Mayoral Hopefuls Debate Local Environmental Issues

The (Environmental Concerns Coalition) ECC Debate kicked off as scheduled at 6:P.M. all candidates in the running were present and questions were prepared in advance by the ECC moderator.

Candidates had 2 minutes to answer each question, and a rebuttal of their opponents of one Minute. This was the protocol for the first few questions, the next four questions were drawn randomly from a hat and were pre-written by the ECC and selected by each candidate. The audience was also permitted to openly ask questions at the end of the debate.

Of the initial questions asked, the issue of purchasing open land was agreed upon as a good idea by all candidates. The next question regarding Milford's deplorable record on Recycling sparked the most debate.

While the question formulated by the ECC corresponded with the 6% figure as reported in the CT Post Jim Richetelly took issue with the numbers as inaccurate. Richetelly alledged that the number was "under-reported... an error" and held up a copy of the DEP report that he claimed indicated Milford was recycling 12% of its renewable waste not 6%. Richetelli said that Milford is not "last in the state, but doing much better than people believed."

One public question came in regarding the funds to purchase open space, Richetelli exhausted nearly all the money in the open space fund in his latest Naugatuck land deal purchase. The issue of how to pay for this was best addressed by Peter Spalthoff who indicated he would make it a "budget item," and purchase land as part of the routine operations of the town. There was little disagreement to this, since all the candidates agreed that purchasing open space saves Miford's taxpayers money.

There was also debate on adding a paid commissioner to go out and manage the land purchases. Tim Chaucer said that the best candidate for this job would be an "outdoor enthusiast who really knows the town and its land very well."

Each candidate Praised, and addressed, the Clean Energy Roadmap approved by the Board of Aldermen last month. The plan lays out steps the city should take to become environmentally sound. The Roadmap was authored by a community task force and is a step by step plan for city officials to follow.

When it came time for the audience to ask questions, the first question was regarding public transportation. All candidates vowed to improve public transportation and do their part to make certain Milford has more bus stops and convenient locations to get people to and from their local destinations.

The next question from the audience got interesting because I do not think the moderator expected an off topic attack of Richetelli. The man who asked the question specifically addressed it to Jim. He started by saying he made several unanswered telephone calls to Jim, then followed up with more unanswered e-mails. Than after contacting his aide was able to get to talk to him.

Expressing disgust over his experience, he then charged that he did not get the tax decrease that Jim advertised in his "mail piece" that he held up to the audience. He said "I am an engineer, and I am very good with numbers. I looked at my old bill and compared it to my new one... where is my savings!" The moderator told the gentleman that this was an environmental forum not to get "off topic." she said that perhaps "the candidates could answer those types of questions after the debate."

The candidates nonetheless did answer the gentleman's question, and Richetelli stood up and told the gentleman "everyone in Milford received a 2.6% tax decrease plain and simple." Geneveve Salvatore reminded the man that the tax decrease was courtesy of the Democratic led Board of Alderman and that Richetelli's rejected budged actually would have raised his taxes.

The event lasted over an hour, and all the Candidates for Mayor remained long after the meeting and respectfully spoke to the public. However it is important to note, that what is mentioned above are just some notable highlights. MGAT Channel 79 on Cablevision did videotape the event and it will be made available to the public in its entirety in the next week or so and I recommend we all watch it. The more informed you are the better choice you will make come election day.

******************************************************
Video Per Commenters Request
Double Click Video if Cropped
******************************************************

Milford P&Z Says No To Recycling Facility

A bid to reopen a landfill closed by a court order as a recycling facility is headed for court.

Darlene Chapdelaine, spokesman for Recycling Inc., said Thursday the Planning and Zoning Board did not follow its own procedures in denying the application Tuesday night.

Richard J. Barrett and Joseph F. Barrett, of Stratford, are the owners of the 6.71-acre site at 990 Naugatuck Ave., next to the Housatonic River. It had been leased to Associated Carting Inc., which was closed in a settlement between that company and state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal two years ago.

The attorney general had filed suit against Associated Carting Co. at the request of the state Department of Environmental Protection and the city after several large, open containers of household garbage were discovered on the site. The company had a permit to accept construction debris.

Chapdelaine said city officials treated the new application -- for a "volume reduction facility" that removes recyclable material from the waste stream -- as if it was by the same applicant for the same use that was prohibited in 2007.

"They had decided to deny this application before the public hearing, and it was not circulated to the other city departments for comment, like zoning applications always are," she said.

The PZB changed its regulations for the Housatonic Design District to ban facilities such as the one Recycling Inc. is proposing. The new regulation took effect Wednesday; the company's application was considered under the earlier rules, PZB member Frank Goodrich said.

"Upon the advice of the city planner we denied it without prejudice," Goodrich said. "It was an incomplete site plan.'' The facility has been approved by the DEP to receive 1,000 tons of material per day, some of it arriving by barge. Chapdelaine said the recycling plant conforms to the state's solid waste plan.

"Of the 51 properties in the Housatonic Design District, only seven are residential," she said. "This facility would create at least 20 new jobs. Who exactly would it hurt?"

City officials noted that one of those residential properties is the 320-unit Caswell Cove Condominiums.

"I spoke to the Planning and Zoning Board and urged them not to approve this," Mayor James L. Richetelli Jr. said. "The application calls for bringing garbage in by barge and rail.

"I also spoke to Attorney General Blumenthal and we are united in this," the mayor said.

Chapdelaine, however, said the matter will be decided in court, "and we're going to win.''

Goodrich said Tuesday night's hearing already felt like a legal proceeding. "They had a court stenographer there," he said. "The last time I saw that was with [housing developer] AvalonBay."


ORIGINAL FRANK JULIANO ARTICLE

Milford Zoners Alter Trash Plant Regulation

The Planning and Zoning Board this week approved a regulation change that bans recycling plants and trash-hauling operations in one of the city’s heavy industrial zones.

The change to the Housatonic Design District, a large swath of land along the Housatonic River north of Interstate 95, received unanimous support from the PZB, but received heavy criticism from business interests.

The change, which goes into effect July 22, bans all “trash hauling, solid waste processing, construction and demolition debris storage and processing, recycling plants and volume-reduction facilities” in the district.

The banned uses, however, are allowed if they are “accessory to a permitted principal use.”

With the change, existing transfer stations and recycling centers are grandfathered in by the old regulations and can continue operations. They are, however, considered a “non-conforming use” and cannot expand the operations.

Critics contended at a public hearing that the change would alter the character of the district, hurt the city financially and amount to illegal spot zoning and illegal taking.

But City Planner David Sulkis said a language change to the original proposal tightened the regulation and should have eliminated “99 percent” of the concerns.

“It’s going to basically protect the neighborhoods surrounding this zone from heavy traffic typically generated from the waste-hauling industry,” Sulkis said. He said the regulation would also protect the nearby Housatonic River from possible environmental damage.

Sulkis said the change passed Tuesday night with little discussion.

“We heard some forceful objections to this regulation change at the public hearing, many of which were from businesses that will not be impacted,” PZB Chairwoman Jeanne Cervin said. “When the wording was tightened up, it was clear that the power company, Iroquois Gas, Gas Equipment Engineering Corp. and, of course, the city transfer station and the sewer treatment plant, which are not subject to our regulations, will not be impacted.”

James Tinley ORIGINAL STORY CLICK HERE

Illegal Dumping At Gulf Pond May Be A Town Policy Issue. (Opinion)

This problem occurrs as a result of the city of Milford charging a fee to use their dump. As a candidate for State Representative here in Milford (www.rfrank118.com ) I have been proposing that the town dump follow the same policy as the recycling center in Wesport.

Westport rarely has illegal dumping because there is no charge to use the dump. Many contractors are already using random garbage dumpsters around town and making small business owners upset. Even my office in Milford on New Haven Ave. is victim to mysterious piles of garbage appearing in the dark of night.

The cost of performing routine illegal dumping cleanups certainly must erode the small fees they collect, it makes no sense to have our city drop all their garbage on the curb each year for free, but we cannot use the city dump without paying a paltry few dollars.

What I propose is to eliminate the unsightly periodic street garbage dumping and make it free at the source. Hence, if revenue is an issue fines can be increased to install surveilance equipment at specific illegal dump sites.

Every problem dump site should have a sign directing people of consequences of illegal dumping and an advisory re-directing them to the town dump where they can unload for free.