MINUTES

WATERTOWN TOWN COUNCIL

PUBLIC HEARINGS<= /b>

JOHN TRUMBULL PRIMARY SCHOOL

GREEN POD COMMON AREA

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2005, 7:00 P.= M.

PRESENT:      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;          Elaine Adams

= ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Robert Kane, Chairman=

&= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         Kevin Killeen

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Richard Wick

ABSENT:      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            Karl Fisher

&= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         Raymond Hebert, Vice Chairman

&= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         Joseph Pawlak

&= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         Raymond Primini

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Paul Rinaldi

OTHERS PRESENT:      = ;      Paul Jessell, Town Attorney

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Meredith Robson, Town Manager

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Robert Smith, Torrington Area Health District

1.&nb= sp;        Convene Public Hearing - 7:00 P.M.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Kane, Chairma= n, called the Public Hearing to order at 7:03 p.m.

=

Mr. Kane, Chairma= n, read aloud the following Notice of the Public Hearing for the record:

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Watertown, Connecticut

The Watertown Town Council will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, October 25, 2= 005, at 7:00 p.m. in the John Trumbull Primary School Green Pod Common Area, 779 Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT to hear public comment on the following:

Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Watertown, Concerning Limiting the Use of Eminent Do= main by the Town of Watertown and its Agents.

The Proposed repeal of Chapter 12, Article II of the Code of Ordinances of the = Town of Watertown regarding "Noise" consisting of Sections 12-31 through and includ= ing 12-40.

= Watertown Town Council

Public Hearings

October 25, 2005

Page 2

Copies of said ordinance(s) are available at the Town Manager's Office (424 Main Street, Watertown) and the Town Clerk's Office (Town Hall, 37 DeForest Street, Waterto= wn).

Dated at Watertown, Connecticut this 19th day o= f October, 2005.

   =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;              &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;

   =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Meredith S. Robson, Town Manager

   =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Town of Watertown

RETURN OF NOTICE

TOWN OF WATERTOWN

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

I = hereby certify that on October 19, 2005 I left a duplicate copy of the attached No= tice of Public Hearing, Town of Wat= ertown, Connecticut, with Virginia Stewart, its Town Clerk to be held on October 25, 2005.

I = further certify that on October 19, 2005 I caused a copy of said Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the REPUBLICAN AMERICAN which newspaper has a substantial circulation in said Town.

I = further certify that on October 19, 2005, I caused to be set upon the signpost or o= ther exterior places nearest the Office of the Town Clerk and all other places a= nd signposts designated by the Town, a written copy of said Notice of Public Hearing sig= ned by the Town Manager of the Town of Watertown.

I = further certify, that all the above acts were done at least five (5) days before the holding of the Public Hearing on October 25, 2005.

Da= ted at Watertown, Connecticut this 19th day of October, 2004.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Meredith S. Robson, Town Manager

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Town of Watertown

Watertown Town Council

Public Hearings

October 25, 2005

Page 3

TOWN CLERK’S CERTIFICATION AS TO

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND RETURN OF NOTICE<= /p>

I hereby certify that the attached Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of the forego= ing Return of Notice of Public Hearing are duly recorded in the records of the = Town of Watertown, Connecticut, and that Meredith S. Robson was Town Manager on = the date the Notice and Return of Notice were signed.

Dated at Watertown, Connecticut this 19th day of October, = 2005.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Virginia M. Stewart, Town Clerk

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Town of Watertown

            Mr. Kane: We'll take the Noise Ordinance first. Is there anyone who wi= shes to speak? Do any of the Town Council members wish to speak?

<= /p>
            Mr. Wick: Just to repeat what I have said previously about this particular action, this is really in my opinion what I call a housekeeping action, because once the Town became part of the Torrin= gton Area Health District regulation pertaining to Noise, the Noise Ordinance th= at we had in our collection of ordinances became superfluous. Nobody realized that until about a= month ago, so the purpose of this particular action is simply to Repeal that particular Ordinance because the Torrington Area Health District regulation governs.

<= /p>
            Ms. Adams: We had a complaint given to us= by a resident, wanting to know in the case of back yard noise and loud parties, = and things like that, (inaudible) basically unable to do anything because of this. Now by us rescinding th= is ordinance will this in turn give our officers some ability to control the noise, or do we have to call the Torrington Area Health District to do that= ?

<= /p>
            Mr. Wick: I think the report that you're refe= rring to is the one relating to a party where there was some noise that was notic= ed by neighbors. I think the description of that incident came to us slightly inaccurately and shortly a= fter that occurred we received a memo from Deputy Chief Gavallas that pointed out when this sort of thing happens, the Police can take action by simply issui= ng an infraction ticket to the violator because they are accused of creating a public disturbance. The disti= nction here is that when a public disturbance is being created that happens to be = noisy, it's not really a Noise Ordinance issue, it's a public disturbance issue wh= ich the Police Department is quite capable of handling. That was cleared up in a memo that= the Deputy Chief sent out shortly after this question arose.

<= /p>
            Mr. Killeen: Just to emphasize, again for t= he record, in fact we still have a Noise Ordinance, now we don't have two.

Watertown Town Council

Public Hearings

October 25, 2005

Page 4

<= /p>
            Mr. Kane: Right, we go by the Torrington Area Health District's regulations as opposed to having one of our own as well, right. Anyone else?

<= /p>
            We'll move on to the Eminent Domain issue.

<= /p>
            Gary Bernier, Morrow Street, Oakville, CT 06779=

<= /p>
            Mr. Bernier: Personal rights and personal proper= ty rights are court (inaudible) by constitution. As part of the (inaudible) constit= ution it states: "nor shall pr= ivate property be taken for public use without just compensation". Every State has a similar restrict= ion. Simply property cannot be taken for public but not for private use. As early as 1792 the U.S. Supreme Court won that the use of eminent domain has= a potential of destroying the lives or livelihood by uprooting people from th= eir homes, and this is people from their shops. The public use requirement of the = constitution almost met its fate when the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954 changed the requirement (inaudible) public use to one= of public purpose. This simple c= hange in language allowed for condemnation for slum clearance that led to blighted area, then not very blighted areas, and now perfectly fine areas are being condemned for private developer financial gain. Connecticut is among the toughest states pertaining to eminent domain for public develo= per use and gain. The Connecticut Legislature however has recently made several attempts to enact a stronger interpretation of the law but seems to still be floundering. Even with the current semi strict interpretation of eminent domain for private gain, in Connecticut from 1998 to 2002 there were 143 condemnations of the 1,819 for private developer financial gain in C= onnecticut. That equates to 29% of the activity. In New London, the Kelow versus New London case brought this issue to the Supreme Court and gained national attention. The Supreme Court allowed the condemnations in the (inaudible) criminal area to stand. On October 17, 2005 New London severe= d their ties with their quasi-public development agency and the future of the proje= ct is now in question. What is n= ot questioned however, is that the U.S. government had gained title to the former Naval<= /st1:PlaceName> Underseas Warfare Center to the Agency and not to = the City, so New London= now faces a potential battle to gain ownership of the property. Also a fact is that the State of Connecticut also= holds over $70,000,000 in mortgage and (inaudible). I am outraged and I think most peo= ple are outraged that the U.S. Supreme Court did not take the side of the small guy, and chooses to take the side of large developers in personal property matters. There is simply no w= ay to justify taking somebody's home for business so that somebody else can make a quick buck. Based on the above facts, I respectfully urge you to move as readily and diligently as feasibl= e to adopt an eminent domain ordinance and provide the protection our fellow res= idents deserve.

Watertown Town Council

Public Hearings

October 25, 2005

Page 5

<= /p>
            Gary Stewart, 575 Northfield Road, Watert= own, CT&nbs= p; 06795

<= /p>
            Mr. Stewart: I urge the Council to adopt the ord= inance to limit the taking of private property by eminent domain. I think that there are cases where= this is a useful tool for the Municipalities and State and Federal governments, but= I don't think that towns, municipalities, State or Federal governments should become partner with developers for profit, and basically to me it comes dow= n to a conspiracy whereby the government agrees with some developer who is going= to make a huge profit on (inaudible) land but he (inaudible) pain and they tak= e it by eminent domain and turn it over to the developer. It doesn't seem right. Thank you.

<= /p>
            Ms. Adams: I was never so surprised when = I read the Supreme Court's decision regarding Kelow versus = New London. I felt that the Supreme Court let t= he people down, the same people that they are charged to protect. Personally I think it is out and o= ut wrong to take private property from one person or business and put it in the hands of another private entity for their own gain, that's just (inaudible)= not fair and I will support putting forward this ordinance.

<= /p>
            Mr. Killeen: I think our presenter tonight = did an excellent job when he spoke (inaudible) pretty much hit on everything that = we need to go forward and support this ordinance.

<= /p>
      = ;      Mr. Kane: Yea, I agree with y= ou wholeheartedly. I think the t= wo speakers were eloquent. Mr. B= ernier was excellent in his research on the (inaudible) dating back to the early d= ays of our constitution, and he's right, and I will support this ordinance wholeheartedly. Just by glanc= e I thought the decision (inaudible) and don't quite understand it and I will support this myself, and I think we will take it up on our November 7th Reg= ular Town Council Meeting so hopefully that will be in the packet. I wish that more people would have = come out tonight, cause it's an important issue to our Town and our State. I understand about the weather, and maybe the World Series, but hopefully they'll come out on November 7th when= we have Public Participation at our regularly scheduled meeting.

<= /p>
            Mr. Wick: Just to point out that when the Ordinance Subcommittee was asked to look into this issue in late June or ea= rly July, we took a look at some of the ordinances that had been passed quickly= by some of the other town in Connecticut and felt that while we wanted to pres= ent something, we wanted to make sure we weren't going overboard, in that we di= dn't want to recommend language that would inhibit the proper use of eminent domain. I want to give credit= to the folks who preceded us in Litchfield.&n= bsp; They came up with some language that when I read it I said, that's f= or us, cause that seemed to represent a balance between what we don't want to = do and what we should retain as our municipal right to do should the need ever arise, so I want to make clear that this does not prohibit the Town from do= ing things that are in the public interest at some point in the future, it just prevents future Town governments from doing the things that we've all identified as being fundamentally wrong.

Watertown Town Council

Public Hearings

October 25, 2005

Page 6

      = ;      Mr. Kane: I want to say that = Richard Wick has been our Ordinance Subcommittee Chairman for the past 4 years and I want to thank you, cause we all know that you're not seeking re-election and this is potentially one of your last meetings, but we have to give you cred= it for the amount of work you've done over the years with the Ordinance Subcommittee, taking on the skateboarding issue, taking on the noise ordina= nce, eminent domain, the ethics ordinance, most important, so I just want to tha= nk you very much. I appreciate a= ll the work you did and we'll miss not having you as the Chairman of the Ordinance= Subcommittee.

      = ;      Mr. Wick: Thank you for your = kind comments, but let's not forget that this work can't be done without the hel= p of competent staff, and Meredith and her group have been very helpful in getti= ng the work done.

      = ;      Mr. Kane: Does anyone else wi= sh to comment?

3.&nb= sp;        Adjournment=

Mr. Kane, Chairman, Closed the Public Hearing at 7:19 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Robert Kane, Chairman

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Town Council

&n= bsp;

A= pproved: _______________________________

      Lynn M. LaF= orme, Clerk