ROSA - 2001 Candidate's Forum


					Ridgefield Open Space Association Elections Committee Candidates’ Forum – October, 2001 Board of Selectmen Seven questions were submitted by ROSA’s Elections Committee to all six candidate for the Board of Selectmen: Democratic endorsed candidates Barbara Manners and Steve Zemo, Republican endorsed candidates Peter Yanity, Joan Plock, and A.J. DiMattia, and candidate Joseph Heyman, who failed to receive a nomination from the Town Democrats and entered the race via petition. 1. Other than the acquisition of Bennett’s Pond, what do you consider the most important environmental issue facing Ridgefield today, and how do you propose to address it? DiMattia: As a sitting P&Z/IW Commissioner, I am weekly reminded that the most important environmental issue facing Ridgefield remains pollution runoff & soil erosion compromising the water quality of brooks, streams, rivers, watersheds & threatening associated bio/eco systems. As a selectman, I can seek to have the issue discussed "at the table," to raise awareness & understanding of the problem, but this most important issue is virtually at the heart of the P&Z/IWB mission. Heyman: Preserving what little economic and age diversity we have in our population environment must be our first priority. The elderly population, those working for the town, young newlyweds, all add to this environment and, if present trends continue, will become an endangered species. It is this age and economic environment that is so precious to our Town. I will continue to address this issue as I have in the past. Allowing all people to remain living in Ridgefield is, for me, one of the highest priorities. Manners: Currently the greatest issue is the integrity of our water supply in the event of terrorist activity. We are working on having ready a limited alternate supply in the event of contamination. Otherwise, I consider traffic to be an environmental issue and it is one on which we need to work with the state to encourage and promote public transportation, to make it available and to find or construct an alternate routes for heavy trucks. Plock: I consider the most important environmental issue facing Ridgefield is the ongoing monitoring of water and air in light of the very real threat of terrorism. There are certainly various monitoring devices in place but perhaps we will want to expand on them to insure that Ridgefielders remain safe and healthy. Yanity: Land remaining for development is marginal at best. We must protect our ground water and the water flowing downstream from contamination. Seven rivers rise in Ridgefield and we must be as diligent in the future. We have extended our sewer system into the high-density Ramapoo area where some septic systems were failing. Other such area are being monitored. Water studies and follow ups have been done on Great Pond, Mamanasco Lake and the Titicus watershed. We are currently participating with the Norwalk River Watershed Advisory Committee. We have replaced our town property fuel tanks and minimized the use of road salt. We must continue to protect our wetlands. Citizens must be diligent in using and disposing of contaminants. Zemo: The most important environmental issue, other than the acquisition of Bennett's Pond, is continuing to address open space. The overwhelming support of the eminent domain referendum indicates that Ridgefielders understand the importance of open space and the associated implications for increased traffic, increased demands on our educational system, and our small town character. We need to continue to work towards the goal of having 30 % of open space as stated in our Plan of Conservation and Development. Tracts of land should be identified and we need to examine the possibility of linking the open space with more bike and walking paths. 2. There are many other significant properties in Ridgefield at risk of development, such as McKeon’s Farm. What ideas do you have to a) identify these properties, b) negotiate with owners, and c) pay for the cost of acquisition or development rights? DiMattia: a) The Planning/Wetland Office maintains a compendium of remaining undeveloped land. b) Putting aside the question of how to pay for it, owners should be alerted to potential town interest early on so that the Town could, at least, be given an opportunity to negotiate some form of purchase. c) This is the question, paying for it. The Town’s debt is at its highest level in history. For the next several years, there will be nearly double-digit property tax increases; and Ridgefield is now undertaking the acquisition of the 600 acre Bennett’s Pond tract, for nearly $12 million. If Eureka does not accept the offer, anyone who truly knows about these things, and who is honest, will say that, at best, they can only estimate the price Ridgefield will pay, and that, ultimately, the final cost will be determined, at some future time, in a courthouse. In light of these financial and political realities, future open space acquisitions will likely be primarily financed, privately, as McKeon, with the Town’s funding participation at a level understandably lower than Bennett’s Pond. Heyman: The acquisition of the McKeon Farm is a wonderful example of how Ridgefield should acquire more open space lands. The selling price was approximately $3.5 million dollars. Of this amount, $2.5 million was donated by nearby neighbors who benefit the most. It is disappointing that those who live in the Bennett's Pond area did not raise any funds to supplement the potential purchase of the lands adjacent to them. While the money they did raise was used to wage a campaign to have the town pay the full amount, it would have been a gesture to offer some contributions for part of its purchase. One method of gaining more open space and preserving our social environment is to zone more lands for economic development. Under the corporate zone, over 80% of the lands developed must remain in open space while creating tax benefits to allow people to remain in Ridgefield. If we allowed age restricted housing, we would be providing a type of housing that would encourage our citizens to remain in Ridgefield, add to the tax base, while once again preserving large amounts of open space. The rural or semi rural character we have could be enhanced if we required that new homes be located by landscape architects or some other professionals who are trained to utilize the philosophy of Ian McHarg in his book, Design with Nature. So many of our new homes disregard the natural environment they are in, and clash with the natural surroundings, rather then blend in if well sited. [Note from ROSA: In 1998, ROSA members initiated written requests to the Connecticut DEP for funding of the purchase of Bennett’s Pond. In early 1999, ROSA followed these initial contacts with many phone calls to DEP officials, a letter-writing campaign, and a visit to Hartford. With assistance from State Rep. John Frey, these efforts resulted in a 50% (up to $5 million) commitment from the DEP Recreation & Heritage Trust toward the purchase of Bennett’s Pond. Based upon the appraised value of the north parcel of $7.8 million, this will result in a DEP contribution of nearly $3.9 million. ROSA utilized the vast majority of our limited funds opposing four inappropriate, environmentally damaging development applications submitted by Eureka during the past three years, as well as educating the public about the importance of open space preservation in our community.] Manners: Our Conservation Commission already has a list of properties it considers desirable acquisitions. b) We should try to negotiate rights of first refusal with owners who are currently not interested in selling. Also, where appropriate negotiate and purchase development rights. c) Would like to have residents vote on whether they are willing to automatically add to budget a certain percentage of our taxes for an open space fund. This is done in a number of towns where a quarter or a half of a mill is added at end of process to be reserved in open space acquisition fund. Also, encourage donations and bequests to open space fund. Plock: It is the job of the Town Planner to identify significant properties and address their acquisition. An open space fund would probably be a very helpful tool in acquiring future open space and I encourage ROSA to think about some fund raising efforts that could help finance that fund. Yanity: a) We get a prioritized list from the Conservation Commission. It should be, and usually are, areas that are environmentally sensitive and open spaces that are contiguous. Ridge lines and other aesthetic vistas shoud be in the mix. b) I was part of the team that negotiated for the development rights to Brewster Farm. It is best done by Town Officials working with private citizens who have a personal and social relationship with the landowner. c) The Conservation Commission had done well with the contributions to the Open Space Fund. Developers contribute money in lieu of donating open space, state grants become available as well as grants from private environmental groups. Many citizens, as was demonstrated on the purchase of the McKeon parcel, will contribute in special areas. The town government also has an obligation to set aside funds in our special line item for this purpose. Zemo: I have long advocated the creation of a sub-committee to the Conservation Commission whose charge and purpose would be the acquisition of open space. While the Conservation Commission has done an admirable job to date, this sub-committee would proactively identify both large and small parcels for acquisition in the ever-shrinking supply of open space. The sub-committee would consist of three to five residents who have real estate negotiation expertise. Paying for such acquisitions would consist of several factors. We should discuss adding a line item to our budget; I would suggest 1% of the total town budget. We should also fully explore the tax benefits available to sellers when their property is designated as open space. This information needs to be communicated clearly upon initial contact with the seller and this information would assist us in negotiating prices. We must use the lessons we learned about creative acquisition from the purchase of the first phase of the McKeon farm. Additionally, the ability of the community to come forward with donations for high profile properties should be fostered. The Conservation Commission and the proposed sub-committee should become informed about the availability of state, federal and non-profit funds either in direct grants or in matching funds and aggressively pursue them. 3. Would you support open space deed restrictions on the remainder of the town-owned " Ippoliti land" on Route 35 once the current projects are completed? DiMattia: No. The current projects encompass only the construction of recreation & senior citizen facilities. Assuming there is money available, I wish to have consideration of needed, centrally located, housing for the elderly, and updated police, fire & EMS facilities. Heyman: The urgent need we have for more assisted housing for the elderly, such as Ballard Green, is evident when one learns that the waiting lists is over 80 elderly people seeking such housing. We should make sure we have ample lands for this use. If such lands are available on the Ippoliti property, they should be put aside for this purpose. Manners: Not completely. I would like to see a certain part of property set aside for future affordable senior housing. Copps Hill Plaza is close enough to the property to be accessible by foot, even to the elderly. Also, I think we need to reserve a few acres for possible future needs of town. We have very limited space near center of town and I think we have to reserve some of it for future municipal purposes. We should be planning for future but also leaving space for those who follow to be able to address town needs. Plock: In general I have no problem with deed restrictions for the purpose of insuring that land remain open space. However, in regard to the Ippoliti land on Route 35 it is my understanding that affordable senior citizen housing has been proposed for part of the remaining property and I am very much in favor of that proposal. We are in need of additional housing units for those who can not afford to maintain their houses in later years. Yanity: Yes. I am on the Building Committee for the new Recreation Center being built on the "Ippoliti" land, along with the Senior Center. All viable land is being utilized. It is a very environmentally sensitive area, being the headwaters of the Norwalk River. Zemo: As a Selectman I advocated that a portion of this site be set aside for affordable senior housing. I also feel an expanded youth facility, to supplement the Barn, should be earmarked for this site. After these uses are accounted for, little area remains for development. Even though the vast majority of the total site is wetlands or not suitable for development, I support earmarking it as open space to prevent future overuse of these fragile lands. 4. Should a special open space fund be created to finance future land purchases? If so, what means would you use to fund it and how much should be appropriated annually? DiMattia: The town has an arrangement with a local bank whereby it donates to a Ridgefield fund, based on a percentage of its customers’ credit card balance. If this fund does not encompass open space, perhaps it may either be expanded to include it, or redefined as exclusively for open space. If an open space fund is to be established, I see it funded with private donations or grants. As Ridgefield does with other important town programs which provide Ridgefielders necessary social services, counseling, shelter, home nursing care, disabled/elderly meals, transportation, et cetera, the Town may also, each year, determine the amount of its contribution to an open space fund, vis-à-vis the needs of other important town programs and, most critically, the condition of the budget at the time. The establishment of a fixed annual appropriation, or budget item, for open space (as important as it may be) but not for these other on-going town programs considered by many as equally worthy and important, would appear to be unfair. I have watched as representatives of these other programs have been required, every year, to come before the BOS and explain why they should receive more from the town than the previous year, or at least as much, and I have watch as some gratefully departed, with less. I oppose the mechanism of "surcharges" placed upon tax bills, town clerk filings & recordings, real estate transfers, license & permit applications, or any similar transaction which Ridgefielders are required to do, in compliance with regulation, ordinance, or law. Heyman: The town is in no financial position today to create a special open space fund using taxes. Perhaps such a fund could be created for private donations. Manners: We already have a special open space fund that was established a few years ago. However we have only been adding a token amount to it each year. See 2c for remainder of answer. Plock: A special open space fund is a good idea. It would relieve some of the burden of trying to fund purchases through bonding alone. I know that other towns have such a fund and that there are some that tax real estate transactions to finance future open space purchases. I however would like to see an effort made for a combination of fund-raiser/matching fund effort. I particularly hope that the corporate community would cooperation in such an effort. Yanity: We established a line item for open space acquisition in the 1999 budget. It should be funded each year by substantial amounts as land prices keep escalating. It has been neglected the past few years because of efforts to acquire the Bennett’s Pond and McKeon properties. The amounts will be somewhat dictated by the economy and other town needs but it should be a substantial amount. Zemo: A special open space fund should be created to finance future land purchases. As a separate fund I feel Ridgefielders would make donations and bequeaths, if it were properly managed and marketed. Moreover, funding from a 1% budget line item would supplement this fund. 5. "Super 7" is occasionally resurrected as a possible solution to traffic congestion. As a Selectman, would you oppose the construction of such a limited-access highway as Ridgefield has done in the past? DiMattia: Over many years, I have stood against Super 7 as a private citizen, as P&Z candidate, as P&Z commissioner, as selectman candidate, and shall continue to oppose it as selectman. Super 7 is Ridgefield’s ultimate environmental nightmare. Noise, air and water pollution will become the centerpiece of life in Ridgefield which will literally be divided in two by the highway. Norwalk River-associated bio/eco-systems will be critically fragmented, if not altogether devastated. The adjacent residential and commercial tax base will disappear & what remains, will be left to wither. Heyman: At first blush anyone interested in preserving the natural beauty of Ridgefield would be against a "super 7." And yet, from an environmental and safety point of view, one could argue that it should be built. Route 7, between Route 35 and I-84, is at capacity forcing traffic to use Route 116 and Ridgebury Road. In the last five years traffic on these roads increased by 122% and 40% respectively. This has drastically changed a semi rural area, Ridgebury, into a high traffic corridor for this bypass traffic. The only long-term solution is the construction of a new limited access route 7. Although the limited access highway would disturb 4.9 wetland acres as opposed to 2.1 acres (total is 191 acres) if and when the road is widened to four lanes, the collateral damage from the widening could be 46 wetland acres. The short-term solution of widening Route 7 could open up 70 acres for development. If only one half of these lands were developed, the road's capacity would be where it is today, again forcing traffic through the Ridgebury area. Also, if these acres are developed for strip development, it could impact approximately 46 acres of wetlands, ten times the amount then a new limited highway would have. There is a traffic accident on Route 7 between Ridgefield and Danbury, every four days and one involving bodily injury every 14 days. Widening the road from two to four lanes, an increase in width from 23 feet to 68 feet, will not eliminate the intersections that are the cause of most of the accidents, but will encourage strip development increasing the number of potential traffic conflicts that exist today. The new limited access highway should be built for safety reasons. The First Selectman and I urged Danbury officials to consider placing a median separating the proposed four lane widening, which would have both made the highway safer, and discourage strip development. We were not successful. In conclusion, in order to preserve the semi rural character of Ridgebury, to preserve wetlands, to reduce air pollution due to stalled traffic, and to reduce potential accidents, a limited access highway between route 35 in Ridgefield, and I 84, should be considered. Manners: YES. Plock: I am against "Super 7" as a solution for the traffic congestion on Route 7. I do not want any possibility of separating Branchville School from the rest of town. Yanity: Yes. It would only cause a rapid over-development of the area. It would be over capacity in a short time as is I-95, I-84, and the L.I.E. in New York. Zemo: I would continue to oppose the construction of a limited-access highway as a replacement for the current Rt. 7. 6. Over a year ago, Dr. Michael Klemens proposed a joint effort among Ridgefield, Redding, Danbury and Bethel to evaluate and protect biodiversity in the region by identifying areas appropriate for development, and areas not appropriate for development. Do you think such an effort should be undertaken, and if so, how would you propose to make it happen? DiMattia: Dr. Klemens’ concept is good. My concern is with the form of the "joint effort." I have attended his talks, been on his mailing list, and read his literature. It appears to me that he prefers the "joint effort" to a more formal, official, regional agency, commission or authority. I endorse the establishment of an informal council, for environmental or any other interest whose scope might be viewed as "regional," such as a greenway corridor. Ridgefield is historically dedicated to being a "Charter Town," and I am equally dedicated to "home rule." That said, I would support Ridgefield’s participation in an informal, co-operative organization consisting of Town Planners, Wetland Agents and/or Commissioners, and a representative selectman from each participating municipality. I would stand against Ridgefield joining a regional organization which would then have any direct or indirect regulatory, or, any other authority, over Ridgefield. Heyman: Dr. Klemens analysis is similar to the above-mentioned McHarg approach, which does just that. Perhaps the Planning Commission could require that land developers utilize this method of land analysis in their presentations for approval. Manners: I think it is a good idea if conducted by a highly qualified team of people who understand what is required to support biodiversity. Would propose that representatives of Conservation Commission or Planning departments from each of towns sit down to draw up a proposed study and methodology. Would then see if funding could be obtained from state or federal government or from one of environmental foundations established for such purposes or from some of foundations dedicated to betterment of towns where their founders had lived. Last resort would be to have it come out of budget. Plock: Dr. Klemens proposal sounds interesting particularly between Ridgefield and bordering towns. Again this is a P & Z, Inland Wetland issue and appropriately should be addressed by them. It would certainly be helpful to know the plan of surrounding towns for development in that it could impact our town as well. Yanity: It should be done locally by our land use agencies as it is their responsibility. This should be encouraged and all the towns’ plans, then coordinated with the Housatonic Council of Elected Officials. Zemo: Although I am not aware of the specifics of Dr. Klemens’ proposal, the concept makes sense. Representatives from the Ridgefield, Redding, Danbury and Bethel Conservation Commissions should meet and create a feasibility proposal addressing the concept of biodiversity and development. The governing authorities of the four communities would then be able to consider this idea, the costs of related studies, and implementation options. 7. With the departure of the Assistant Planner, staffing in the Planning Department is a problem. Other than filling the vacant position, how would you propose to improve the functioning of the planning, zoning and wetlands department? DiMattia: The Planning & Inland Wetland Office needs an assistant. I am aware of this as a sitting Planning & Zoning Commissioner & Inland Wetland Board Member, and as such, it is clearly my responsibility & inarguably within my authority, to oversee the hiring of an assistant & the running of the department. However, to state the obvious, I am running for selectman. It would not appropriate for me, as a selectman, or for the BOS, to make proposals to the Planning & Zoning Commission & Inland Wetland Board, on how to hire their staff and run their department, any more than it would be appropriate for an individual P&Z Commissioner/IW Board Member, or the combined P&Z/IWB, to make proposals to the BOS on how to hire its personnel and run its operations. It occurs to me that in light of the their recent, vocal objections to what they argue is, over-stepping, if not interference, in BOS matters, by the Board of Finance, it would be, at best, inconsistent, and at worst, hypocritical, for an incumbent BOS member to now make proposals for the improvement of operations or hiring practices, to another Charter-established, co-equal, town commission or board. I also appreciate that this is a political campaign, and I should not be surprised if this ROSA Forum is perhaps used by some as merely a political opportunity, notwithstanding the jurisdictional realities. Heyman: If we could hire an assistant planner with both a planning and ecological background, that might help fulfill this need. Manners: I have long believed and advocated for an environmental "officer" for Planning Department. The department needs an environmental specialist who can review plans, walk sites, identify issues and help propose solutions. This is way overdue. Plock: The Planning Department staffing is clearly under the Planning & Zoning Board. I would seek the input of Oswald Inglese, our Town Planner about how he would improve the functioning of his department as well. Yanity: The Planning, Zoning and Wetland Boards along with the Aquifer Protection Agency is one body. It has been debated if it should be divided into separate boards. The consensus has prevailed that it works best as one body. It has been suggested that the Town is ready for an environmental officer but the P&Z has never reached a majority position on this. The Selectmen did initiate a line item in the Conservation Commission budget for the hiring of environmental experts as needed. The P&Z now requires applicants to pay for environmental studies in sensitive areas. I believe an environmental officer to coordinate these will be a must in the near future. Zemo: The Board of Selectmen has over the past several budget deliberations considered the creation of a new staff position dealing with wetlands and environmental issues. In light of the staffing changes in the Planning Department, the time is right for the creation of this position.