Amy Murphy Carroll

‘I’ve Had Great People Around Me’: Mose Saccary To Retire After 44 Years with the DPW

By |

Mose Saccary, East Avenue-raised son of a Nova Scotian coal miner, graduated from New Canaan High School in 1978 after coming up through Center School and Saxe. He worked several jobs out of school, including for the architect Dinyar Wadia, at Grand Union and at Walter Stewart’s (“We actually lived on Seminary Street by then, so I could jump the wall,” Saccary recalled.)

“Before that, I worked for Joe’s Pizza when I was about 10,” he told NewCanaanite.com. On graduating NCHS, he learned that two buddies—Joey Lucas, a ‘78 classmate, and Walt Jaykus, one year below—had taken jobs with the town’s Department of Public Works. “I got interested in it and came on board and never looked back,” Saccary said. That was April 1980, and he started as a laborer.

Footer Featured Widget

Pastures Lane Neighbors: New Fence Violates Zoning Regulations

By |

The neighbors of a Pastures Lane homeowner say a deer fence installed on the property violates local zoning regulations. Specifically, according to an appeal filed July 30 on behalf of Colleen Sheldon and David Schwartz, the fence and appurtenances at 78-92 Pastures Lane—adjoining lots owned by the same Wilmington, Del.-based limited liability company— “are not of dark color and do not blend with the natural landscape” and the fence “is clearly visible from a distance of 50 feet.”

“[W]hen you enter Pastures Lane and begin to drive down the road, you come upon the beginning of the property and immediately see a large and very visible deer fence,” according to the letter, filed on behalf of the appellants by attorney Todd Lampert of New Canaan-based Lampert Toohey & Rucci, LLC. 

Under the New Canaan Zoning Regulations, any deer fence installed in a  front yard “shall be installed in a wooded area and/or shall be screened from the street by landscaping” and “such fence shall be of open design such that it is not especially visible at a distance of fifty feet” (see page 156 here). What specifically is under appeal is a building permit issued June 12 by the town. The permit itself appears to make no reference to fencing—instead, it calls for an approximately $44,000 automated gate installation. 

According to the appeal, the deer fence “also violates New Canaan Zoning setback regulations in that it is over four feet in height and only 23 feet from the road, which is within the 45-foot front yard setback for two-acre zones.”

Backing up their claim that the fence is visible from 50 feet, the appellants say that “when you enter the accessway off of the Pastures Lane cul-de-sac, the deer fence again picks up at a height of eight feet.” That would be a violation even if town officials conclude that the fence runs along a side yard rather than a front yard because in that case “the deer fence would need to start at a height of four feet until it reaches a distance of 45 feet from the cul-de-sac which is [the] front yard. The fence as it now sits is eight feet above grade.”

The fence itself also “abuts a neighbor located at 96 Pastures Lane,” the letter said.

Government

Town Attorney’s Firm Opens ‘Finance Department Complaint/Investigation’

By |

Town officials on Tuesday approved payment of a legal bill that includes an item listed as “Finance Department Complaint/Investigation.”

The town attorney’s firm has charged $4,335, at an hourly rate of $170, for more than 25 hours of work on the matter since July 1, according to a legal bill approved unanimously by the Board of Selectmen during its regular meeting, held at Town Hall and via videoconference. It wasn’t immediately clear what the investigation involves, who’s at the center of it or who lodged a complaint. Asked about it after the meeting, First Selectman Dionna Carlson declined to comment because it’s an active matter involving town personnel. 

The work done by the town attorney’s firm includes communications with a union representative, “fact-finding,” conducting “witness” interviews and researching “paid medical leave,” according to line items listed in the bill (available here in full, see final pages) from Berchem Moses PC, as follows: 

“Update question outline for employee-respondent based on interviews conducted: draft investigatory interview summaries and notes; teleconference with union representative re: fact-finding changes; update fact-finding schedule and draft email to witnesses re: schedule change.” (July 1)
“Draft, update and revise interview summaries to date; revise and distribute updated fact-finding notices.” (July 3)
“Review and respond to various email correspondence with employee witnesses re: fact-finding interviews.” (July 9)
“Draft, review and respond to various email correspondence with union representatives and employee witnesses re: fact finding interviews; teleconference with union representative re: fact finding interviews; revise interview questions and outline.” (July 10)
“Review and revise questions for forthcoming investigation interviews on 7-18; prepare for investigation interviews.” (July 17)
“Prepare for and attend investigatory interviews; update interview notes.” (July 17)
“Review and update question outlines for forthcoming witness interviews; review and respond to email correspondence with union representative re: witness interviews.” (July 30)
“Prepare for and attend investigation interviews; organize interview notes.” (July 31)
“Conduct legal research re: paid medical leave.” (July 31)
“Prepare for and attend investigation interviews; organize interview notes.” (July 31)

The attorney handling the work for the law firm is listed as ‘CRH’ in the bill, an apparent reference to Christopher R. Henderson. According to the Berchem Moses website, he “is an Associate Attorney in the firm’s Labor and Employment Department.”

Other than the firm’s $8,500 monthly retainer, the complaint and investigation represent the second most-expensive single item in the overall $29,257 July bill (the highest being a five-year-old zoning appeal regarding Grace Farms, at $4,488.50). 

Members of the Board—Carlson and Selectmen Steve Karl and Amy Murphy Carroll—made no comment on the bill in approving it at the meeting.

Government

Selectmen, Commission ID Wages Issue within NCPD

By |

The New Canaanite 2024 Summer Internship Program is sponsored by Karp Associates. Town officials this month discussed what they described as an ongoing salary issue among New Canaan’s finest. 

During the Ag. 6 meeting of the Board of Selectmen, members of the Police Commission asked the selectmen for percentage salary increases for the highest-ranking members of the New Canaan Police Department. Paul Foley, a member of the appointed body, asked the Board to increase the deputy chief and captain’s salary from 2.75% to 3%, and the chief’s from 2.75% to 3.5%. During the meeting, held in Town Hall and via videoconference, Foley said these increases aren’t “quite where other departments are, but it gets them bumped up a bit.”

Foley said the increases would send a message to the rest of the staff that “there is some room for compensation increase.”

Foley said the department has been dealing with an issue where there’s a lack of individuals moving into administration positions.

Dionna Carlson

Affordable Housing: New Canaan Earns Four Years of Relief from State Law

By |

In a win for the municipality, state officials have granted New Canaan four years of relief from a widely discussed affordable housing law, First Selectman Dionna Carlson announced Monday. The Connecticut Department of Housing has approved the town’s re-application for a four-year “moratorium” from the state law known by its statute number, 8-30g, Carlson said in a press release. As a result, “housing developers may not bypass local zoning regulations for a four-year period,” the press release said. The approval is not expected to affect three existing applications for housing developments under 8-30g, at Weed and Elm Streets (120 units), Main Street (20 units) and Hill Street (93 units). Denied by the local Planning & Zoning Commission, those applications are under appeal in state Superior Court.