is typical of operation of the Sentinel Party. They place add and do not even ask for or review a proof. After very harmful information is printed they do not even notice that it was incorrect (I am not talking about typos).
When the problem is pointed out to them of course someone else is at fault.
This is how Willington was run under Patton. If someone notices an error it was not my fault.
Better people would say: I should have proof read the add first and it is my fault. I will correct the error.
Wow! You got all of that hysteria out of the answer from Willington taxpayer? By the way, the word is ad not add.
In response to Semprebon, a proof was requested for the ad in the reminder although no proof was recieved. The mistakes were noticed immediately after the paper hit the streets and several calls and e-mails were sent to the paper asking for a correction to the problem. Believe it or not, mistakes do happen and this mistake is not our fault. For the amount of time it took to produce this ad, not to mention the price, do you actually think we would spell our own name wrong throughout the ad?
It is your fault. The Sentinels have made a habit of picking on the slightest issue to say the Democrats and Republicans are at fault.
Try to take respnsibility for your actions. If, as you say, a large amount of money was spent on this ad (I stand corrected as to typo of add) why would you not at least proof read?
As I said before, somebody else is always at fault according to the Sentinels.
This may be the reason that voter faith in the Sentinel Party has diminished.
It's a very unfortunate thing that happened and the Reminder has clearly taken responsibility.
It seems to me that by relentlessly attacking the Sentinels about this, you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing.
How about a positive discussion on how to get more people out to vote in the upcoming election and how to inspire more to get involved in public service.
"It is your fault. The Sentinels have made a habit of picking on the slightest issue to say the Democrats and Republicans are at fault."
What have the local Democrats and Republicans ever done to be criticized for?
What have Democrats and Republians done to be criticized for?
Something can always be found. The difference is between constructive and self-serving. Calling the Democrats the devil and the the Republicans as like Saddam Hussien and collectively as the Taliban is not constructive. Nor is the threat of a restraining order by Mr. Patton against people in town that did vote.
Boomerang has the right idea. Let us have positive discussion on getting people involved both in voting and public service.
boomerang said let us have a positive discussion on getting more people to vote and be involved in public service.
That is the best idea I have heard in a long time.
All political parties have contribited to the atmosphere that we currently have in Willington. This situation, I think, has caused people to stay away from voting and wanting to serve in government.
The best way to resolve this is for everybody to understand they will not always get exactly what they want all of the time.
If (in the case of Willington) a tri-partisan sense of cooperation is created people will most likely be more interested in our town government.
This is not to say different opinions should not be aired.
Patton threatened to get a restraining order against the voters? He has really gone over the top this time. When did he do it? That information should be publicized and people should know he did that and when. Was it in a meeting or in the newspaper?
I would like to see the letter from Kathy Demers to the Chronicle (Oct. 19) about Ralph Tulis posted here. The letter contains information that voters should be aware of, and not everybody gets the Chronicle.
Hi Pat,
Welcome to the blog.
Re: restraining order
Mr. Patton's quote can be found in the Chronicle edition of September 14th 2005. It appears in an article written by Kimberly Wetzel concerning the outcome of the Republican Primary election held on Sept. 13, 2005.
Patton did not state specifically agaist whom he would seek the restaining order just that he felt he should get one.
It is my opinion that if you feel you should seek a restraining order based on the outcome of an election, and do not identify the person or persons that you will take this action against, you refer to the electorate at large.
In the interest of fairness maybe Mr. Patton would publish, on this blog, the entire article. That would erase any concerns of a statement being taken out of context.
Otherwise a copy of the article can be obtained from the Chronicle.
Yes. I read it again too. It was clearly meant to be a joke! I guess some people don't have a sense of humor, or maybe just don't understand sarcasm when they see it.
That's great. Patton says things to the Chronicle as a joke. I quess that means the Chronicle is like the Sunday Funnies. Bet the Chronicle likes that.
Best to inform the Chronicle they are being used this way.
I really missed the point here. I was under the impression that the welfare of Willington was the issue.
Then this Blog must be a joke.
John Blessington is the chairman of the Republicans not ************. What gives.
To outraged anonymous: Yes, you did miss the point. Try to be outraged on something that matters.
Anonymous said... "That's great. Patton says things to the Chronicle as a joke. I quess that means the Chronicle is like the Sunday Funnies. Bet the Chronicle likes that."
Why don't you come up with a REAL issue instead of exploiting this non-issue? If you keep beating this dead horse then the joke will certainly be on you.
"discuss the various issues affecting the Town of Willington"
All I see is bashing and bickering.
"All I see is bashing and bickering."
That seems to be the most popular sport. You can check out issues regarding Town finances, Senior Housing, Recreation, or Library. They are not as popular but there are questions and answers on those issues. If you have other issues, please specify and I will try to accomodate.
It seems there is no alcohol allowed in the new Senior Center. It seems to me the Seniors are probably the most responsible citizens in town and can handle a glass or wine or whatever. They are also careful who else may use it. Does anyone know why this policy is in effect why not change it. The story I hear is "it is a town building" So?
to Semprebon:
Did I just read an apology from the Reminder to Willington voters for the mistakes made last week in the Sentinal ad? It said that the Reminder was the cause of the mistakes.
The Reminder's statement appears on page 7 of the October 25 edition.
I'm relatively new in town and I've heard from several people that it's really difficult to get a permit to do something as simple as putting a deck on your house. Is this true, and if so, is anyone doing anything to make it better?
Hi new neighbor,
Welcome to town. The answer to your question is "it depends". The size of your house lot, location of your house on the lot, size of the deck and where it is going, where your septic system and well are, all affect the permitting process. I am currently applyng for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to put a dormer on a house because it is too close to the road. If it was only fifteen feet further back, the permit would have been simple. I also have to go through the health district because of State regulations. I did email your question to the zoning agent to see what kind of answer she would have to your question.
Dear New Neighbor,
Some people would have you believe it is difficult to do anything in Willington. But then those comments are heard about any town's Building Department when an applicant doesn't start with an understanding of the information needed to process an application. Truth be told, if you can meet a few simple requirements, it's easy.
(1) In order to get a building permit for a deck, you need a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. As with most towns, Willington has zoning regulations that specify distances for Front Yard, Side Yards, and Rear Yard. If the deck you want to build intrudes into that yard space, it becomes a problem. If it does not, then it should be easier.
(2) If you have an A-2 survey of your lot showing the house and other key features (specifically your driveway, well, and septic system) and the property lines, then it should be a simple matter to sketch your proposed deck on a copy of the lot survey map (to scale). When presented to the office staff, it would then be a relatively easy task to check the yard distances to determine zoning compliance. If it complies, you can then get a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and you're on your way to a building permit application.
(3) If you do not have an A-2 survey of your lot, it becomes a bit more difficult because you'll need to obtain one (or a partial A-2 survey) to ensure that your proposed deck meets the setback (yard) distances. OR, if the required setback(s) (yard) distances are doubled, a plan drawn to scale showing the house, property lines, and the proposed deck should suffice. Once accomplished, go back to (2).
(4) If your desired deck will intrude into any of the setback (yard) distances, all is not lost, but it gets a bit more complicated. You will need to get a Zoning Variance which hinges upon proving a hardship not created by you or a prior owner. Hardship vary, but typically they relate to physical features of the land on your lot that would prevent you from choosing any other possible location. Obtaining a Variance requires a visit (at a meeting) with the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Once the pertinent facts are explained to the ZBA, they will likely do a site walk (to see for themselves) and hold a Public Hearing (so your neighbors have an opportunity to object or support). When the Public Hearing is complete and closed, the ZBA will decide whether or not you have a valid hardship, and if so, will likely grant a variance. Once granted, you're on your way to a building permit.
There are some common sense things to consider. You can't construct a deck over any portion of your septic system (gets in the way of repairs, should they become necessary). You can't build a deck (or most anything) in a wetland. Consideration of your neighbor(s) is important, which is why we have the setback (yard) distances in the first place.
I hope this helps.
To the poster that was told about the hassles of pulling a permit in this town, you weren’t being lied to as I had nothing but problems with that. First off let me say I wasn’t asking for anything illegal to be done or any “special” favors, I was asking for common sense for my situation.
The rules and regulations are so nicely written but there is one main problem and that is called non compliant lots that were built with NO monument markers should have something grandfathered in as long as you have property pins and/or proof of your boundaries.
I had to pay $800 for a ZLS to put an above ground pool in my yard where there once was an INGROUND pool.*
The factual information I had on hand was:
1. Original mortgage survey with measurements showing location of property pins.
2. 3 property pins were located using a medal detector and the original mortgage survey. ALL 3 pins correlated with the original survey.
3. My property is non compliant with the new zoning laws as it is less than 80,000 sq ft so to fall into the 50 ft. sideline rule (no ZLS needed for that) it was impossible unless I knocked my house down.
4. A copy of the “aerial” survey from the Town Hall showing the exact location of the “inground” pool on my property.
Even the Surveyor was shocked that I had to hire him to come out and measure my exposed pins and also because of the other facts I had on hand. No one could come out and measure my pins, no one wanted to hear what I had on hand, and all I heard was the "you need a ZLS” speech.
*Original inground pool was 40 feet long and butted up to the neighbor’s property line; I was facing my 30 foot pool down towards my backyard leaving more than 25 feet from the pool to the neighbor’s property line.
So poster you were told the truth it’s nothing but a hassle to pull a permit in this town.
I understand your frustration but your arguments, unfortunatly, highlight why you had problems.
1. An aerial survey is just a photo that is not acurate because of perspective. They are further distorted by elevation changes.
2. "more than 25 feet" How much more 1 inch or 20 feet? That makes a difference.
3. "3 pins located" "correlated with the original survey" I'm guessing that the 3 pins were used for the ZLS. Unfortunatly, pins are not permanent and do get moved.
4. "Original mortgage survey " Was this just a copy of the records on file, or was an actual survey done to verify pin positions done?
I'm really not looking to argue with you but put yourself in your neighbor's shoes who want's to have confidence that the town is fairly enforcing the regulations. Most of all, put on the zoning agent's shoes, that has to be 100% sure what you are building conforms to the regulations.
Answering the posters questions.
#1: The reason for the aerial survey was for proof that there was a pool 40 feet long, as some seemed to forget it existed. Would the neighbor have allowed the previous owner to place it on their property? I would guess no, so that was proof of at least 40 feet from my house to the sideline.
#2: I have 27 feet from the wall of my pool to my neighbor’s property line. I am not an idiot to not know the “difference” between 1 foot and 25. I also had a signed letter from my neighbor stating that he didn’t care if my pool met his property line since if we fixed the inground, it wouldn’t be moved.
#3: Pin location correlated with original mortgage survey, as stated before. Main reason why my surveyor didn't have to do much. So I guess my pins were not moved.
#4: This was obtained from Gardner and Peterson the developer of this neighborhood, minus any monument markers as there aren’t any.
You say you aren't looking for an argument, sort of sounded like it to me with some of your questions and comments. You seemed to have missed where I stated we have non compliant lots and if you do not have one of those, you will never understand.
Welcome to the blog Mr. Rodriquez and thanks for the comments. I have allowed anonymous contributions because people can use anonymous screen names anyway. I don't believe that there is any more personal animosity here in this Town than other Towns - it just seems that way at times. I can appreciate your gossip comment as I am always amazed to find out what I have done from people I don't even know. After sixteen years in politics, I have just learned to accept it as a fact of life. The one positive about the anonymous postings is that people can and do share the gossip they have heard and have it verified or rejected by other people who may know the actual events.
The "viewer posts" post does seem to have turned in to a free for all but it is the most popular. You can check out issues regarding Town finances, Senior Housing, Recreation, or Library. They are not as popular but there are questions and answers on those issues and a little less name calling. If you have other issues you would like to see posted, please specify and I will try to accomodate.
Stay with it and hopefully more and more people will use this as a way to have serious discussions about issues.
Ah Ha, "Gardner and Peterson", now I understand your predicament. If you live in the Lucerne, St Moritz area, the monuments placed by "Gardner and Peterson" are off by between 3 and 10 feet in the opposite direstions depending on if you come from the Stafford direction or up Village Hill. Really, I'm not arguing with you in any way. I'm sure it was difficult getting a permit for anything where you only have 2 feet to spare. If the pool installer mis-located you pool by 25 inches, it would be non-conforming.
To Mr Anonymous with the pool problems....
There is a term called Caveat Emptor. I know you don’t want to hear that, and I know you just want what you want. Non-conforming lots exist, and when you buy one you unfortunately inherit the problems that come with them. Personally, I would not buy a lot without an A-2 Boundary Survey.
The Zoning Regulations have a section specifically addressing non-conforming lots and uses. The goal of that section is to reduce the non-conformities as much as can be.
How long was the previous pool gone before you tried to construct a new one? My guess is that the prior use (the pool) had been gone long enough to be considered abandoned. That in and of itself helped to reduce a non-conformity. Simply because it was there at one time is not enough to allow creating what would be considered a new non-conformity. The fact that the original pool butted up to the neighbor’s property line is irrelevant - when was it built? If it was constructed before 12/15/1970, there were no Zoning Regulations in Willington, so it would have then been unrestricted with respect to distance from the property line.
Regarding the mortgage survey - they are typically used to diagrammatically show the lot and the house on it. They are not precise, nor are they intended to come close to the accuracy of an A-2 survey. They are simply what they are labeled - a “Mortgage Survey” - used to satisfy the bank or other entity holding the mortgage. My guess is that you live in the Lucerne Drive/St Moritz area - a subdivision that was started in the mid-1960s, well before Willington had its current subdivision regulations. At that time I believe the Board of Selectman had the responsibility (by ordinance) for reviewing/overseeing land division. You would be lucky if you were able to find any pins from the original subdivision layout.
I also think you mean “CLS”, not “ZLS”. The term refers to Connecticut Land Surveyor or Connecticut Licensed Surveyor.
Allowing the creation of a non-conformity simply on the basis of “my neighbor doesn’t care” isn’t enough if the current regulations do not allow it. Your future neighbor may decide to insist that the regulations be enforced.
Gardner and Peterson were not likely the “developers” of your neighborhood - they are an engineering and surveying consultant - there were several contractors involved its construction with varying degrees of success (or not).
I’m sorry that you can’t do what you want on your property. It’s an unfortunate consequence of not knowing what you ultimately want to do, combined with not knowing what you would be allowed to do with the existing constraints on your lot.
To those with zoning issues:
The majority of our permits and regulations are in place because of state and federal laws and guide lines. Health, safety and environmental concerns lay the ground work for local boards and commissions to establish P&Z and building codes. Much of the content of our regulations are the result of written law. It is not as you may think just a group of private citizens with personal agendas. Some say our regulations are too stringent, others say they are not tough enough. The answer may lie somewhere in between. Regulations need to be fair to everyone and at the same time stringent enough to protect the town against unwanted development. I do know that it is not easy sitting on the other side of the table. I say to those who have issues, get involved, you can make a difference. I think ZLS is Zoning Location Survey.
maybe some of this zoning stuff can go to another thread? it seems to be hot button issue.
I very much agree with the original “pool” poster as I also live in this neighborhood, if this is the neighborhood in question. If you lived in this neighborhood you wouldn’t be agreeing so quickly with the town’s zoning rules and regulations.
It was so quickly judged about the poster stating about “the neighbor not caring, but a future neighbor might”, obviously how it was taken wasn’t what they meant. I don’t think it matters what year the original pool was installed as it wouldn’t have been allowed to be placed on the neighbor’s property. That is probably where the “aerial” survey statement came into play. I understood what the poster was saying as some didn’t.
If I am reading correctly, the missing or incorrect monument markers seem to be a known fact to the town, then why wasn’t this problem fixed by the town? So it’s up to the home owners now to fix the mistake?
I am sure the original poster meant ZLS, which is zoning location survey as we all need one of those to “move a rock” in our yard as stated.
A question for the other poster, how does one get involved to change things? Wouldn’t that be like “fighting city hall”? Sounds like a losing battle if you ask me.
To person that references fighting city hall over zoning:
I agree with your entire comment. You are quite correct in it is like fighting city hall. The fight with city hall is an ongoing one.
If you have some time contact either the Democratic or Republican parties in town. They are always looking for people to serve on Zoning Boards. If you do not have that amount of time to give please let them know what your problems are.
There is no quick fix but we all have to start somewhere.
Planning and Zoning has instituted a "present to speak" period for every meeting. This was not allowed in the past. Basically you can speak about an issue that you feel is a problem.
The town government is much more responsive than in the past. Give it a try and the best of luck. You may be pleasently surprised.
Anonymous said: "If you have some time contact either the Democratic or Republican parties in town. They are always looking for people to serve on Zoning Boards. If you do not have that amount of time to give please let them know what your problems are."
You mean the Dem-Reps, right? Or are they now called the Republicrats? I heard all you have to do is volunteer and they'll get you in via a handy political tool: cross-endorsing. This way there's no need to campaign, talk about the issues or be accountable for your actions.
Oh, and I also heard that the Sentinels are always looking for people for all of their boards.
anonymous said "... If I am reading correctly, the missing or incorrect monument markers seem to be a known fact to the town, then why wasn’t this problem fixed by the town? So it’s up to the home owners now to fix the mistake?"
The town did not create the problem. The people that created the problem are the ones who subdivided the land and built the houses. Why would you automatically assume the town needs to pay to fix the problem. Who else would you suggest pay to fix it? Maybe homeowners in another part of town who have conforming lots and accurate surveys? It's the subdivisions problem and you need to live with it or fix it.
As far as "fighting city hall", I agree with the previous poster that the best way to do it is to get involved. The Democrats and Republicans are always looking for people to help to make a more sensible planning and zoning department. The sentinals were in charge for many years and you can see where we are now. We are just starting to fix the problems. It will take a long time and we need all the help we can get.
Years ago, when a third party was started, I thought "great", maybe that will end the bickering between the two parties. I even supported them, at first. Now it seems clear that those who continue the petty bickering ARE the third party.
Comment on "bickering"
Well said and true. I also fell into the same trap.
Comment on bickering. I moved into town about six years ago and I have watched the political dynamics of the town. The Sentinel Party members seem to be the only ones who give answers to my questions. The bickering or sniping seems mainly aimed at them and Patton in particular. My first exposure to politics was the bus parking lot on Ruby Road. The two main parties spent a year and many town meetings trying to derail a perfectly reasonable proposal. Patton was accused of all sorts of skullduggery by the opposing players. The fire commission proposal was something I opposed and voted against but the question needed to be raised. Even here, the main political parties took the issue and politicized it. Like the poor, political bickering will always be with us. I commend all the people who are willing to do the work I am not willing to do and that is be in the public eye.
Comment on Bickering
The only political party that was involved in the fire department issue was A Sentinel Party. John Patton and Jack Lewis, with a majority on the BOS proposed a fire commission.
The issue went to town meeting and then to referendum.
The call to meeting and adjournment to a town vote was brought about by many citizens signing a petition.
In no way, shape, or form were any political parties, other than A Sentinel Party, involved with this issue.
The people in town voted by a large margin to not have our fire departments controlled by politics. This was, and remains, the outcome of that vote.
Should you have any substance to your comment that other political parties were involved please post it here.
Patton has a history of proposing endless committees and commissions for reasons unknown. His latest proposal is a Commission of Boards. Figure that out. I am unable.
Regarding comments on bickering and the Fire Commision; this issue was politicized from the start by the Republicans who solicited one of the Fire Departments that didnt want this commission. From there an alliance was formed that basically served each others interests. Politically, the Republicans do not like anything that Mr. Patton initates. This is obvious through the years. Of course the benefit to the Fire Department was that they had some people in their corner to fight their fight. On at least three occasions at the transfer station, Republicans agressivly approached people encouraging them to vote against the commission. Literature was distributed townwide by the Republicans against this commission. As far as politizing the issue, the other political parties did this not the Sentinels. I always found it bizzare that the people who did the most lobbying against this commission were not even firefighters, it was the other political parties who happened to not be in power at the time. But like I mentioned before, if Mr. Patton thinks its a good idea the Republicans and Democrats have to by virtue disagree. And unfortunatly, their insistence over the past few years to abide by this foolish mindset has eroded this town and the faith of the administration to all time lows. I can not conceive how anyone can actually believe for a second that the present administration is doing a good job, in the best interests of the people. Their leadership or lack thereof is simply an embarrassment to this community as evidenced by the recent flooding as well as their lack of responsiveness in general to simple questions. They are in local politics for two reasons and two reasons only; to keep the most competent individual out, and for their own personal financial gain. The current administration may be trying as hard as they can as they have said. I however, demand more out of the First Selectman's Office. I demand fiscal accountability at all times. I demand that this person be well versed in municipal finance, be accesible to the people and most of all not motivated by the financial perks of the job. The various town entities need to be able to function without constant harrassment. In alot of cases what you see as far as character of these individuals in power presently is all too often not the case behind closed doors. This town needs to be brought under control again by competent leadership with a vision for the town who is not motivated by greed, and power. Lets put Mr. Patton back where he belongs; in the Office of the First Selectman so we can get back on track.
The Sentinels, the original self-professed party of "REFORM", has become the entrenched,self-serving autocracy. The prophetic old adage of: "Follow the money" has been proven again in Willington, much as it is currently being proven so dramatically in Hartford and Washington(where right-wing, religious zealots have captured our democracy) ! ! ! !
I heard that part of this bickering was caused by a lawsuit between Patton and the leadership of the republican party. Was or is there a lawsuit and what was it about to cause all of this bitterness.
Obviously no reaction to the "Follow the money" comment ! ! ! !
I'll bite. What does "Follow the money" mean? Can you lay out the path?
I was talking to a person in town who was saying that Mike had made "all of these promises" to him at the dump and that is why he voted for him. In language than I can't print, he said Mike didn't keep any of them and won't be voting for him this time.
Republican Party and the Fire Commission vote.
The comments that the Republican Party solicited a fire department, formed an alliance with them, and distributed literature opposing the commission are completely unfounded. They are also harmful to Willington.
The fire departments do not take a position for or against any party or candidate. It is an insult to even suggest they do.
The Republican Party did not solicit a fire department or distrubute any information to the townspeople.
This type of misleading information is a large part of our current problems in Willington.
I suggest you go to the fire departments and ask the members before uttering this type of nonsense.
Hopefully your comments are a result of being duped as the alternative is not attractive.
There is no lawsuit between Patton and the Republican Party leadership that I am aware of.
Re: Fire Commision & Republican Party: It was no secret that certain members of the Republican Party offered assistance to one of the Fire Departments. This fact was discussed openly between the Fire Departments and was confirmed. In fact, they were quite open about this fact. And as far as the Fire Departments being non-political, please dont be shocked but they are very political. It is crucial to form alliances between the Boards in the town to ensure the operation is supported. Of course, administrations can have their personal views on the FD's as well. We have seen for the past two years of discriminating, and disparaging comments made toward one of the FD's. I personally accept the marriage of politics into the FD's as a necessary business. Lets face it, we are entrusted with over a quarter of a million dollars every year by the townspeople. With this funding and our dedicated staff we need to provide emergency services 24/7. And compounding these already difficult tasks are the uncertain times we live in. All of this is a huge job that required professional people with the vision to stay prepared. In closing, there is no need to ask someone form the fire department about the last posting. I posted it, and I have been a high ranking officer for many many years and I am committed to serving this town for many years to come irregardless of the administration that is elected. Of course, I would rather work with an administration that has a vision for the future, and shares the same concerns as other townspeople. Make sure you vote on Tuesday!!!
Re: Patton and lawsuit with Republicans.
The answer is that I have been involved in a lawsuit with Rob Hisey and Peter Latincsics for the last 5 years. They are part of the leadership of the Republican Town Committee and Hisey and Latincsics served as the front for the Willington Republicans Political Action Committee. So I guess that much is true.
As I was successfully defending my property from illegal use, they were using the political process to damage me as much as possible. Their latest vessel to do that is the Republican party.
Fire Department and Republican Party
You seem to believe that if someone is involved in a community issue that means that their political party is behind their actions and that they represent their party in whatever they do.
That is not the way this country works. We are all individuals and have the right to hold and act on our opinions. We all also have the right to affliate with a political party if we choose.
Should you disagree with my opinion or actions that is your right. By no means do my actions represent any political party.
If a member of the Sentinel Party committed murder, or said murder was OK, whould I be justified in saying the Sentinel Party supports murder.
Of course not.
Lawsuit between Patton and Republican Leadership
This comment by Willington Taxpayer is a classic example of misinformation to make people believe something that is not true.
If you are interested in the truth of the matter, read on.
The original question was that it was heard that a lawsuit between Patton and Republican leadership was the cause of bickering.
The lawsuit that Patton refers concerns water use rights. Patton is not a party to that lawsuit. Nor as he states is the property in question "my property".
The boundry lines in dispute have not been resolved. The State Supreme Court has ruled that these lines must be established and adhered to by their ruling. Currently this case is starting all over again in Superior Court under rules that have never been established in CT. It is scheduled for a pre-trial hearing in late March to set a trial date. After the Superior Court makes a determination, it will most likely result in appeals through the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court.
Concerning Republican leadership, Patton is once again attempting to mislead. The Republican Town Committee is the leadership of the Republican Party. This committee is comprised of 30 members. Two of the members happen to be defendants in the lawsuit Patton refers. They were not members of the committee when the lawsuit was filed.
Patton also refers to these same two people as a "front" for the Willington Republicans(a political committee). These two people formed a political committee under State rules and filed all forms and information required stating purpose of the committee, members of the committee and a detailed financial report concerning activities of the committee. All of this paper work can be found at the Town Clerks office.
So according to Patton if you put your name to activity, tell everybody what you are doing, and put it all in the public record you are a "front". No rational person could agree that this was a "front".
So what you have is:
Patton said that he guesses it is true there is a lawsuit between Patton and Republican leadership.
In fact both Patton and the Republican leadership are not named in any lawsuit. He is misleading.
Patton said he was "successfully defending my property from illegal use".
In fact Patton does not own the property in question and is not named as a party to the lawsuit. Also this lawsuit has not been settled as it is currently back in Superior Court with any judgement subject to appeal.
Patton said that two individuals served as a "front" for the Willington Republicans political committee.
In fact these individuals complied with all requirements and were open and honest in their intentions and opinions. They were the committee and said so. This is no front, it is political expression.
In short Patton has make every effort to mislead you.
Should anyone wish to check the above you will find information at the Town Clerk's office concerning Willington Republicans and the court case can be found online or through the Clerk of the Court.
The name of the case is Ace Equipment Sales, Inc.,ET AL v. Thomas Buccino ET AL.
case number CV00-0072150S
If anyone can find Patton's name or the Republican Party name in this lawsuit please post it here as soon as possible.
I stand corrected. Hisey and Latincsics are not a front, they are the leaders of the Willington Republicans Poltical Action Committee. They are also part of the braintrust (the group that handles strategy) of the Republican Town Committee and Hisey handles their correspondance. They did join the Republican Town committee after the lawsuit started and began their long-running campaign against me.
As far as the case goes, I successfully defended 99.5% of my property from trespass and I am now working on the other .5%. My family owns Ace Equipment Sales in case anybody is wondering and I handle legal matters for the company. I didn't mention it before because I didn't believe it was relevant how I control the property.
I gave a simple correct anwswer to a simple question.
Re: Fire Department & Republican Party; Whew.....it was just the facts as I saw them unfold. I was privy to everything I said. Dead issue.....and nice analogy...great touch!
Marverick talks about motivation
Nothing "nasty" was written about the Sentinel Party. If you will reference the Chronicle Bob admitted, in the newspaper, after the election that all three "Primary Republicans" candidates "were Sentinels".
Everything written was a political opinion and seems to have, for some people, the inconveience of also being true.
The opinions expressed were not in support of a party at all. A primary is, by definition, an election to determine which candidates will be on a party ballot.
Now of a matter of course a party committee, after endorsing a slate, should not and is not allowed to use party funds to support any candidates in a primary. Otherwise the "deck becomes stacked".
Notice here that the "Primary Republicans" were a Political Committee which distributed information. The "Willington Republicans" were also a political committee that distributed information.
Both political committees supported and or oppossed candidates in this primary. All of this information is available through the Town Clerk or the Sec. of State.
It would be informative to know your reasons that Sentinels should have preference over other citizens of Willington in expressing their point of view.
Willington Taxpayer continues to mislead.
After admitting that two people were not a "front" as he had stated, he now desribes them as "leaders of Willington Republicans Political Action Committee".
Here again he is wrong. Willington Republicans was a political committee formed to express the view of two individuals concerning a primary election in Willington. As required by law, these two individuals filed all information required by State and Local governments.
These two individuals were the only members of this political committee, as shown by the required information properly filed. This information is public record.
If anyone wishes to consider a group of two as "leaders" of a group made up of only two, so be it.
In my opinion, this thinking would qualify as a paranoid delusion.
His statement that these two are part of a "braintrust" of the Republican Town Committee and that one of them handles correspondence, is equally paranoid.
The Republican Town Committee presents all correspondence to the full committe for their consideration and voted upon for response. The Chairman, or Secretary, handles the presentation and response.
This is well proved by review of minutes of meeting of the Committee.
He refers to the "case" by saying that he has successfully defended 99.5% of "my" property. He also states that he didn't believe it was "relevant how I control the property".
Property lines have not been determined in this case, and will probably take many years for this to go through the court system.
Most important, note that Patton does not believe it relevant how he controls property that he does not own.
Think of that in political terms. He does not feel it relevant how he controls property he does not own, as long as he had control.
Nobody controls the townspeople of Willington except themselves.
Think about that attitude for a minute.
YOUR attitude is the one that is lacking. You are all nastiness all the time. You are the reason why the rest of us cannot have discussions about issues facing the town. You give politics in Willington a bad name. You intimidate those of us who would like to learn how things work in town government.
You say, "Nobody controls the townspeople of Willington except themselves." Of course! Who wouldn't agree with that?
What I might suggest is that you take that to heart and start controlling YOURSELF and stop with the mudslinging.
Oh, and if you want us to have all the "facts" then maybe stating your name would help us get to the bottom of things.
Boomerang,
Good point on stating my name like all the rest of you.
I was thinking of Boomerang II or Willington Taxpayer II.
Which do you think is better?
RE: Patton and Lawsuit with Republican Leadership.
Anonymous states "... Most important, note that Patton does not believe it relevant how he controls property that he does not own.
Think of that in political terms. He does not feel it relevant how he controls property he does not own, as long as he had control.
Nobody controls the townspeople of Willington except themselves."
I would really appreciate if someone can help me decipher the thought process here.
Thank you in advance.
I have come away from the selectman's meeting last night with many questions. Is this blog a dead thing or can it continue as public forum? Are the issues concerning Willington a continuing and ever changing being with a life of its own? Is the board of selectmen the central body for leadership in the town due to the fact that they see or can see, the overall picture of the town, unlike any other board. Can the selectmen wear blinders and say thats ok we'll get a grant! Every action can create a reaction. A zoning issue can affect the schools, a zba issue can affect the overall commercial developement of the town, a school issue can create far reaching tenticles that could change the future of the town for better or worse! My question is shouldn't the BOS be the balancing point?
Whats going on with the town office break in? How come no one has talked on here in two years?
Post a Comment