.
Feedback

Are You 'For' Or 'Against' An Ice Rink In Town? Vote Wednesday!

It's your chance to add your vote and two-cents to the proposed land-lease agreement between the town and ice rink developers.

 

There's a this Wednesday, June 27 at 6:30pm at that asks for the public's vote on two items and one is a proposed ice rink in town.

If you haven't heard, two Clinton residents, Joseph Defilippo and Greg Gallo, wish to on Old Nod Road.

The proposal is that they would pay the town $1 a year to lease the property while they go through all the legal motions and approvals such as design review and planning and zoning, to receive the OK on the project.  If the rink is built, the two would pay a yearly lease on the property. Financing the project would be the responsibility of Defilippo and Gallo.

If built, the development would bring in tax revenue, add jobs, and hopefully increase economic development activity in town.  

Naturally, some folks are for it - others against it - others need to know more.

When the ice rink idea was first posted on the Clinton Patch's Facebook page, the comments were in favor of it such as "I believe most any long term business is a great idea. An ice rink would be great for every family of all ages" and "It's year round fun and use...I hope it goes through!"

One reader sent an opinion piece, a Letter to the Editor stating his reasons for wanting to vote "no" at tomorrow's town meeting.

Will you attend the special town meeting? How will you vote?

Notice for the June 27 Special Town Meeting:

The electors of the Town of Clinton and all other citizens qualified to vote in town meetings of the said Town of Clinton are hereby notified and warned that a Special Town Meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at the Andrews Memorial Town Hall, 54 East Main Street, Clinton, Connecticut to hear and consider the following:

RESOLVED: to approve the line item transfer from General Government by increasing Legal- Other by $47,528 and decreasing Union Negotiator by $25,261 and Insurance by $22,267

RESOLVED: to approve the land lease agreement and future conveyance between the Town of Clinton and Shoreline Ice for approximately nine (9) acres of land on a parcel of property located at Old Nod Road.

Tom Vicino June 27, 2012 at 01:50 pm
Correction: $94,000 in taxes not $94,000,000. That was a typo. Thank you
VIN CIMINO June 27, 2012 at 02:44 pm
There is some misinformation, as well as missing information, in the article.
"The proposal is that they would pay the town $1 a year to lease the property while they go through all the legal motions and approvals such as design review and planning and zoning, to receive the OK on the project. If the rink is built, the two would pay a yearly lease on the property", raeds the article. But, the lease woukl give an option to these 2 guys to buy the l9 industrial acres from the town for $1000 after the first year. That's the "conveyance" portion ofthe resolution. This is not just a lease that calls for future rent. This is also an option to purchase 9 industrial acres from the town for $1000. This should be corrected in the article. Please read Alan Kravitz's opinion on this matter: http://clinton.patch.com/articles/why-we-should-vote-against-proposed-ice-rink-lease-and-option A member of P&Z, he has several serious, wellfounded concerns. We definitely need much more information about this deal. We must vote NO tonight.
VIN CIMINO June 27, 2012 at 02:46 pm
Alan, you're absolutely right; the "devil is in the details". This entire process is eerily similar to the Watts situation, where the contract was not made available until the last minute. We all know now that there were utilitity easements and an easement over the police driveway that P&Z and the Board of Finance were never made aware of.
This entire "rubber stamp" concept makes no sense. P&Z and the BOF are not simply expected to "rubber stamp" anything. They're supposed to evaluate the merit of a proposal and how it affects the town realative to that commission's particular function. How can the BOF evaluate the financial effects of this deal if it's unknown the condition of the soil, whether or not there will be easements over other town property, etc.? Did the BOF even know that the potential "tenants" actually have an option to purchase the 9 industrial acres in a year for $1000? I don't see how P&Z can evaluate the proposal either without all the facts. Why are we rushing into this? The proposal require far more scrutiny and should not be approved at this time. Thank you, Alan, for having the courage to stand up and share your opinion. We must vote NO on this proposal tonight.
Fay Abrahamsson (Editor) June 27, 2012 at 03:06 pm
Vince - the article you refer to was written when this proposal was first discussed at a Board of Selectmen's meeting. No other details were brought up at that meeting, thus the article's info is not "incorrect."
William Morrissey June 27, 2012 at 05:16 pm
Why is there always a problem!!!!! Find something constructive to do! This is a good thing!!! STOP over analyzing things!!!
Jenn June 27, 2012 at 05:45 pm
The outlets were a good thing too. All they have brought to this town is crime, traffic and some minimum wage jobs. I appreciate hearing some of the details of these "meetings". I get uncomfortable about all the bullying that goes on this website, that's why I rarely give an opinion, but I do appreciate the actual info.
VIN CIMINO June 27, 2012 at 05:46 pm
The problem isn't overanalysis, it's underanalysis. There are also additional issues regarding easements over adjacent town properties and utility easements. Please see the comment by Ron Nash, a long-time member of the WPCC, regarding known existing pollutants and the accellerated leaching into the Hammonasset River that would result from the required septics. The applicant already admitted to the Economic Development Commission that the site is highly contaminated. We must see a complete plan before entering into any lease/sale agreement and frankly, right now, there isn't one.
William Morrissey June 27, 2012 at 05:53 pm
Crime is everywhere. How has shoplifting imapcted you? Oh by the way...Minimum wage jobs...???
Nonfarm payroll employment changed little in May (+69,000), and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 8.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Jenn June 27, 2012 at 06:04 pm
An anger management specialist would make a killing in C-town. Thanks for proving my point. I'm done. Thanks for the articles Fay but the comments are obnoxious.
Morgan Parent June 27, 2012 at 06:40 pm
Shoplifting impacts everyone when its additional police needed to be hired to investigate and patrol the outlets. That comes from our tax money!!! the last time I checked the outlets aren't paying $60,000/yr employment... Crime is everywhere, it just a matter of how far you want that door opened...
Fran M. June 27, 2012 at 07:52 pm
Morgan-- having just finished the recent "Citizen's Police Academy", my understanding is that Clinton has hired no new cops since Clinton Crossing went in. They do patrol CC, of course, and there is certainly shoplifting.
Jenn-- the outlets *are* a good thing for our town. Without it, our taxes would be even more crazy. It's not like we've hired new officers, at town expense, nor is it the case that officers are "tied up" working outlets to the detriment of the rest of the town. The ice rink may very well be a good thing (I'm generally supportive of the idea), but I concur with many on this discussion that our town Gov't tends to rush through these decisions. If current and former WPCC and P&Z folks are raising questions, that's very concerning to me.
Fran M. June 27, 2012 at 07:54 pm
One clarification-- of course there's been "new" cops hired in Clinton. What I meant was that the total number of the force hasn't grown as a result of Clinton Crossings (which I presume Morgan was suggesting when saying "additional police need to be hired", etc.)
VIN CIMINO June 27, 2012 at 08:51 pm
Fay, I was refering to THIS article. You say that "the two would pay a yearly lease on the property" but you don't mention the fact that these two guys would have the option to purchase the 9 industrial acres from the town a year from now for $1000. Would you please verify that this is the case? Thanks.
Fay Abrahamsson (Editor) June 27, 2012 at 08:59 pm
Vince - I have not heard details about the 9-acre option to purchase in a meeting I've attended. This would be a good subject to bring up at tonight's meeting. Thanks.
VIN CIMINO June 27, 2012 at 09:05 pm
Please, Fay. Your printing all the propoganda and missing important facts. Article 9 of the contract (Option to Purchase) grants an option to these two guys to buy the 9 industrial acres from the town for $1000 until September 30. 2013.
VIN CIMINO June 27, 2012 at 09:33 pm
OK. Fair enough. Tthank you. By the way, the contract can be seen on the CTA website: GOCTA.org under Shoreline Ice.
Steve Bristol June 27, 2012 at 09:42 pm
I think Fay's comment--in a nutshell--tells the story that many have been saying, about this issue as well as so many others in town....things just aren't well known or distributed. If someone who attends as many meetings as Fay does hasn't heard it discussed, what chance does the average citizen have?
Please, people, demand to know as much as possible so you can make an informed decision--whether ultimately in favor or not.
VIN CIMINO June 27, 2012 at 09:57 pm
The title of this article should be:
"ARE YOU "FOR" OR "AGAINST" GIVING AWAY 9 INDUSTRIAL ACRES FOR $1000 AND POTENTIALLY OPENING UP A PANDORA'S BOX OF CONTAMINATION ISSUES?"
Catherine Zamecnik June 27, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Or........maybe the land will be so costly to clean up that it could cost as much if not more than what the property is worth. If the owners will take that responsibility, then maybe $1000 is a fair deal. I'm just saying it's a possible reason. Not everything is a controversy.
Bruce Farmer June 28, 2012 at 02:28 am
Catherine - no matter what - the clean up will always be the Towns responsibility.
It does not follow to new owners or to those who lease the property. If someone gets sick or dies from contamination 10 years from now or later - the Town is liable . Bruce Farmer
Catherine Zamecnik June 28, 2012 at 02:44 am
www.ct.gov/dep/lib/...clean_up/.../remediation_brochure_print.pdf
Bradford J. Sullivan June 28, 2012 at 11:30 am
http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/site_clean_up/overview_and_districts/remediation_brochure_layout.pdf
Phil Sengle June 28, 2012 at 01:06 pm
As you should all know by now the lease/purchase of 9 acres of town land for a hockey rink for $1,000 passed last night 46 to 34. I am happy for the economic development and an ice rink appears to be a fine and popular use. My only objection was the slip shod way town hall rushes through these deals with very few people in the know. Rules, due process and the charter are routinely bent but few seem to care. With so little public scrutiny and due dillegence we sometimes end up with situations like the "Watts deal". More folks than the town attorney and First Selectman need to know the details. The more people that know, the better the deal will be for the town. I hope this one is a roaring success.
Catherine Zamecnik June 28, 2012 at 02:13 pm
It would be difficult and unrealistic to constantly report to the public every discussion about every issue until certain questions have been cleared up and it has been decided that the process should continue. At that time, it is appropriate for the public to get involved. If anyone wants to know what goes on in meetings, they can obtain the minutes, or you can actually observe the meetings. All meeting schedules are posted and all meetings are recorded for public record. I'm one of the few who has known about the skating rink possibility for almost 2 years. The deal was not rushed through. Also, it is possible that there was no conspiracy behind the Watts deal. There could have been a logical and practical reason for the swap. I'm looking forward to the skating rink. This town needs it.
Bruce Farmer June 28, 2012 at 02:59 pm
Catherine and Bradford - your brochure on cleanups has nothing to do with reality.
I have been in the insurance industry for 45 years and I am telling you that if anybody gets sick or dies from contamination even if it is 30 years later - the Town of Clinton is liable for potentially millions - NO matter what !! So all of you better pray that this toxic site is either not used or is totally cleaned up by certified professionals with oversight by P and Z. Bruce Farmer
Jay June 28, 2012 at 03:15 pm
"Ignorance of the environmental condition of a property at the time
of sale cannot be used as an excuse by either the buyer or seller" . Warning printed on DEEP brochure - You can all guess why..
VIN CIMINO June 28, 2012 at 03:42 pm
We've been given considerable information that establishes that tremendous amounts of chemicals have been dumped into the property for a long, long time. We have evidence that the leaching into the Hammonasset River of the pollutants underground will be accelerated by the introduction of a septic system for this project. We've been told by Attorney Gallo and Defillipo that they have no experience whatsoever with contaminated soil remediation. There's nothing in the contract between Shoreline Ice, LLC, and the town that requires Shoreline Ice to remediate contaminated land once it is discovered, If contaminated soil is discovered and the remediation is millions of dollars, there's nothing to prevent Attorney Gallo and Defillipo from refusing to clean up the contaminated soil, in which case the town will be saddled with the responsibility and associated million of dollars of clean-up costs. The contract gives Attorney Gallo and Defillipo the option to purchase the 9 industrial acres for $1000 until September 30, 2013. Could the town find itself in the position where contamination is discovered, the town pays for remediation, then Attorney Gallo and Defillipo exercise their option and purchase 9 cleaned-up industrial acres for $1000?
I looked at the links provided by Catherine and Brad and there's nothing I can see that assures that Clinton will not be required to pay for mandatory remediation of contaminated soil once it is discovered. Nothing at all.
VIN CIMINO June 28, 2012 at 03:44 pm
A hockey rink is a nice idea. Building it in an environmentally safe location is paramount. Building it on contaminated land is a terrible idea.
Catherine Zamecnik June 28, 2012 at 08:47 pm
All I'm saying is if the new owners agree to remediate, maybe that's why they can buy the property for $1000. I don't know if that's the case. The link just shows that the remediation can be passed on to the new owner, depending on the agreement.
Bruce Farmer June 29, 2012 at 03:11 am
Vin - Thanks much - you are 100% correct and your explanation was very informative.
Bruce Farmer

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Clinton Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Kim Elizabeth Coffey June 19, 2013 at 12:54 am
Adam Joseph Apicella graduated from the Masters Program of Education with high honors at theRead More University of Connecticut
Julie Weisberg (Editor) June 13, 2013 at 03:47 pm
That is such great news!! So glad she was found safe and sound, and is back home with her family.Read More Thank you for letting us all know!