A resident told elected officials last week that the Regional Water Authority is legally prohibited from putting a 1 million gallon water storage tank on city-owned land next to the entrance to Derby High School on Chatfield Street.
Sharlene McEvoy, an Emmett Avenue resident, attended a Derby Aldermen subcommittee meeting May 12 with a report from a environmental consulting company.
She said a deed on the publicly-owned land from 1935 “restricts use of the land for a public park.”
“Not only is it a bad idea, it’s also illegal,” McEvoy said.
Background
Regional Water Authority has been trying to put a water storage tank in west Derby for years.
The company says a storage tank would bolster the water supply lines west of the Naugatuck River.
The utility company says the system is prone to losing water pressure when there is a large demand for water, such as during fires or other emergencies.
“On average, the tank will increase fire protection by providing an additional 1,250 gallons per minute of flow to fight fires,” the utility company states on a website dedicated to the tank.
In 2013 the utility company wanted to put a 2 million gallon water storage tank at the top of Telescope Mountain on Summit Street. That plan was meant with universal opposition from neighbors who worried about truck traffic and dynamite blasting.
In February, Regional Water Authority returned to Derby City Hall with a new location for the tank, which is now 1 million gallons smaller than the company’s 2013 proposal.
They have yet to file a formal application with Derby. City Aldermen have not said whether they are willing to sell the land to the water company.
During an Aldermen’s meeting last month, company officials said they hope to buy about two acres next to the high school for the new tank. They pointed out the location is not close to residential neighborhoods, at least not in comparison to the 2013 proposal.
Opposition
But McEvoy, who also opposed the 2013 proposal, said the new location is not suitable for a 1 million gallon water tank. She noted there’s a two-family house nearby, along with a nursing facility and a state park.
She opposed the potential sale of the city-owned land, and she opposed the land being used in any way not allowed in the deed governing the land.
The article continues after the map:
Water Tank Map by ValleyIndyDotOrg
She gave the subcommittee a report from Steve Danzer, an environmental consultant hired by “neighboring parties,” according to the report.
Danzer’s report summary identifies four issues that highlight the site’s problems.
They are:
- The land was originally granted to the city to be used as a public park.
- The change in land use is inconsistent with Derby’s currently adopted Plan of Conservation and Development.
- The land has inherent ecological value that would not necessarily be preserved in the change in land use.
- The parcel itself is fairly unique in that there is a scarcity of similar wooded parcels zoned as Public in Derby suitable for public enjoyment.
After the meeting McEvoy, a business law professor at Fairfield University, pointed to a 1934 article in The Evening Sentinel newspaper that reported on the City’s purchase of the land in question “for a public park, and for general civic, educational, school and municipal purposes.”
The 1934 Sentinel reported the property was formerly owned by the Downes Estate.
“In 80 years that land has been used for public purposes,” McEvoy said.
She also questioned the sale of the land to a private company. “It’s the only land available (in Derby) that’s really untouched at this time.”
Presumably, city lawyers and the utility company’s lawyers will be doing some research to look into McEvoy’s statements.
Edward O. Norris, a vice president of asset management for the Regional Water Authority, was at the subcommittee meeting hoping to eventually get permission to drill test borings on the land to get an idea of what’s under the soil.
But the subcommittee, after hearing McEvoy’s concerns, did not act on the request.
“We’re not aware of what was presented (by McEvoy) this evening in terms of restrictions,” Norris said.
McEvoy indicated she would be following the proposal if it moves forward.
“I’m sure there will be legal consequences if the city goes forward with this proposal,” she said.
