Kravitz: "Why We Should Vote Against Proposed Ice Rink Lease And Option"

At a Special Town Meeting at 6:30 PM on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at Town Hall the voters of Clinton are being asked to approve a lease and purchase option for 9+ acres of town property for an ice rink. We are being asked to approve this action without either the information required to make an informed decision or adequate scrutiny by the public bodies legally mandated to do so.

I also want to state for the record that I am a Member of the Town of Clinton Planning and Zoning Commission, I am not for or against any application before P&Z to construct an ice rink on this site. My opposition is to the lease proposal put forward by the Board of Selectmen.

The Wednesday, May 16, 2012 Meeting of the Board of Selectmen was the first time the BOS as a whole were made aware of the Shoreline Ice proposal. The duly approved Minutes of that meeting include the following statement, “The lease agreement is $1.00 annually payable on or before July 1^st. Mezzetti made a motion, seconded by Vicino to approve the use of purchase and to move forward with the A-24, Zoning, Board of Finance and Town meeting approval. The motion was unanimously approved”

They seem to have agreed quickly with little information about the specific content of the lease and little time to evaluate the proposal behind it. What exactly did they agree to? What does “use of purchase” mean? Did the BOS approve a lease which contains a purchase option? Did they approve a purchase option setting a purchase price of $1000 for 9+ acres? Does the purchase option include any easements over other town property including a right-of- way over a portion of the Town Landfill to provide the applicant access to East Shore Drive? Does it provide the Town easements for the water line that I have been told runs through the property?   None are mentioned in the Minutes.

How will the proposed lease and sale affect the ability of the Town to redevelop other portions of the landfill? What standards will apply to the environmental remediation, will they be limited to those specifically related to building an ice rink on the site or will they extend to eliminating on-site pollutants that are reputed to be the source of ground and surface water pollution in surrounding areas? Is the time-frame established in the lease adequate for the gaining all the approvals and building the proposed facility? The lease also makes mention of a “…soccer/lacrosse field on that portion of the Land not utilized for a hockey rink or parking therefore.” There was no mention of this field in the motion approved by the Board of Selectmen. How many  jobs will be gained? What does the Zoning actually permit? There are too many critical questions without answers and too broad a motion to constitute effective public policy.

The “Lease” was presented to and approved by the Board of Finance at its Meeting on the evening of June 11, 2012. I have been told that it was given to them only three hours before their meeting but have been unable to confirm that fact. The Minutes of that meeting suggest that approval was based on a representation of fiscal benefit to the Town.

At the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on June 11, 2012, we had our first opportunity to discuss the lease agreement as part of a legally mandated (Section 8-24) review of the lease. At least we had been provide the actual lease with attachments and a letter from the applicants attorney well in advance of the meeting.

I asked the First Selectman a question about the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding residential areas since an illustrative site plan by then attached to the lease indicated parking for some 200 cars. At that point he replied that the lease eventually might contain easements over other portions of the landfill to provide access to West Shore and other public roads.  The First Selectman then told the Commission that they were only allowed to “Rubber Stamp” what is a legally mandated review. We were told by the First Selectman that we were not allowed to ask questions that would enable us to determine if the lease and purchase option, conforms to the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. Without the ability to ask these questions the entire intent of the review was subverted.  

I am sorry to say that the Planning and Zoning Commission allowed First Selectman Fritz to bully it into approving the transaction.  I also want to add that the May 24, 2012 letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission from the Attorney representing the applicant states that “The site is zoned as an industrial park (“IP”), so that the use thereof as an ice hockey and skating rink (indoor recreational facility) is consistent with the zoning.”

That statement is misleading as the proposed use is not permitted as a matter of right but requires a Special Exception from P&Z that is subject to both the general conditions set forth in Section 9 (Special Exceptions) of the Zoning Regulations and the use specific standards set forth in Section 10.28. Neither this letter nor any aspects of the proposal were reviewed by either the staff or our Review Committee prior to the meeting. We were not privy to any legal or planning review of the agreement before us.

There was no real opportunity for a proper review of the proposed lease on the part of any of the Boards and Commissions with the legal authority to do so.  I ask that the voters of Clinton reject the lease until we have answers required and they have been accorded the proper public scrutiny.

---Alan Kravitz