Thank you, Ms. Mount. Too bad you aren't running for first selectman - now all the Republicans on here can't use that as their defense against everything you say! Vavrek totally made a huge deal of economic development during his campaign, and it has turned out to be nothing but a huge mess. I've heard him talk about "streamlining the process" for businesses, yet the buzz I hear around town is that it's still at least as hard as ever to do business here.

This latest fiasco with the recycling center at the Stevenson Lumber property is additional proof that he doesn't know what he's doing. And what about the Economic Development Commission? What happened to them - I haven't heard a thing they've done that has positively impacted us. We can't accept this recycling/garbage project blindly just to bring another business to Town.

Please keep us updated on how we can further express our views on this project and get more information. Thank you.

The fact is...in the Monroe Courier is stated that Vavrek and his administration have known about this proposed plan for 9 months...the public wasn't informed until I believe last month...

either Vavrek is using this as a push for election season or he really knew that the town would be extremely upset....

I heard of this very proposal in shadowy and dark terms at a public meeting regarding the future of the Town Green - back in 2009. The meeting was hosted by Tom Buzi and was attended by many. Not sure how many were listening though... The context where it arose was potential for increased truck traffic as a secret driver for Green realignment. A speaker insinuated that the (Buzi) administration was somehow aware of or in on dastardly deeds. Based on that, I'd say that this should not be portrayed as a Republican issue only. If you and your cronies want to once again use FOIA as the Damoclean Sword you hold over the current administration, beware, it may cut a wider swath than you anticipate.

Ms. Mount, that was very well written and you are absolutely correct. People have to stand by their positions, whatever they may be. Vavrek has not done that. We, the public, have only known about this for about five or six weeks.
At first, I was all for the recycling plant. But, after doing some research into it, I am now somewhat against it. We haven't had the time to fully understand the ramifications of this plant. All I was thinking about was the tax benefit for the town. But there won't be much of one, if at all. Now, I am thinking about the increase in traffic, the smog and odor, and other environmental factors. While we need more jobs and businesses in Monroe, this plant is not the way to do it.
To Vavrek---don't hide, speak out on this.

Thank you, Mr. Perez, for your update.

Michelle, thank you for taking a public stand on this very important issue. I hope that our community will come together regardless of party, generation, or what side of town one lives on and work tirelessly to investigate the facts we need to defeat this Zone Overlay application by AMEC Carting LLC. The face of Monroe will change forever if this passes. I believe if Monroe residents learn the facts they will agree this venture is NOT right for Monroe. The Challenge is on Monroe, are you up for it? If we play our cards right, our community could be more united and stronger than ever! Take a stand.

I became involved in politics to fight the good fight. This is a good and important fight. It is time to show why so many of us love living here despite all the municipal problems we might have. It is the community of wonderful people that we go to meetings with, go to our children’s school and sporting events, go to church with and meet at town events. The neighbors that have gotten the ball rolling on this issue deserve the all the credit. They are the personification of the word community. All I want to do is help them as effectively as I can fight the good fight.

I hope that people who live on the Route 25 side of town read these comments and believe that the proposed dump will not make an impact on their residence and quality of life in Monroe.
If residents do not come forward and oppose this everyone who lives in Monreo will be effected.

Residents who live in communities such as Great Oaks Farm and Northbrook are communites who need to come together as their own commmunity voice and help to oppose this proposal.
Please make a stand against solid waste in our community.
Tina Weiner

Thank you Ms. Mount and Mr. Perez. And, Mr. Perez, thank you for taking the time to actually read the proposal. You as a volunteer, have completed a task that the First Selectman who is receiving a very handsome public salary claims he has not. This is coming from the mouth of our chief executive officer who was attending clandestine meetings regarding this close to a year ago. His excuse for not bringing it to the public's attention was "I didn't want to disappoint the people, in the event it did not happen, like the Jewish Home for the Elderly." Well, did it ever cross his mind that the people WOULD NOT WANT IT???? You bet it did, that's why it was all done in SECRET.

I just want to clear up something. I googled AMEC Carting and went to the site I listed above it was renewable energy blog. I was surprised to see the letter from patch listed. I don't know the connection between that posting and Mr. Weinberg. It was posted by the administrator of the blog. There is a worldwide company AMEC that does worldwide engineering, consulting, construction, and is involved in renewable energy, oil, gas and coal, among other things. I don't know the relationship to AMEC Carting LLS or AMEC LLC owned by Guy Massola in Norwalk and New Cannan respectively. I search the Secretary of State Data base; however the law does not require the listing of the members of LLC's. So again, I make no assertions, I just found it interested that the post was on that blog site. If you speculate that it was a computer error that posted all articles re: AMEC I would be surprised because my article was not listed.

Monroe Means Business

I think this whole thing "Stinks". We don't want this in our town. It is not about Democrats and Republicans it's about our town!

Does anyone know who is in the driver's seat on this negotiation? Does AMEC have other options? Are they desperate for this location? And is this land appealing to other companies? Is the town getting inquiries about it?

Another issue to consider is the air pollution. 136 trucks can't all dump their loads at once, therefore there will be lines of idling 18 wheelers waiting to dump their loads. This is exactly what happens in Bridgeport at their trash to energy plant. The streets are blocked with trucks emitting smoke and carbon dioxide.

Read the front page article of the CT Post in Sunday's edition regarding Milford's woes regarding its garbage facility.

The "zoning application" - Part I

Michele,

I didn’t know whether to post this here or on the chain of comments off of Jim’s letter. Since Jim’s letter is off of this, I decided to make my comments here.

I think the letter could have been written without alarmist personal allegations, and that your legal experience in zoning could have been used to assuage people rather give incorrect information about what must be done to defend against the application.

Among other things, you stated: “We have 65 days, insufficient legal counsel, and only the members of our Zoning Board to prepare a decision that must be based on sufficient legal grounds to deny the application and/or zone change/expansion that has been worked on for many months. . . . [And] the town has had no time to prepare a defense to the application if the facts deem that this is truly the hazardous nightmare we think it is. This is not an application that can just be voted down. Legally, if the application, or zone change, or zone expansion were to be denied without legal justification the matter can be appealed directly to the Superior Court.”

Part 2

First of all, a simple thing that could be done, which was not pointed out, is that if a protest petition is submitted with the signatures of the owners of at least twenty percent of the area of the lots within 500 feet in all directions of the property included in the proposed change, there will be a two thirds vote required to adopt the change. Why didn’t you mention the importance of presenting a proper protest petition?

Secondly, if it is so that the zoning application is for an amendment to the zoning regulations, if the planning & zoning commission decides to deny the application, the statement that the planning & zoning commission must prepare a decision based on sufficient legal grounds is incorrect!

Although courts have mentioned that they prefer to have reasons, no reason need be given in the case of a denial of an amendment to the zoning regulations / change of zone. If no reason is given, a denial must be upheld if the record will support it. See Cottle v. Darien P&Z, 100 Conn. App. 291 (2007). If you are familiar with the Fuller treatise, this topic is covered in section 33.2.

Part 4

To further reflect on what happened with the Keilor application and draw analogy to your comments concerning the present application, what if, hypothetically, the proposed use utilizes the railroad tracks to some extent, and the applicant presents evidence to the effect that the truck traffic would be no more than Stevenson Lumber, that the roads could comfortably handle it and/or the uses for which the property is currently zoned would allow for just as much truck traffic? Focusing on truck traffic, as you suggest, could be a huge error. Even if there are other valid reasons given for denial, if the focus is on issues that are not, this may cause people to lose sight of a proper basis for denial - not, in my opinion, unlike what happened in the Keilor application.

If the proposed change to the zoning regulations is not consistent with or the plan of conservation and development or is not contemplated by it, simply saying that and that the P & Z does not desire to allow the particular use is sufficient, as would be giving no reason at all. Another thing to be mindful of is that reasons given by individual members and not adopted by the body are not reasons of the body.

Part 5

Your letter also implies is that an effort might be made to give input to the P&Z outside of the public hearing, possibly having the first selectman involved in this process and/or the first selectman and/or P & Z working on reasons for denial before the record of the public hearing is complete.

As Jim Weinberg stated, the planning & zoning commission is to hold a public hearing on the application, and the record on which the decision is made is what is submitted via the public hearing.

The public hearing and the decision on the application should be left to the planning & zoning commission. The last thing I would think an opponent of the application would want is to have the integrity of the record contaminated by “input” outside of the public hearing, so as to give the applicant something to try to hang its hat on if its application is denied.

Lastly, I might be criticized for giving you a heads up on this, but I believe your advocacy would be more effective if you stick to the issues, omit misplaced, irrelevant or unnecessary allegations in the nature of personal attacks, and do a little more homework before making factual representations and stating legal opinions. In addition to more effective advocacy, I believe it would help in fostering civility on these message boards.

Regards,

Paul

"First of all, a simple thing that could be done, which was not pointed out, is that if a protest petition is submitted with the signatures of the owners of at least twenty percent of the area of the lots within 500 feet in all directions of the property included in the proposed change, there will be a two thirds vote required to adopt the change. Why didn’t you mention the importance of presenting a proper protest petition?

Secondly, if it is so that the zoning application is for an amendment to the zoning regulations, if the planning & zoning commission decides to deny the application, the statement that the planning & zoning commission must prepare a decision based on sufficient legal grounds is incorrect!

Although courts have mentioned that they prefer to have reasons, no reason need be given in the case of a denial of an amendment to the zoning regulations / change of zone. If no reason is given, a denial must be upheld if the record will support it."

Now I'm no lawyer so I'm just trying to figure this out. If this type of petition is met, do you mean a 2/3 vote by the towns people or vote by the P & Z commission?

Also, you go on to say that in Cottle v. Darien that a reason does not need to be given, even though courts would like to see a reason. If a denial is presented, it can only be upheld if the record supports it, so what you are saying is without a substantial reasoning there is a good change a denial would not be accepted. Correct?

Paul I am very short of time but I do want to respond. Much of what you say is true but that was not the point. (I don’t want to hear anything about spelling and grammar on this one.)
1)This was NOT a legal opinion; I would never give an opinion that I didn’t have time to research. As you know the academic and practical side of the law isn’t always on the same track. The legal standard in many of these cases is arbitrary and capricious. People hate legal ease, lawyers hate it when people or other lawyers don’t speak “artfully,” I chose to use people terms. I have seen this type of projects granted zone changes or special permits before. I as much as people hate the word, politics also play an inescapable role.
2)Mr. Vavreck as town CEO and Economic Development director went to the AMEC in Norwalk by invitation to listen to their “sales” presentation. They gave a nice shiny picture of wand hat their facility would be and that’s were any “due diligence stopped.”
3)I and other council members asked point blank a year ago what is the status of the Stevenson property and we were told, something is in the works but I can’t discuss it, end of discussion.
4)Yes, I criticize Mr. Vavrek, shame on him and any other elected official involved for not getting any outside advice on projects of this nature or informing the public.
5)The timing of this project I find suspect and perhaps this illustrates why we must elect the best qualified for job.

6) I stated that, “we as Town Council members most get involved go to the P&Z hearings and encourage the community to do so as well.” Every board has a liaison and town council members as citizens and because they are changed with knowing what is happening in town have right to go to P&Z meetings. Like I said before no nefarious coup intended.
7) You said, “I believe your advocacy would be more effective if you stick to the issues, omit misplaced, irrelevant or unnecessary allegations in the nature of personal attacks, and do a little more homework before making factual representations and stating legal opinions.” Perhaps you are right however I fight like I do and say what I do because I can’t keep passion out of my arguments. If people don’t like me or vote for me, I suppose that is my punishment. I feel actual outrage when I see injustice and I was feeling very much that way after the town council meeting.
8) Do you know how frustrating it is when you devote your time and energy to getting elected so you can be part of that solution and stand up for what you feel is right and what constituents want or when you are kept in the dark as to important issues facing the town? I suspect it is hard to understand when you have never been in the minority party.

9) I am a lawyer, a politician and former lobbyist, that in and of itself is enough for people define me or be predisposed to not liking me.
10) I am also a community advocate, activist, mother, wife, and citizen of Monore. I am acting in that capacity only.
11) This was not a legal opinion it was an expression of outrage at how this situation was handled. That said that status of things can’t be changed and we must work together to do what is best for Monroe with every weapon we have. Public outrage is a valid arrow in the quiver.
PS I am glad other people write long letters, but advice to you, people’s eyes glaze over and they start to drool when reading long legal opinions and interpretation of case law. Perhaps if you strive to be more a little more colorful people would make it to the end.  :) All in good fun, I think you are a good lawyer.

Thank you Hammer200. But please trust me when I say elections are not on my mind at the moment. I agree with the people who are shocked and dismayed over this project. As a private citizen I will offer any aid I can. The Stevenson neighborhood really got the ball rolling and this is a very real grass roots effort. I recall many grass roots zoning fights like Stew Leonards in Orange, numerous projects in Bridgeport (many where State Rep. Chris Caruso led the fight) and one that made it to the Supreme Court here in Monroe, to name a very few.

Let's not turn our town into Fairfield County's resident dump! Please count me in for anything regarding petitions, media outreach or any sort of community action committee. This proposal needs to be solidly defeated and the town needs to focus on recruiting good quality businesses that serve the town, and the community!!

How is the village district proposed in the Plan of Conservation consistent with the garbage processing plant!? FROM our POCD:

"Lake Zoar/Stevenson Area. The proposed

Lake Zoar/Stevenson Village District is located in

the northeastern section of Town, along Route

34 (next to Lake Zoar) and partially includes

some of the Stevenson area near the crossroads

of Route 111 (Monroe Turnpike) and Route 34.

The consideration of Lake Zoar/Stevenson as a

Village District is based primarily on the area’s

extraordinary landscape, historic value,

environmental significance, and distinctive

character.

The Lake Zoar/Stevenson distinction as a historic

recreation area dates back to the 1800s. At

that time, Lake Zoar, which was created by

Stevenson Dam, was a popular swimming and boating area for residents of Monroe and

surrounding municipalities.

Today, the lake is still a popular recreational venue for boaters and water-skiers alike, with

activities overseen by an agency called the Lake Zoar Authority, which encompasses

representatives from Monroe, Oxford, Newtown, and Southbury.

Monroe’s lakefront is much smaller than in the other communities. The shoreline bordering the

lake that belongs to Monroe accommodates a boat ramp and beach that are in disrepair and

rarely used."

Wow! That says a lot doesn't it? Does anyone out there know when the P & Z is going to meet on this? Or, is that top secret highly classifed information as well?