The following property transfers are copyrighted material previously published in the Commercial Record, a weekly trade paper. It is reprinted with permission from the publisher, The Warren Group, thewarrengroup.com.

160 Abram St, Raymond J. Barba to Robert G. Sheftic, $205,000.

24 Bullard Ct, Damian Winkowski and Joanna M. Jakubowska to Leland G. Coles, $23,000.

775 Chickadee Ln, Joyce M. Cullen to Ann M. Hight, $361,225.

200 Clinton Ave, TBJT LLC to Michael S. Carriger, $398,900.

Fieldbrook Condo Lot 6, Joseph Petro to Robert Finlayson, $75,000.

129 Freeman Ave, Jhoan Montano to Gregory Mahoney and Gary Adinolfi, $265,000.

80 Guzzi Dr, Webster Bank NA to Maria Louissaint, $150,000.

637 King St, Gertrude C. Gardecki and Joan M. Duda to Kimberly Strazza, $188,000.

622 Onondaga Ln Unit A, Selma Fishkind to Robert and Joan G. Jalbert, $320,000.

38 Priscilla Ln, JP Morgan Chase Bank NA to Michael Atwater, $20,000.

945 Riverton Ter, Francis J. and Martha C. Eastwood to Alexander T. Ostrowski, $283,000.

235 Rosebrook Dr, Michael J. Cavaliere to Kevin Moran, $490,000.

81 Seminole Ln Unit A, Marlitz LLC to Margaret Debicella, $300,000.

480 Wakelee Ave, FNMA to Christopher B. Warner, $179,500.

The following property transfers are copyrighted material previously published in the Commercial Record, a weekly trade paper. It is reprinted with permission from the publisher, The Warren Group, thewarrengroup.com.

200 2nd Ave, Sue M. Brunetti to Robert Wiltsie, $156,000.

14 Algonquin Ln Unit A, Wells Fargo Bank NA to E V Nobile Suppl Nds T and Edward V. Nobile, $145,050.

80 Barton Dr, Dale and Scott Stegner to Craig and Andrea Stegner, $256,250.

30 Baxter St, FNMA to Bengt I. Eriksson, $199,930.

51 Breakers Ln Unit 51, Donna J. Nichols and Joseph Salerno to Jay Wahlberg, $16,000.

51 Canaan Ct Unit 15, Casimira M. Biernacki to Liliana Fernandez, $24,400.

50 Country Club Cir, Catheryn A. Gatto to Mario and Valerie T. Bologna, $300,000.

1780 Main St, Judy E. Langston to Diana D. Dean, $340,000.

131 Maple St, Holdsworth Eldora Est and James R. Holdsworth to Victor A. and Lucille A. Sinko, $260,000.

1425 North Ave, Armando J Mansi FT and Armando J. Mansi to Janet C. Stanchich and Claire H. Meyer, $179,900.

20 Parkland Dr, Doreen Walsh to Florencio and Emely Rivera, $281,000.

752 Pontiac Ln Unit B, Renee F Bauer RET and Renee F. Bauer to Michael T. and Jeannine L. Mccann, $260,000.

45 Powder Mill Rd Unit B, Lisa Yacoviello to Thomas R. Springer, $179,500.

70 Priscilla Ln, Josephine Farr to Michelle L. Farr, $62,000.

190 Prospect Dr, USA HUD to Reversinate LLC, $180,000.

88 Queens Ave, Kathryn L. Steglitz to Anthony and Rebekah Demieri, $302,450.

50 Ridge Cir, Jean Marc Dessirier and Sharanya Reddy to Heather Benek, $309,000.

18 Wainwright Pl, Mary A. Lacko to Christopher M. Hurley, $190,000.

125 Warner Hill Rd Unit 2, Haslob Mary Est and Richard Haslob to Nancy F. Evans and Ann M. Saranich, $125,000.

The following property transfers are copyrighted material previously published in the Commercial Record, a weekly trade paper. It is reprinted with permission from the publisher, The Warren Group, thewarrengroup.com.

1780 Main St, Judy E. Langston to Diana D. Dean, $340,000.

131 Maple St, Holdsworth Eldora Est and James R. Holdsworth to Victor A. and Lucille A. Sinko, $260,000.

1425 North Ave, Armando J Mansi FT and Armando J. Mansi to Janet C. Stanchich and Claire H. Meyer, $179,900.

20 Parkland Dr, Doreen Walsh to Florencio and Emely Rivera, $281,000.

752 Pontiac Ln Unit B, Renee F Bauer RET and Renee F. Bauer to Michael T. and Jeannine L. Mccann, $260,000.

45 Powder Mill Rd Unit B, Lisa Yacoviello to Thomas R. Springer, $179,500.

70 Priscilla Ln, Josephine Farr to Michelle L. Farr, $62,000.

190 Prospect Dr, USA HUD to Reversinate LLC, $180,000.

88 Queens Ave, Kathryn L. Steglitz to Anthony and Rebekah Demieri, $302,450.

50 Ridge Cir, Jean Marc Dessirier and Sharanya Reddy to Heather Benek, $309,000.

18 Wainwright Pl, Mary A. Lacko to Christopher M. Hurley, $190,000.

125 Warner Hill Rd Unit 2, Haslob Mary Est and Richard Haslob to Nancy F. Evans and Ann M. Saranich, $125,000.

21 Belvidere Dr, Nancy Wolff to Michelle Hutter, $198,600.

3699 Broadbridge Ave Unit 210, Barbara Wexler to R&G Best Properties LLC, $45,000.

52 Chelsea St, Patricia P. Carlson to Leighton Haughton and Ivolyn Morrison, $199,000.

175 Clinton Ave, TBJT LLC to Daniel Racaniello and Jessica Denes, $399,900.

195 Clinton Ave, TBJT LLC to Juan Palma, $355,000.

1675 Cutspring Rd, Rodney A. and Joanne Spinks to Christopher Ferraro, $353,000.

65 Glenfield Ave, Catherine V. Rivera to Ralph D. and Karin P. Doyle, $260,000.

345 Goldbach Dr, Michael P. and Maureen T. Kery to Patrick H. and Rebecca S. Parnoff, $294,450.

25 Hartland St, Richard H. Healing and Christine Zacarola to Patricia A. Pinto, $287,000.

510 Harvard Ave, Charles N. Cable to Catherine Johnson, $67,500.

215 Knollwood Dr, Mitchell B. and Tara W. Wexler to Lars A. Anderson, $368,500.

785 Light St, Thomas Laconte to Deborah Ruggles, $200.

95 Longview Dr, Patricia Pinto to M Khoshlahjeh-Mozafar and Silvestro Barbarino, $395,000.

4541 Main St, Mark 4 Construction Co and Manuel Moutinho to Maria A. Velez and Victor Moscoso, $289,000.

495 Overland Dr, Francis V. and Linda M. Leopardi to Dennis and Nydia T. Minella, $390,000.

140 Pilgrim Ln, James J. and Karen M. Giammattei to Ford M. and Keisha P. Noisette, $455,000.

91 Sands Pl, Susan W. Almeida to Rui Chaves and Megan Garrity, $156,000.

40 Springdale Ave, Mary C. Ceci to Henry Gallo, $230,000.

225 Washington Pkwy, Caitlin Hogan to Danielle Delapp, $350,000.

100 Yale St, Giovani F. and Franciele C. Rodrigues to Jason H. and Elda S. Thomas, $299,000.

Stratford ranks 13th out of 60 towns in Connecticut with a population over 5,000 in a survey of “best places for homeownership in Connecticut,” according to consumer advocacy company NerdWallet.

The report is based on federal government data on the rate of homeownership, monthly homeowner costs as a percentage of median household income, median home values, and population change.

“Owning a home in Connecticut can be expensive — that’s why our methodology rates affordability, as well as population growth and home availability,” said Sara Collins of NerdWallet. “Stratford scored well by these metrics, boasting a high homeownership rate and steady population increase.”

In the study Stratford is 13th with a composite score of 69.8. The top-ranking town is Glastonbury Center with a score of 79. Greenwich, which is last among the 60 towns in the report, has a composite score of 30.4.

Stratford’s neighboring towns scored in the top-20 as well. Trumbull is 7th with a score of 73.8. Shelton is 11th with a score of 71.4, and Milford is 19th with a score of 66.8.

According to NerdWallet’s study Stratford has a home ownership rate of 80.4%, and this is weighted as 33% of the total score. A higher rate earned a higher score.

The median amount of selected monthly homeownership costs in Stratford is $2,203, and the median monthly household income in Stratford is $5,615. Homeowner cost as a percentage of its household income, 39% in Stratford, makes up 17% of total scores in the study. A lower percentage earned a higher score.

Stratford’s median home value is $276,200, according to the report. This category is 17% of the total score, and a lower value earned a higher score.

The final bit if information studied, population growth from 2010 to 2012, accounts for 33% of the total scores. Stratford’s population during this period grew 1.2%. A higher percentage change earned a higher score.

NerdWallet describes itself as “a consumer-focused website dedicated to saving people money every day by helping them make better, more informed financial decisions….We create user-friendly tools, crunch numbers and give you all the results, unfiltered.”

www.nerdwallet.com/blog/cities/best-cities-homeownership-connecticut/

In the 25 years since Raymark, formerly and aptly named Raybestos, was forced to close its brake pad manufacturing facility, Stratford residents have been living with the fallout of an ongoing environmental and governmental debate about how to more permanently mitigate the multiple contaminated sites that remain in town.

What may seem surprising to outsiders or new residents observing this process is an unchanging, and unsettling, reality for both Stratford officials and residents. That is, there is no agreement on a suitable remedy for sites that are still not properly sealed, or where contamination has not been, or cannot be, completely removed.

As a result of this stalemate, $21 million set aside for additional Stratford cleanup from the sale of the Raymark property and related settlements may not be used on such cleanup until a compromise is reached and an official record of decision (ROD) is submitted for approval by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

If the dedicated funds are ever used, Stratford would then be eligible for additional money through the federal government.

EPA and the mayor
Because Raymark falls under federal Superfund designation, many of The Star’s sources are quick to defer to the Environmental Protection Agency before discussing the status of this process, or offer a definitive answer about how to end the persisting gridlock.

EPA representatives like Jim Murphy, who have been overseeing Stratford’s Superfund contamination for the last 17 years, say that finding a cost-effective way to either remove or consolidate Raymark waste remains the top priority. The central problem, moving forward, they say, is that different sites, or operable units (OUs), require different methods of remediation. Murphy says he believes new action can and should be taken soon, stating,
“It’s really time to do it. We hope to get back to the table this year. We need to work with the mayor’s office to come up with a plan.”

He further pointed out that as time passes, the town is missing out on opportunities to acquire more funding like that available four years ago through the federal American Recovery Act, which could have provided tens of millions of dollars for further Superfund cleanup.

The Raybestos legacy
According to the EPA, and the public health assessment from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease, Raybestos used asbestos to line its brake pads during manufacturing, in addition to lead, copper and PCBs, which are also named among its most toxic byproducts. What was problematic enough for residents and workers around the primary manufacturing sites became exponentially worse when the company began offering its contaminated fill to areas bordering wetlands, riverways, schools, and 46 residential properties in Stratford.

The town received $200 million in federal money in the mid 90s to cap the main source of contamination and remediate residential properties, as well as to complete studies for remaining waste sites.

For decades, the Raybestos manufacturing plant was an integral part of the Stratford community, even sponsoring local baseball teams and hosting softball games on its Raybestos Ball Field bordering Frog Pond Lane, which would end up with the highest level of contamination in town to date. The site also caused controversy among residents when an EPA plan for consolidation was proposed, using the ball field as the central location to store the remaining contamination in town.

As of 2014, the only site that is considered officially remediated is Operable Unit 1, also known as the Crossings Shopping Center off East Main Street, which capped the underground plume and uses a series of ventilation systems around the property in an attempt to ensure volatile organic compounds do not pose a health risk in the area. The system is not perfect, however, with the EPA reporting that underground water leaching of VOCs is still occurring, and plans for a ground water remediation system remain elusive after all these years.

Curran clarified that feasibility studies had been conducted with both DEEP and the EPA and that ideas such as constructing a cutoff wall to contain the leaching had been proposed. But Curran also noted that the underground topography of the area made it difficult to permanently keep contamination from reaching the Housatonic River. The consolation, if there is one, may be that the VOCs evaporate quickly in open water, said Curran, explaining that the chemicals do not stay concentrated in the water and therefore do not pose a direct threat to the health of humans or animals in the area. He added, “Metals can be highly toxic to aquatic life, but we do not see metals leaching.”

The conflict over consolidation
In 2000, the Raymark Advisory Council (RAC) was formed with the intention of bringing local and federal officials together with Stratford residents to openly discuss possible solutions for contaminated sites. Before discussions stalled in 2007, local environmental groups were active in bringing proposals to the table, and vocal in their opposition to the Raybestos Ball Field consolidation plan, which residents said would have stored contamination above ground, risking increased airborne toxin exposure while a permanent solution was finalized.

Alternative plans for complete removal were also considered, including shipping the contamination out of Stratford and into Superfund designated landfill facilities. But officials say that the plan was entirely impossible from a funding perspective and also they worried that shipping the contamination strained landfills in other states that required extra capacity for highly toxic waste from sites across the country.

Government favors it
When asked about the changing plans for remediation over the years, both Jim Murphy and Ron Curran, environmental analyst in the Remediation Division, Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse for Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), say that the EPA and CT DEEP have continued to advocate consolidation in some form. Curran said he does not want to create more contamination, but rather consolidate in a place that is already polluted and that has a “capacity that exceeds what we would need to store the material.”

He still believes that capping at the Raybestos Ball Field is the most logical solution to this problem. But some residents do not agree.

Locals oppose it
Stratford resident Charles Perez says he helped form Stratford Action For the Environment (SAFE) “after attending meetings with the EPA and hearing their plans to dig up many cubic yards of Raymark contamination and dump it on the former Contract Plating company property in our backyard, and in various locations all the way to the old Raybestos Ball Field on Frog Pond Lane.”
Perez and other residents, like SAFE Vice President Ron Mazzey, have been active participants in RAC and say they want to find a solution that does not involve digging up contamination and risking further asbestos exposure for residents.

Perez added that he does not believe the current consolidation plan is a viable solution. “I still feel that capping in one place is like leaving a time capsule of hazardous material that will one day be unearthed by generations in the future,” he said.

In response to these concerns, both the EPA and DEEP contend that the digging of contamination can be done under controlled conditions, transporting it to the ball field, and securing it underground where the majority of hazardous material already exists. Curran says that this plan would not temporarily store any of the contamination above ground, which was a source of major conflict when it was first proposed more than a decade ago. He says the waste would be buried at least four feet below the surface and capped in place so the property could be reused by the town.

Curran added that OUs have to be evaluated on a site-by-site basis, and that capping and remediating on site without removal is not an option for certain areas that pose flooding risks, and would require the demolition of buildings to complete.

Call for open discussion
Murphy acknowledged that mistakes by the EPA had been made early on with the handling of materials at a few sites around town, which led to the current distrust of the cleanup process. He hopes that an open discussion that clearly defines how this consolidation could work, and how it differs from previous plans, would help relieve some of the fears among residents.

DeLauro and Harkins
U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, of Connecticut’s 3rd District including Stratford, hopes to find a compromise solution to this ongoing problem.
In a statement to The Stratford Star, Ms. DeLauro said: “While some progress has been made with regard to the Raymark Superfund site, work remains to be done. After the community raised concerns about the EPA’s initial plan, I wanted to ensure they had a voice in the remediation plan’s development. Conversations and meetings to build a consensus around such a plan are ongoing.”

Mayor John Harkins also believes a compromise can be reached. His office told The Star: “The Mayor remains engaged with the EPA, CT DEEP and Stratford residents in an effort to reach a solution that all parties can be comfortable with. It is a decades-old challenge, but as Mayor Harkins has shown … he is capable of making progress on tough issues.”

For his part, Curran says he recognizes that maintaining these sites without a long-term plan is unsustainable and that some of these properties need better public protections, adding that he is often met with resistance from local business owners who do not want to call attention to the contamination and worry their property values will suffer.

The sign is posted at Ferry Creek, near Broad Street and Housatonic Avenue, alerting the public to health hazards in the contaminated site. Lina Rainone photo.

Bioethics – our plant
OK—obscure subject line. But there is a Town Council meeting tonight, Aug. 11, and that’s a perfect time to engage council about the WPCA impending sale.
Is that sale a good idea? Is it really even good politics? Not if it provokes a firestorm of opposition, sweeping away the current majority on council, next year.

Should privatizing town assets really happen without a town-wide forum, indeed, without a referendum?

Is it prudent or even legal, to take the $5 million reserve fund of the sewer system, and kick it over to town hall to balance the budget, when there are any number of contingencies under which that money will be needed by the WPCA, such as: water / sewer line upgrades and repairs, to cast-iron pipes that are in many cases 95 years old and already fracturing; upgrades to handle increased capacity needs, such as in Lordship, or where high-density housing is in play (e.g. 1111 Stratford Ave., or ‘in’ Avalon Bay); or just the next serious storm surge that we now know is only a matter of (not very much) time?

We have a chance to ‘flip’ a couple of councilpersons, who do not want to be on record as ‘voting’ to sell this valuable asset, when and if everyone becomes aware of the implications of loss of control over rates, over re-investment of profits, and perhaps the embarrassment of a violation of State of Connecticut rules regarding ‘Authorities’ such as the wpcA (‘A’ for Authority—did you know that?).

Stephanie Philips has already spoken up (though I’ve not seen it in the press), as did Joe Paul (ditto) on the hit to the Town’s bond rating once the reality of asset-selling is factored into the determination of how well the town is governed.

This is our time!

Mayor wants to do this sale, and some will say it is not only already ‘baked in’ but already a done deal (May budget vote). But that is not true!

This could be the issue on which the entire ALEC/ACCE effort (Koch Brothers’ ‘better government’ through privatization and union-busting) stumbles…or not.

After all, we’re not privy to whatever tactical advice was dispensed in Dallas last week to our Little Lord…

Please help get the word out, concerning tonight’s Council meeting. If you want to speak up at the meeting, sign up at 6:30 for a 6:45 start.
Many thanks.
Tom Yemm

At some point between March 12, when the Mayor John Harkins’ office published a Proposed Operating Budget for the Water Pollution Control Authority, and July 1 when the mayor’s office published the Adopted Operating Budget for WPCA $5.6 million was added as an expense for Land Acquisition, and $5.6 million was added as Miscellaneous Revenue for Land Acquisition.

Adding $5.6 million to the WPCA expense budget was a 52% increase in expenses. Also adding $5.6 million in revenue offset the expense increase, so the bottom line was unchanged.

The mayor’s office has not pinpointed the date when the change was made, but, after meeting with Chief Administrative Officer Steven Nocera on Aug. 11, Town Attorney Tim Bishop said confirmed that the budget changes “never made it to the WPCA.”

Whether or not the budget change was made before or after the WPCA members voted on new sewer rates during their June 2 meeting, not one Authority member said they definitely had the information before the vote.

If not for WPCA member and Town Councilwoman Stephanie Philips coming across the WPCA budget change shortly before the July 28 Town Council meeting and raising the question during that meeting, it is possible the WPCA members still would not know of the new Land Acquisition items in the budget.

“Everyone seems to agree that (the budget showing the land acquisition line items) should have gone to them,” Bishop wrote to The Star on Aug. 11. “Most, including Steve and myself, thought that it had gone to them….Nobody seems to have any idea why it didn’t go to them.”

Town of Stratford Finance Director Susan Collier said, “I agree the changes should have been shown to the Authority.”
Philips said, “It boggles my mind that no one can make sure we get documents for something so critical.”

The significance of this, Philips said, it that “If it was not caught it would have provided the basis for the Town to claim that the WPCA was in agreement to buy the property, and we have not” agreed to that.

Bishop said, “At this point I think the best course is to acknowledge the error and update the budget book to reflect the last document that the Council had before they took the vote….It’s an administrative function that doesn’t require a motion or vote or anything, so it will likely happen pretty quickly.”
Check back to the website for an expanded report.

At the June 2 meeting of WPCA Stratford Chief Administrative Officer Steven Nocera, standing, listens to WPCA member Stephanie Philips, partially obscured in white, ask questions before voting to increase the sewer fee. WPCA members Jim Connor, in dark suit, and Jason Santi were also at the table. Greg Reilly photo.

At some point between May 12 and May 22, the Water Pollution Control Authority proposed budget was changed by adding $5.6 million as an expense for land acquisition, and by adding $5.6 million as miscellaneous revenue for land acquisition, according to Town Attorney Tim Bishop.

The $5.6 million represents 52% of the originally proposed expense budget, and the budget changes could be interpreted to indicate thoughts by town executives regarding town-owned land that the WPC facilities sit on.

Despite those considerations the mayor’s office, which develops and manages the WPCA budget separate from the town budget, did not make sure that the 10 members of the authority, who oversee the WPCA budget, learned of the change to the WPCA budget.

The lack of notification is described as a problem with “the process” of distributing information to the water authority members — a clerical error in town hall.

The WPCA members are also elected members of the Town Council, and it was Councilwoman Stephanie Philips who came across the WPCA budget change shortly before the July 28 Town Council meeting. At that meeting Philips raised the question about when and why the WPCA budget was changed.

The WPC Authority set new sewer fees for Stratford residents and businesses on June 2 with a 13% increase over last year. The budget sheets that they had for reference at that time did not show the $5.6 million projected expense for land acquisition, nor did they show the $3 million projected miscellaneous revenue from the WPCA reserve fund for land acquisition or the $2.6 million in projected miscellaneous revenue from a loan for land acquisition.

There has been informal discussion around town hall about WPCA possibly buying from the town of Stratford the land on which its facilities sit, according to WPCA Chairman Peter Massey and Town Council Chairman Joe Kubic. The WPCA has not formally taken up the possibility of buying land from the town, and the Town Council has not formally taken up the possibility of selling the land to the WPCA.

Why the budget change
The town’s operating budget for the current fiscal year includes $4.5 million in revenue that is projected to come from selling town-owned land. According to Finance Director Susan Collier on Aug. 4, she suggested to Chief Administrative Officer Steven Nocera that the budgets be revised to show where that $4.5 million in revenue might come from. The decision was made to cover the $4.5 million by showing a possible sale of land to WPCA.

Unknown effect
It is not known what discussion might have ensued among WPCA members if they were aware that the town formally put land acquisition into the WPCA budget or how their vote on new sewer rates might have been affected with the knowledge of the possible land acquisition to be paid for potentially by WPCA reserve funds and a loan.

The budgeted WPCA bottom line did not change with the addition of the $5.6 million expense offset by the $5.6 million in revenue.

After meeting with Chief Administrative Officer Steven Nocera on Aug. 11, Town Attorney Tim Bishop confirmed that the budget changes “never made it to the WPCA” members.

Nocera declined to reply directly to The Star regarding distribution of information to WPCA or about the date when the land acquisition line items were added to the WPCA budget, which he manages, according to Collier.

“Everyone seems to agree that (the budget showing the land acquisition line items) should have gone to them,” Bishop wrote to The Star. “Most, including Steve and myself, thought that it had gone to them …. Nobody seems to have any idea why it didn’t go to them.”

Collier said, “I agree the changes should have been shown to the Authority.”

Philips said, “It boggles my mind that no one can make sure we get documents for something so critical.”

The significance of this, Philips said, is that “If it was not caught, it would have provided the basis for the town to claim that the WPCA was in agreement to buy the property, and we have not” agreed to that.

Corrective action
In response to what Bishop calls the problem with the process of notifying WPCA members when the proposed budget was changed, he said “the corrective action” will be to remove the land acquisition line items — expense and revenue — from the WPCA budget, and that “should happen very quickly.”

“The reason for the action is that when the WPCA set the rate they did not have the document showing those three lines, so they couldn’t possibly have considered them when they set the rate. As such it would misleading to have those lines as part of a public document reflecting the thoughts of the WPCA.”

At the June 2 meeting of WPCA Stratford Chief Administrative Officer Steven Nocera, standing, listens to WPCA member Stephanie Philips, partially obscured in white, ask questions before voting to increase the sewer fee. WPCA members Jim Connor, in dark suit, and Jason Santi were also at the table. Greg Reilly photo.

The following property transfers are copyrighted material previously published in the Commercial Record, a weekly trade paper. It is reprinted with permission from the publisher, The Warren Group, thewarrengroup.com.

97 1st Ave, Charlene V. Carr to James M. Sweeney, $750,000.

333 Allyndale Dr, Zeller Emily F Est and Todd Fitz to Heiko Bosler, $169,000.

451 Birdseye St, Margaret W. Mendoza to Loi N. Ly and Thuy T. Pham, $89,000.

1700 Broadbridge Ave Unit A44, Marian I. Stevens and Onewest Bank FSB to Onewest Bank FSB, $55,000.

115 Dover St, Michael and Luz C. Falcon to Michael Falcon, $1.

70 Eunice Pkwy, Kelly A. Lankton and Rosalinda Burgess to Frederick J. Guerra, $231,000.

190 Garibaldi Ave, Kalcar Corp to Paige Vass, $267,000.

20 Garnet Pl, Joseph J. and Nancy L. Yuhas to Joe G. Milord and Mirlande Lauture, $290,000.

221 Housatonic Ave, Victoria I. Prisco and Jeffrey M. Wash to James K. and Caroline H. Clemente, $277,500.

200 Light St, James Jarusinsky to Luisa C. Morel-Alcantara, $229,900.

445 Mckinley Ave, Deutsche Bk Natl T Co Tr to Willie Mccallister, $44,324.

30 Miranda Ln Unit 30, Migdalia Nieves to Peiyuan Hsu, $137,000.

69 Mount Pleasant Ave, John Czaplinski and Michael Koronkiewicz to Frederick J. and Anne M. Pasco, $277,500.

400 N Abram St, Reversinate LLC to Wendy Mejia, $222,500.

1203 Prospect Dr, Kristin M. Butler to William B. and Irene A. Harrigan, $1,500,000.

778 Quinnipiac Ln Unit B, Donna L. Corra and David C. Taddia to Kathryn M. Trotti and Elaine M. Bennett, $201,500.

80 Sekelsky Dr, Thomas J. and Joan Malloy to Cristina G. Velasco, $400,000.

125 Warner Hill Rd Unit 118, Silveras Sboui and Steven J. Schiraldi to Donna M. Marino, $140,000.

312 Weber St, Mark 4 Construction Co and Manuel Moutinho to Grzegorz and Anna Karbowniczek, $170,000.

322 Weber St, Mark 4 Construction Co and Manuel Moutinho to Grzegorz and Anna Karbowniczek, $170,000.

521 Windsor Ave, Kyle Corcoran to Joann and Lauren Gay, $80,000.

The following property transfers are copyrighted material previously published in the Commercial Record, a weekly trade paper. It is reprinted with permission from the publisher, The Warren Group, thewarrengroup.com.

743 Judson Pl, George D. Birge to Carole D. Mercurio, $200,000.

528 Narraganset Ln Unit A, Youngblood Margaret M Est and Suzanne Y. Finnegan to Jonathan and Patricia Meyers, $309,000.

311 Navajo Ln Unit B, Rachel Kiernan to John E. and Lilian M. Revel, $325,000.

751 Pontiac Ln Unit B, Jason Wojnarowski to Charles B. and Carole P. Digiovanni, $285,000.

212 Ryegate Ter, Dadukian Leonard Est and Leonard H. Dadukian to Christopher D. and Dana G. Hausser, $235,000.

805 Success Ave, Heriberto Colon to Michael Paz, $177,000.

372 Wakelee Ave, Catherine D. Lever to Joseph and Danielle Marcellino, $225,000.

760 Wigwam Ln, John M. and Lucille N. Sekara to Nilka Pabon and Joshua Ramos, $337,000.

97 1st Ave, Charlene V. Carr to James M. Sweeney, $750,000.

333 Allyndale Dr, Zeller Emily F Est and Todd Fitz to Heiko Bosler, $169,000.

451 Birdseye St, Margaret W. Mendoza to Loi N. Ly and Thuy T. Pham, $89,000.

1700 Broadbridge Ave Unit A44, Marian I. Stevens and Onewest Bank FSB to Onewest Bank FSB, $55,000.

115 Dover St, Michael and Luz C. Falcon to Michael Falcon, $1.

70 Eunice Pkwy, Kelly A. Lankton and Rosalinda Burgess to Frederick J. Guerra, $231,000.

190 Garibaldi Ave, Kalcar Corp to Paige Vass, $267,000.

20 Garnet Pl, Joseph J. and Nancy L. Yuhas to Joe G. Milord and Mirlande Lauture, $290,000.

221 Housatonic Ave, Victoria I. Prisco and Jeffrey M. Wash to James K. and Caroline H. Clemente, $277,500.

200 Light St, James Jarusinsky to Luisa C. Morel-Alcantara, $229,900.

445 Mckinley Ave, Deutsche Bk Natl T Co Tr to Willie Mccallister, $44,324.

30 Miranda Ln Unit 30, Migdalia Nieves to Peiyuan Hsu, $137,000.

69 Mount Pleasant Ave, John Czaplinski and Michael Koronkiewicz to Frederick J. and Anne M. Pasco, $277,500.

400 N Abram St, Reversinate LLC to Wendy Mejia, $222,500.

1203 Prospect Dr, Kristin M. Butler to William B. and Irene A. Harrigan, $1,500,000.

778 Quinnipiac Ln Unit B, Donna L. Corra and David C. Taddia to Kathryn M. Trotti and Elaine M. Bennett, $201,500.

80 Sekelsky Dr, Thomas J. and Joan Malloy to Cristina G. Velasco, $400,000.

125 Warner Hill Rd Unit 118, Silveras Sboui and Steven J. Schiraldi to Donna M. Marino, $140,000.

312 Weber St, Mark 4 Construction Co and Manuel Moutinho to Grzegorz and Anna Karbowniczek, $170,000.

322 Weber St, Mark 4 Construction Co and Manuel Moutinho to Grzegorz and Anna Karbowniczek, $170,000.

521 Windsor Ave, Kyle Corcoran to Joann and Lauren Gay, $80,000.

The town of Stratford has been awarded a $2,850,000 grant from the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development to demolish and remediate the 10.5 acre Contract Plating site, which lies within Stratford’s Transit Oriented Development District (TOD) for mixed use / TOD development at 540 Longbrook Ave.

Of 20 brownfield remediation state-wide grants totaling $27 million announced Aug. 27 by Gov. Dannel Malloy only the one for New Haven was larger than Stratford’s.

“This grant award is a direct result of the focus, hard work and due diligence by the office of economic development and other pertinent town staff,” said Mayor John Harkins. “These funds will allow the town to clean up a long-vacant and contaminated property without placing an additional burden on the property taxpayers of Stratford.”

Regarding potential use of the Stratford site, once it is cleaned up, the town’s Director of Economic Development Karen Kaiser said, “It will obviously be market-driven based and depends on the developer. We have had several inquiries from developers with interest, including manufacturing. We can (request proposals) in the next couple of weeks. This means that we will have a shovel-ready property ready for redevelopment. This will vastly increase our chances of having this back on the tax rolls in the very near future.”

Said Malloy when making the announcement: “Many of Connecticut’s brownfield sites have been abandoned or under-utilized for decades because the costs of redeveloping these properties are too expensive for municipalities or private developers to take on by themselves. That’s why my administration has not only allocated the funding necessary to return dozens of unused and blighted properties in every corner of the state to productive reuse, but also taken significant steps to attract private investment and increase participation in our brownfield programs.”

The governor said further, “Just for comparison, since 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has invested $190 nationally in brownfield cleanup. Since 2011, we’ve allocated nearly $90 million in state money. This is the largest round of brownfield remediation funding ever in the state’s history and we will continue making these investments because we know doing so will generate significant returns for our state and local economies by getting these properties back on the tax rolls, improving the quality of life in these areas, cleaning up environmental contamination and, most importantly, creating jobs for our residents.”

Awards made under this round of funding may be used for a range of brownfield remediation and redevelopment activities, including abatement, demolition, site investigation and assessment, groundwater monitoring, installation of institutional controls, and professional services fees associated with redevelopment including attorney’s fees, and planning, design and consulting fees.

All projects were rated and ranked by an inter-agency committee based on ranking criteria which evaluated the applicant’s financial need, the feasibility of both the remediation and redevelopment project and the project’s consistency with responsible growth and livability initiatives.

For more on DECD’s state brownfield redevelopment programs and additional information on the rating and ranking criteria for this funding round, visit www.ctbrownfields.gov.

Contract Plating brownfield site on Longbrook Avenue. Greg Reilly photo.

The privately owned Scottish Rite theater in Stratford Center will no longer be available for use by Square One Theatre Company after it concludes its 25th season there in May. That means the approximately 5,000 theater guests who went there during a typical fall to spring season will be going to some other, not-yet-determined location for Square One’s performances.

The owners of the theater, the Scottish Rite Masons fraternal organization, will keep the use of the 240-seat theater, or meeting house, for its own group and for other Masons, according to Jack Farkas, secretary of the Valley of Bridgeport Lafayette Consistory Mason organization. “We do our work here,” he said.

One reason for the change, Farkas said, is that the Masons were not happy with the way the theater was left when various tenants or guest-users were finished.

“There was a tremendous amount of damage done by these groups,” he said. “They felt it was theirs, and they didn’t put it back” in the condition they found it.

Square One was the largest non-Mason user of the theater, paying about $10,000 per season to the Masons, according to Farkas. Smaller groups that occasionally used the space, church groups for example, paid “nothing or $300,” he said.

Square One Artistic Director Tom Holehan said that the fee paid to the Masons was over $14,000 last season. Regardless of the amount, Farkas said that the Masons could not use the space when Square One was in production; his group had to spend $6,000 to rent space elsewhere for its own purposes when their theater was occupied; and the cost to operate the building is $200,000 per year.

“We would rather give the ($6,000) money away” than pay to rent space for ourselves, Farkas said.

Masons’ philanthropy
Giving money away points to the other reason that the Masons decided to discontinue renting their theater to non-members. “We need the theater back to do our own work,” Farkas said.

The local Scottish Rite group uses the theater as a meeting house where they use the stage for performances to teach lessons about their organization and about “morality and virtues,” according to Farkas.

The Masonic tradition is about “helping our fellow man” and “becoming better men,” he said.

Another Masonic lodge in Stratford, at 3960 Main Street, is involved in providinggeriatric care. Those Masons own Connecticut Visiting Nurses, Farkas said. The Shriners, another division of Masons who have space in the same Stratford block as the Scottish Rite Masons, support medical burn units. The Scottish Rites’ philanthropy is in support of the Dyslexia Center in Connecticut, where children with the learning disabilities go and become better students, according to Farkas.

In addition to working on dyslexia, Farkas said, “We support almost everything in this community financially,” naming Sterling House, The Perry House and student scholarships. “Our members are members of the community.”

As a national organization, “We give away $1 million a day.”
“When Storm Sandy hit, we gave away $3 million in $500 gift cards in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut,” he said.

Farkas said that membership in Masonic groups is going up again, after dropping off from the peak in the 1950s and 1960s.

Where to Square One?
As for the professional theater that is Square One, a new venue is being sought for the 2015-2016 season, according to General Manager Richard Pheneger. “Our 25th anniversary season will take place as scheduled at the (Scottish Rite) Theatre through May 2015. Square One refers to the Scottish Rite Theatre as the Stratford Theatre in its literature and promotion.

“The Square One Theatre advisory board, headed by Jorge Santiago of The Milford Bank and Mike Vickerelli, are spearheading a search for a new site, in addition to the Town Council’s help, Pheneger said. He will be seeking help from the Chamber of Commerce too.

They are looking for a space with between 100 and 300 seats, according to Holehan. People with suggestions for the future location of Square One are invited to contact them. Both Holehan and Pheneger said the plan is to stay in Stratford.

Holehan said, “This is a blow to us. It took us by surprise.” He also disputed any suggestion that his group left the theater is poor condition. “We are very professional,” he said.

Pheneger and Holehan both expressed thank to the Scottish Rite Masons for allowing Square One to rent the theater for their first 25 years.

The entrance to the Scottish Rite theater on Main Street, just south of the railroad.

The following property transfers are copyrighted material previously published in the Commercial Record, a weekly trade paper. It is reprinted with permission from the publisher, The Warren Group, thewarrengroup.com.

396 Burritt Ave, Galt Holdings LLC to Ricardo Marmol, $206,000.

32 Columbus Ave, USA HUD to Gedilson Goncalves, $59,690.

118 Glenridge Rd, John and Dori Buonanno to Cheryl D. Proctor, $242,500.

25 Happy Hollow Cir Unit D, David and Bridget M. Greci to Laura J. Scharn, $202,500.

35 Hawley Gln Unit 35, Marilyn C. Merritt to Alber W. Chiarenzelli, $130,000.

507 Highland Ave, John S. and Johanna Swartley to Robert Matarazzo, $165,000.

116 Pumpkin Ground Rd, Stephanie T. Raytar and Brett R. Mcmahon to Paul R. and Deborah Olexovitch, $167,000.

76 Reeds Ln, FNMA to Judith Perez, $75,000.

88 South Trl Unit B, Frank and Francine Dobler to KRZ Remodeling LLC, $142,000.

1180 Stratford Ave, Stratford One LLC to Ansonia Riverview Aps LLC, $1.

555 Windsor Ave, Scheibel Leslie A Est and Richard Scheibel to Platinum Homes LLC, $112,500.

The Zoning Commission announced a second public hearing to address development of affordable housing at 3044 Main Street.

A proposed amendment to zoning regulations would create a new Section 28 entitled Housing Opportunity Development Zone.

The hearing will be Tuesday, Oct. 14, at 7 p.m. at the Baldwin Center.
Long Brook LLC has petitioned for approval of a site plan under Section 28 to build affordable housing where a long-vacated Victorian home currently stands, across Main Street from the Stratford YMCA.

The following property transfers are copyrighted material previously published in the Commercial Record, a weekly trade paper. It is reprinted with permission from the publisher, The Warren Group, thewarrengroup.com.

35 Barnum Ter, FHLM to Jingjing Ma, $95,000.

2720 Broadbridge Ave, John J. Labarca to Richard J. Pantano, $105,000.

3699 Broadbridge Ave Unit 219, Bayview Loan Servicing to Vincent and Rose A. Guidi, $55,500.

135 Claudia Dr, Alexandra Munoz to Glenford Bucknor, $250,000.

200 Dewey St, FNMA to Maria Deliz, $107,000.

278 Franklin Ave, Victor M. Rodriguez to Georgia N. Skroubelos and Dimitra H. Skroubleos, $289,000.

235 Henry Ave Unit 31e, Alfons and Edward S. Steinerts to Licari Properties LLC, $46,000.

1421 Main St, Siding Sheehan to Shannon T. Whittemore, $299,900.

435 Seabreeze Dr, Daniel P. Fearnley and Theresa Fearnely to Mary M. Slimak-Vining and Peter Vining, $240,000.

169 Thompson St, Edward and Richard Szamotula to William Salascascante, $220,000.

It is somewhat unusual to see prices up when unit sales are down in a market, but that has been the case with sales of single-family homes in Stratford for the first nine months of 2014 compared to the same period last year.

As indicated in the adjacent chart, unit sales are down 4% and prices are up 5%.

“Mortgages have been more difficult to get,” said Jerry Ward, regional brokerage manager of William Pitt Sotheby’s Real Estate Stratford office.

“Contracts are up significantly,” Ward said, which indicates there is still demand, but so is the “fall-through rate,” which is the number of contracts that do not convert to closed sales, often because the potential home buyers do not get a mortgage approved.

Another reason that prices of single-family Stratford homes are up is that, last year, there were more homes sold at the low end, including more foreclosures, and that segment of the market is now “cleared out,” according to Ward.

The distribution of inventory is now weighted toward the higher prices, which reflects the higher average price of homes sold.
Consistent with this analysis are the numbers showing that the biggest percentage increases in units and prices are in the upper end of the market.

According to Ward, among the increased number of single family homes now on market are more homes at the higher end “testing the market.”

Having fewer foreclosures sold this year has also contributed to homes, on average, selling a little faster. Foreclosures tend to take longer with a more complex settlement process between lenders and debtors.

In the Stratford condominium market, where unit sales were up 18% in the first nine months of the year, Ward said there are now more condo complexes that are FHA-approved, which means more lenders are able to make loans for the local market than were able to last year.

Source: Fairfield County Consolidated MLS

Ward said, “A lot of young families like condos as a segue between renting and a single-family home.”

Source: Fairfield County consolidated MLS

Ever since Mayor John Harkins and the Town Council started mentioning during the past year that the town may want to sell the land on which the Stratford Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) is situated to the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA), some residents have been asking questions about those possible transactions.

One of the questioning residents, Terry Masters, wrote letters in June and August to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) with copies to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state attorney general, and the U.S. senator from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal. Masters alerted those officials to WPCA paying $600,000 in an annual land use fee to the town and potentially using its reserve funds to buy land from the town.

Masters suggests in her letters that such uses of funds may be improper, because WPCA funds are intended for the operations and maintenance of the water pollution control facility.

A director at CT DEEP, Denise Ruzicka, wrote back to Masters in July saying, “The town and the WPCA have apparently previously negotiated a lease agreement for the use of the land … and are now negotiating a deal for the transfer of ownership of the land to the WPCA. Based on the information available to us, no violation of Connecticut statute or regulation has been identified.”

EPA is still studying
A regional manager at EPA, Mark Spinale, replied to Masters in September, giving her some encouragement, and said, “Actions which could adversely impact the financial integrity of the town’s treatment plant is a concern to the [EPA].”

Regarding “concerns about the impact on the WPCF if the town were to sell the land to the WPCA, using funds dedicated to eligible costs of operating and maintaining the treatment facility,” it “will take time to determine their legality and also their potential impact on the WPCF’s ability to return to compliance or maintain compliance with water quality objectives.”

Spinale’s letter said, “A member of my unit has been in touch with Connecticut’s Clean Water Fund at DEEP. In addition, EPA Region 1 staff has raised the issue to enforcement personnel to determine whether the potential financial transaction(s) proposed by the town could adversely impact the ability of the WPCF to comply with the requirements of administrative orders.”

Spinale’s letter referred to Connecticut General Statute 7-267, which says, “All benefit assessments and charges for connection with or use of the sewerage system, whether pledged for payment of bonds or notes or otherwise, shall be kept separate from other funds of the municipality and shall be used for the sewerage system, including the payment of debt incurred for the sewerage system and interest thereon, and for no other purpose.

Star’s Q & A
While EPA works with enforcement personnel and CT DEEP to form its opinion, The Star addressed Masters’ questions and others to the Harkins administration. Answers were obtained and provided by Chief of Staff Marc Dillon. He got the actual responses from a variety of sources in town hall, including the town attorney, the chief administrative officer and the finance department.

So, are the WPCA funds kept separate from the town’s municipal budget?
According to town hall, the WPCA is a separate legal entity, and, as an enterprise fund, its funds are accounted for separately from the town’s funds.

In Masters’ June letter to the state officials she stated that since 2010 the amount of the WPCA Reserve Fund “has never been specified.”

According to Dillon the amount of money in the reserve fund is specified each year in the town’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, a public document, also known as the audit report.

The WPCA Fund Balance is found in Exhibit V of the 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The Waste Operating Funds Unrestricted (Reserve) Fund Balance as of June 30, 2013, was $5,204,621.

“A more recent fund balance value will not be available until the fiscal year 2014 audit is complete,” town hall said, and that is expected in December.

Land purchase and fund balance
In Masters’ June letter she wrote that in order to comply with EPA Sewer Collection and DEEP Clarifier Improvement Project administrative orders, “the town must adequately fund the operations and maintenance of the water pollution control facility and hold reserve funds for unanticipated failures and long-term planning.”

It is not known how much of the WPCA reserve fund would be used to acquire land, if the decision to acquire land is made. Stratford’s finance director has said that, if a decision were made for WPCA to acquire land, she would recommend that the WPCA use a combination of its reserve fund and bonded/borrowed monies.

Leaving the reserve fund very low could jeopardize the WPCA’s ability to make any and all unforeseeable repairs to the water treatment equipment, according to Masters, and that could mean not being able to comply with environmental protection standards. This is a key component of Masters’ argument against use of the reserve fund for land acquisition.

When asked if it would be advisable to take the reserve balance down to a very low level to pay for land, the town was not specific. “The level of funding for the reserve is a product of the rate sewer users pay, to a large extent,” said the written response provided by Dillon. “The authority and the administration constantly try and find a balance between a healthy reserve fund and the ratepayers’ ability to pay.”

The likelihood of a sale
The town’s current municipal budget was approved by the Town Council with a $4.5-million revenue shortfall, because the council chose not to have more property taxes cover it. At the time of the budget passage, the mayor’s office distributed a list of town-owned properties that, it said, could be sold to cover the $4.5-million budgeted shortfall.

The town-owned WPCA land, with an stated assessed value of $5.6 million was the only property on the list with an assessed value over $1.5 million.
The town would not say recently if it expects to sell any of the roughly 30 properties on its for-sale list in order to cover the town’s budget shortfall. “We continue to market all of the properties on the list, but we do not comment on real estate negotiations,” it said.

The chance that the land at the WPCF is selected to be sold to cover the town budget shortfall is considered likely by some, not only because of the higher value of the land but also because the town has a direct connection to the buyer. The 10 persons who make up the Town Council and would vote whether to sell the land are the same 10 persons who constitute the WPCA who would vote whether to buy the land.

Masters refers to this possibility in an August letter to DEEP and EPA as an “illegal money grab from town hall.”

Legal opinions on use of WPCA funds
Responding to Masters’ suggestion that using WPCA funds to pay rent or acquire land could represent “financial impropriety,” because WPCA funds are for the sewerage system and for no other purpose, Ruzicka wrote, “We have determined that funds acquired under the user charge system are not being diverted to uses not related to wastewater.”

The town’s legal opinion agrees with DEEP’s opinion. Dillon wrote, “The answer I received is that the WPCA has the legal authority to acquire and dispose of real and personal property incidental to its purpose of handling sanitary sewer effluent. In other words, the WPCA can buy land, buildings, vehicles or anything else it needs to serve its purpose and can sell same when it no longer needs them.”

Specifically regarding the use of funds to pay rent, Dillon wrote, “According to the lawyers, acquisition of land or any other appropriate item can be by purchase or lease.”

The same opinion applies to the WPCA reimbursing the town for administrative overhead expenses.

The town agreed with the hypothetical proposition that if it were no longer to own the land on which WPC facilities sit, it would no longer charge WPCA a land use fee.

The town added, “The June 30, 2013 (reserve) Fund Balance is unrestricted. This fund balance can be used for items such as ongoing capital repairs and maintenance, ongoing annual debt service related to the $60 million plant upgrades completed in October of 2010, or rate stabilization from year to year, as a few examples.”

More questions
Another set of questions is sure to arise if the mayor recommends that the entire WPCF be sold to and operated by a different authority outside Stratford.

First term town councilman Peter Massey (R-1st) resigned his position as chairman of the Stratford Water Pollution Control Authority, and Town Council chairman Joe Kubic was unanimously approved to chair the WPCA.

The Town Council accepted Massey’s WPCA resignation and approved of Kubic replacing him at the Council’s monthly meeting Nov. 10.

The WPCA is comprised of the 10 members of the Town Council. WPCA is legally a separate entity from the Town of Stratford and has a separate enterprise fund budget, but it is administered by town hall and overseen by the people elected to the Town Council.

Massey told The Star after the Council meeting that he resigned because he “does not have enough time to get to all the meetings.” Massey and his family are owners of Knapp’s Landing restaurant.

Massey said he was approached by Kubic about making the change in WPCA leadership and he agreed.

Asked whether or not part of the reason for resigning was his relative inexperience as a chairman of town body, especially as WPCA is expected to become a top issue in town during the next few months, Massey said “yes and no.”

Mayor John Harkins and his administration has been studying whether or not to recommend that the WPCA be sold or become part of a new regional water authority. Part of that analysis, the details of which have not yet been released to the public, includes whether or not to recommend that the WPCA acquires from the town the nine acres of land on which the water facilities are situated.

Recommendations from the mayor and actions by the 10-person authority are expected between now and February or March when the 2016 budget plans are made public.

Massey said it has been recent tradition to have the 1st district councilman be the chairman of the WPCA, but it does not have to be that way. A number of assignment of councilperson are being changed to accommodate the work schedules and other commitments of the council members, Massey said.

The following property transfers are copyrighted material previously published in the Commercial Record, a weekly trade paper. It is reprinted with permission from the publisher, The Warren Group, thewarrengroup.com.

195 Charles St, James Toigo to 195 Charles Street LLC, $150,000.

970 Cutspring Rd, Thomas and Mary P. Gorman to Marcin and Sylvia Munia, $276,900.

47 Eunice Pkwy, Todd A. and Stephanie L. Rovero to Daniel Laferlita and Erica Bressman, $347,500.

707 Hawley Ln Unit 9, Harlan G. Milkove to Todd Nass, $140,000.

359 Hollister St, Sheridan Hancock Assoc to Hancock Street Holding Co, $400,000.

71 Linksview Pl, Michael P. and Melissa A. Miller to Nicholas and Jacyln Torres, $317,000.

70 Nemergut Dr, Bank Of America NA to Eliano Teixeira, $130,000.

782 North Trl Unit A, Joan N. Gelbert to James Schlenk and Karen Kiely, $220,000.

45 Okenuck Trl, Duffy Loretta J Est and Anna M. Giroux to Mary Gorman, $237,000.

45 Parkland Dr, Myer Anna Est and Alan Myer to Jennifer L. Mosher and Christian E. Steinnagel, $235,000.

65 River Bend Rd Unit B, Carol L. Drew to Nicole Delgais, $185,000.

103 Terrill Rd, Paulo R. and Caitlin Esteves to Lisa Bandoo, $275,000.

An affordable housing site plan has been put on hold by the zoning commission while the town assesses if rebuttal evidence introduced by the applicant at a public hearing on Oct. 28 is admissible.

At the hearing, the third regarding a proposal to develop 3044 Main Street into 54 two-bedroom units over two buildings, attorney Stephen Bellis, who represented the developer, Longbrook Station LLC, presented rebuttal testimony arguing for the site plan, and he included revisions to the original plan.

The current structure at 3044 Main Street, the site proposed for an ‘affordable’ housing development.

Attorney Kevin Kelly argued on behalf of the town that revisions presented were so extensive that they would require a new petition.

Bellis brought an engineer to present rebuttal testimony to the town’s stated concerns about possible flooding of adjacent properties during large weather events. The proposed development site shares a property line with the Stratford Police Department.

Additionally, project architect Pat Rose illustrated adjustments to the site plan that would address concerns presented in the town’s previous testimony, including fire lane access, parking, staircase access, and traffic.

At the second public hearing on Oct. 14 at the Baldwin Center, Kelly presented the town’s case, during which five engineering and public safety witnesses testified to the public safety concerns.

“You could easily fix these things,” Bellis told The Star after the meeting. “They are not insurmountable problems. Under the affordable housing statute, if you can make a reasonable correction to deficiencies, that should be considered by the commission.”

The commission has 65 days from Oct. 28 to act on the project from the date of the final hearing. Dave Fuller, zoning commission chairman, said the commission has asked the town attorney to “vet the rebuttal to see what is admissible.”

In a Zoning Commission administrative session Nov. 10, Assistant Town Attorney John Florek told commissioners the rebuttal on drainage was allowed, but the revised plans altering fire lanes and exits would “violate due process” and would not be considered, according to Stratford Planning and Zoning Administrator Gary Lorentson.

“The commission must rule on the information they have right now,” Lorentson said. “If the commission denies [the site plan] or it is approved with major changes, the statute that applies states they can submit a revised plan in an expedited time frame. And there would be another public hearing on that matter.”

Longbrook Station presented its applications at the first public hearing on Sept. 30. The developers submitted three applications to the zoning commission related to the project, which are awaiting a vote: an amendment to create a new Section 28 affordable housing development; a petition to rezone the property into said newly created zone; and an approval of their site plan.

According to Fuller, the commission is considering each petition separately. It is possible, he said, for a site plan to be approved without zoning approval, for example.