Ken Dooley Dr./Boardman Ln Site


Ken Dooley Dr./Boardman Lane Site

Description: Site submitted by developers and landowner. The site contains 37 acres in the Millennium Industrial Park on Ken Dooley Road and approximately 88 acres on the Boardman Lane site. Both sites are industrially zoned.

The time period for posting comments on “Suggeted Sites” has expired.  The comments submitted are listed on the right.

 Thanks!

36 responses to “Ken Dooley Dr./Boardman Ln Site

  1. The Boardman Lane site was evaluated in depth by the City of Middletown on two occasions. The first evaluation resulted in Resolution 134-08 (Concerning the Army Training Facility proposed for Boardman Lane). The resolution very forcefully enumerates the many reasons why the Boardman Lane site is unsuitable for a new Armed Forces Reserve Center. Its unanimous passage at the August 4th Common Council affirms the clear consensus in our town that the Boardman Lane site is UNSUITABLE. Here are some of the reasons why they determined that Boardman Lane is unsuitable:
    • Whereas, the Water and Sewer Department has indicated serious concerns regarding the public water systems ability to service a project of this size …
    • Whereas, the site’s only access is from a residential/local road ….
    • Whereas the non-wetlands areas are predominantly characterized by slopes of 15-20% with a shallow depth to bedrock;
    • Whereas, extensive site grading and blasting would be necessary …
    • Whereas, there would be a complete alteration, cutting, filling, and destruction of almost the entire non wetland area …
    • Whereas, this wetland system has been evaluated and ranked as the 5th most important wetland system within the City of Middletown;
    • Whereas, the State of Connecticut’s Natural Diversity Database identifies three (3) species of special concern within the property…
    • Whereas, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1960, as amended requires the Army to consider feasible and prudent alternatives …
    • Whereas, the city of Middletown Common Council presented to the Army a feasible and prudent alternative…

    NONE OF THE ABOVE REASONS ARE CHANGED BY THE KEN DOOLEY DRIVE ENTRANCE, AND IN FACT MANY ARE MADE WORSE!!!! The entrance has been moved from a small country lane to a small residential road. The blasting required will be much worse. The wetlands remain extremely important and fragile, subject to severe disruption by any activity in the area. The Ken Dooley property is more squarely in the middle of the NDDB maps of concern.

    Last week the Mayor’s advisory panel evaluated a Boardman Lane/Ken Dooley Drive possibility (we called it “Boardman plus”). It was unanimously rejected.

    JUST WHAT PART OF “NO!” DO YOU HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING?

  2. Jasper Cane

    Hair of the Dog

    I do not see how the Advisory Panel, kept River Road on their list. Or how Mile Lane was never considered. Catherine Johnson observed that the pseudoscientific site “rating” numbers (Panel Points) present an interpretation of reality that reflects the desires of the Panel more than the actual reality. Does disappearing Cucia Park (9.4 PP) really “Enhance Middletown in a Meaninmgful Way” more than using the Bysiewicz Property (0 PP) as an Army facility instead of an Industrial Subdivision? They are a stone’s throw apart… How about another category, like creates potential tax loss of 650,000 annually for city of Middletown? Mile Lane could really shine. Some of the best things in life are free. Is there no value in a Park? So much form and so little substance emerged from all this PP! This is the result of the cowardly collaborative response by our leaders to the demands of the Army to squeeze itself into our City. If this project is delayed, the Army says it will cut off its nose to spite its face by not constructing this facility at all. How foolish is that?

    The process continues its painful bite.

    Jasper Cane

  3. locked and loaded

    The Army Corps of Engineers has neglected to do an assessment of the debasement of the quality of life for local families and children. You fail to see the anger and outrage we feel. You cowardly cloak yourselves in the American flag and invoke patriotism as a tool to do whatever you want. We regard your stooges that you trot out at public forums like whores. You expect us to address to them our concerns, but all they do is pay us lip-service. Nothing ever comes of our respectfully spoken complaining.

    If you come in here, especially at the property on Kenneth Dooley Drive, you and the entire American military establishment, I believe, will be despised by those of us who are forced to live with this outcome.

  4. Lori Toussaint

    The fact the Army has chosen to keep Boardman on its list of sites indicates that they are not working WITH the residents, Elected City, State or Federal Officials whom have repeatedly expressed concern that Boardman should not be considered as it is not suitable for many reasons. Because they change the location of the entrance the ACOE now feels this changes everything. It doesn’t matter if you drop the reservist in by parachute, or have them tunnel their way in “Boardman is not suitable”.
    COME ON ACOE work with us, not against us

  5. Sharon Pickerill

    Once again I am disillusioned with the Army and its apparent disregard for the people of Middletown,CT.
    What the Army wants it gets?
    What the citizens (part of the citizen army you speak of so highly ) of Middletown want is ignored?

    The Army set this up as a win-lose, with Middletown paying the price twice. Once for the loss of a piece of land that is held in high regard by the citizens, and especially the neighboring ones to the property. Then in the intimidation that is felt by those same citizens by the Army.

    How can that ever be a win-win situation?
    The Army personnel will be regarded as intruders and they will sense that from Middletown citizens everywhere. Is that your idea of good community ties? Not even close!!

    Take Boardman Lane off the list and lets get on with what will work for all of us.

  6. Linda Manthay

    It is amazing to me that the Boardman Lane site just keeps reappearing after there have been so many objections by residents, city and state officials. I just don’t understand what it is about this site that the Army seems to be insisting on putting a training center there. So many problems and objections have been pointed out as to why it shouldn’t be there but they all seem to be ignored. It is very frustrating to most of us.

  7. P. Lawson

    Adding an entrance through Kenneth Dooley Drive does NOT remove the site and traffic from proximity to residential neighborhoods. In fact, it has all the same environmental, traffic, and quality of life issues that the original Boardman site presented, plus it brings the traffic straight into a neighborhood of narrow roads inhabitated by 90 families.

    Please do NOT think that adding the Dooley route makes Boardman okay. Boardman, in any form, is unacceptable.

  8. M'town resident

    David Dale, deputy district engineer for the Army CoE says:

    “We have some very viable sites. All the sites are going to have some sort of impact. The question is which one has the least impact.”

    The answer is:

    Boardman, via Dooley, has the MOST impact, so you can cross it off the list right now.

  9. J. Thomson

    I agree Boardman/Dooley is the nicest most pristine land, our government shouldnt be raping it.

  10. J morello

    The Ken Dooley developer is just hoping the Army is as dumb as he was when he bought this land. Why has this land sat undeveloped for over 20 years just like Boardman Lane.

    Its all rock, just look at the vitamin facotry on Ken Dooley, all rock.

    the developer propoposed a huge distribution facility only to realize it would cost to much and then the Army Corp said he couldnt go near the wetlands on the site so now he is stuck with worthless land. Should the federal government bail him out like they do everyone else? Should the Army Corp develop land they wouldnt let the private sector develop? The environmental impacts on Ken Dooley and Boardman are huge, disrupting one half of the watershed to the 5th best wetland in town. Back off Army. The Atty Gen. will tie you up in court for ever and this will never make it through your NEPA process. Go to Cucia and make the town happy for a change.

  11. Matthew Lesser

    I write in strong opposition to a Boardman Lane location for the facility. Locating the AFRC on Boardman Lane would change the character of the neighborhood. The current plan would require a significant amount of blasting and place an undue stress on neighbors. Other sites are more compatible with the existing character of Middletown.

  12. Concerned and Questioning

    WHY?

    On the Middletown Residential Property Card Record available on line at the City of Middletown web site, 218 Boardman is listed with two cards. Kenneth Dooley Dr has one. They are as follows.

    Owner Information
    Middle Boardman Assoc Ltd Ptshp C/O Green & Gross
    1087 Broad St
    Bridgeport CT 06604

    Information that remains the same is not repeated.
    Account R14139
    Card 1
    Map-Block-Lot 02 6-1 16
    Location 218 BOARDMAN LA
    Zoning R-60
    State Class 132 – Undevelopable Land
    Acres 87.98
    —————————
    Valuation
    Land: 39,200
    Building:
    Total: 39,200
    Net Assessment: 27,440
    ____________________________
    Account R07828
    Zoning R-60
    State Class 101 Single Family
    Acres 1
    ————————————-
    Valuation
    Land: 117,300
    Building: 163,680
    Total: 280,980
    Net Assessment: 196,690
    ___________________________
    Owner Information
    Kenneth Dooley Holdings Llc
    10 Wall St
    Norwalk CT 06850

    Account: R12457
    Card: 1
    Map-Block-Lot: 02 6-1 20A,
    Location: KENNETH DOOLEY DR
    Zoning: IT
    State Class : 390 Commercial Developable Land
    Acres: 39
    ————————————————–
    Valuation
    Land: 782,500
    Building:
    Total: 782,500
    Net Assessment: 547,750

    The City’s GIS web site lists the Dooley property as industrially zoned. Boardman does not have a zone listed. HUM? When and how did re-zoning take place, if at all? In making a deductive leap-it appears a change may have happened sometime recently. Otherwise, why is a one-acre lot valuation worth 3x more than an 87.98 acre lot? Why is the Dooley Dr. property the most valuable of them all? On exactly what part of the parcels of land in question will the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) build on? Is a new road or extension of a road to be built, and does anyone else benefit financially or otherwise from the use of a new road, beside the army?

    I keep asking myself why is the ACOE so invested in the Boardman Lane/Ken Dooley Jr. property? What missing piece of the puzzle is the brass holding? First puzzle; what do they want in a property—what reasons are not being given, for national security, and other state “secrets”—that makes BoardDooley attractive enough to keep this site on the list of four, despite the fact they knew, had to know they would surprise and draw ire from many city residents, and government officials city and state wide? Is it the relative seclusion and privacy this property can offer compared to other properties? Of the properties directly adjacent to Boardman and Dooley who are the owners, what is the size of those properties, and is there any connections that can be made? Can we look at what the Maromas site offered as it is the only other site we know of that the ACOE was seriously interested in and draw some conclusions? What price (IF ANY) will the ACOE pay for the Boardman/Dooley properties; is there some kind of sweetheart deal going down at BoardDooley? Just what makes this property “unique” enough to keep the interest of the Federal Government; I would really like to know? The other puzzle is not even on the table yet, the box still has shrink-wrap around it, and we have no idea of how many pieces are missing from that puzzle box. What have we not been told, that we do not know enough about to even ask?

    I’m really concerned that this site will emerge as the ACOE first choice, and we may never have full discloser as to why it was the first choice.

    Granted all we can do is speculate, but if anyone has any knowledge, credible hearsay, or theories of how to connect the dots, by all means please put it out there. I hope someone downtown or at the state level is connecting some dots as I write, to keep these properties from becoming owned by the federal government. Dare I even ask, what if 10, 20 or 50 years from now we find out that the feds changed their land use policy as stated to us, and the city and nearby residents find out that environmental hazards, and hazardous waste products have been used and left on this site, and then leave the land once again and seek to develop yet another piece of property somewhere else. Personally I think they should be fixing up Mile Line on FED dollar, (not that they have any dollars left to spend) and hosting our men and women on the site they currently own. It costs the city nothing, and brings the men and women who will work at and visit the facility much closer to our downtown, Mile Lane is the only site with potential to shed economic long-term advantages to business’s of the city.

  13. Fed Fool

    Why won’t the Army let go of Boadman Lane? Because they chose that site early in the process and do not have the ability to change their direction, even if they wanted to.

    The federal government is like a huge freighter ship. It can not slow and change direction, even when danger is imminent. They are just too big.

    So when the people of the City of Middletown voice their well justified opinions to the Army, the army gives them lip service, bringing out the handsome, uniformed, “gee-wiz, shucks ma’am” coin giving, lietenant to smooth things over. –But they just keep doing what they have been doing because they were not given any orders not to.

    The locals have suggested Cucia Park. Take it!!
    It meets all the specks you have set forth! It will show that you can be open minded and willing to work with your future host City. Give an order to turn the freighter ship around!

  14. Pam T

    I believe the Boardman Lane site is unacceptable. It makes no difference what entrance the Army uses to access the property. The quality of life for the people in the area will be negatively impacted. Please do the right thing and reuse Mile Lane site.

  15. Longtime Westfield Resident

    I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Boardman Lane site, for the numerous reasons that have been discussed in the community and in the media for months. This site obviously would have the largest impact on the local community…traffic, water supply, wetlands, blasting, not to mention the aesthetic aspects of losing pristine farmland in our country community. Now that new sites have been identified, and ones that make so much more sense (Cucia Park), why then is Boardman Lane still being considered? I hope that this process of gathering the opinions of local residents is a sincere effort to choose the location with the best fit. If it is, the Army officials will move forward with a site other than Boardman Lane.

  16. A rose by any other name....

    And if it stinks it ain’t a rose. Boardman lane, Kenneth Dooley/Boardman, Kenneth Dooley, Timber Ridge…whatever they try to call it and however they try to distance themselves from the despised Boardman Lane designation, its still the same area and the same issues and totally unacceptable. Same environmental issues, same species of concern, more blasting, increased traffic, increased noise, quality of life issues, all the same. And the answer is still the same – NO. Why would the army even want to be surrounded by hostile neighbors? Why would they even want to start out the wrong foot, and go downhill from there?

    Thanks to the last minute change of emphasis from Boardman to Kenneth Dooley, the folks at the bottom of Timber Ridge have a freight train headed in their direction they are not even aware of. Run – get off the tracks! Many of these backyards are likely to be within several hundred feet of the proposed facility. According to research on google earth, there is an eye popping 1300 single family homes (estimate) within 1.25 miles of Kenneth Dooley! A facility of this size that operates primarily on weekends does not belong in a residential area like Boardman or Kenneth Dooley. Go to Cucia where everyone seems to want you. If after all of this pain and anguish, the Army still goes to Dooley or Boardman, or if it is even ends up being the 2nd choice (then later by default the 1st choice) we will know for sure this was all lip service and smoke screen and they weren’t really listening or caring at all.

  17. Bill Hawkins

    For the Boardman Lane/Ken Dooley site to remain on the “final four” list is a travesty. Sitting through the the last meeting and hearing that eleven other sites are; too steep, too costly, too much wetlands, too close to a residential area, etc.
    All of these detriments and more are present at the Boardman Lane site.
    WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOARDMAN LANE SITE UNDER ANY CONFIGURATION IS UNSUITABLE?
    Everything you say in the meetings is that you want to be open with the residents of Middletown.
    What is the real reason for your persistence in keeping this site on the list?

  18. Jennifer Mahr

    No matter where the base entrance is located(Boardman Lane or Kenneth Dooley Drive), construction of a military base at the Boardman Lane location would cause unacceptable harm to a property with significant environmental, historic and economic value to the City of Middletown.

    The blasting required to complete this project would threaten the foundations and/or wells of the approximate 600 homes within a mile of the construction site. I cannot see how millions spent for pre-blast inspections and then the blasting itself can be justified when other possible locations exist that do not need blasting. I also believe that heavy and prolonged blasting would not benefit the incredibly restrictive timeline the ACOE keeps reminding us it’s on.

    Additionally, for an entity that claims it wants to be a good neighbor who brings peace and harmony to the surrounding area, I cannot believe that Boardman Lane is still on the list. If the persistant negative response from the surrounding residential neighborhoods isn’t enough reason to drop this site, perhaps the Attorney General’s promise to sue to ensure a full EIS is conducted will.

    Do yourself and your timeline a favor: drop Boardman Lane from further consideration. The city has plainly spoken for Cucia Park, a super majority of Westfield residents supports that location, and there is no question that redevelopment of a former brick yard supports the smart growth principles that Governor Rell has established.

  19. Westfield Resident

    Boardman Lane is not the site the City or its citizens want for the Army Facility.

    Don’t be a pushy neighbor and make this happen despite the lengthy list of reasons given by Middletown and its people.

    This would be a lose-lose situation for all.

  20. We have significant concerns about the Army choosing this site. It is our understanding that there will be consequences to the neighborhood that far outweigh the benefits. It is also our understanding that the construction of the site could have an effect on the structure of our homes. We are against this proposal and suggest that a less populated site be chosen.

  21. Cocerned Resident

    I moved into the timber ridge neighborhood a couple years ago planning to start a family. In this quiet peaceful neighborhood and now all the dreams me and my wife had when we found this house in what we felt as a perfect setting is gonna be destroyed. I dont know much about the mile lane area but to me that seems like the only logical place as it is already in the possesion of the armed forces. If the boardman site is pushed through me and my wife feel there is no other choice but to cut our losses and leave which we really dont wanna have to do but if our hand is forced we will not even think of calling middletown home ever again and pay taxes on something that has clearly been rejected by its residents.

  22. Westfield Resident

    Boardman Lane could play into the use of Cucia Park as a military site. Use the money from the sale of Cucia and rezone Boardman Lane as “open spaces”, thus retaining a two century old working farm.

  23. Bill Dougherty

    As a result of the many issues surrounding this project and the varied opinions of Middletown residents and the elected officials, Mayor Giuliano put together an advisory committee headed by one of the Common Council members and non-elected resident representatives from different geographical areas of the city. This committee, working with the city’s planning and zoning officials, reviewed all available parcels of property that could possibly accommodate the army reserve base. The committee ranked the suitable sites and came forth with a unanimously agreed upon list of 4 top sites and presented these to the Mayor – this list was also passed along to the appropriate parties at the Army Corps of Engineers.

    Of the sites found suitable by the city, the Army Corps selected only two for their list and still maintains the Boardman site for consideration. The Army Corps have a list of four potential sites:

    1. Ken Dooley/Boardman – the Army Corps have kept the Boardman site on the list, however they have changed the manner in which they now identify it, since they maintain that access to the facility will be via Ken Dooley Road rather than Boardman Lane. The army states that environmental testing is currently in process on this site – box turtles and sedge grass have both been verified to exist on this property and the Army Corps acknowledges this fact.

    2. Bysiewicz Office park (on Middle Street)

    3. Cucia Park – a little used city-owned park adjacent to the industrial park (on Smith Street). This site was on the list recommended “suitable” site by the advisory committee and the Mayor. This site has access to Rt. 91, it does not abut a residential area, water and utilities are readily available, and it will rid us of the obvious sordid activity that takes place there. There is consensus between many residents and City Council that of the four – this is the best site.

    4. Mile Lane – a site the army currently owns, but there are discussions of turning it back to the city.

    Below I have outlined the issues of concern:

    1) Timeline – As I have communicated throughout the past summer at the many meetings, the “suitability” determination of potential sites is being driven by the Army Corps’ extremely aggressive timeline for making assessments and awarding the contract to meet the BRAC Legislation mandate of occupancy of September 2011.

    2) Legal Interpretation of the BRAC Legislation language. At the September 17th meeting, I again asked if the Army Corps would release the text of the basis of opinion their counsel used to advise them that the facility “MUST” be located in Middletown, ignoring the word “IF.” Again I was denied. I further asked if they would release the opinion to our Connecticut Attorney General, and they said no. I asked if they would release the opinion to a member of our congressional delegation, and again the answer is no.

    3.) Gov. Rell’s removing of the 250th Engineering Unit from the Consolidation. Again – Wasn’t part of the rationale behind Gov. Rell’s reducing the size of the base to remove it from Boardman Lane for all of the reasons stated previously?

    4.) Non-Compliance with local and state ordinances. Again, I am quite concerned that the Army has repeatedly stated that they are not “bound” by the municipal ordinances and regulations regarding Inland Wetlands, and our city’s Zoning Ordinances. When wildlife and vegetation endangered and/or species determined to be “of concern” was cited – they responded something to the effect that there was a difference between “State-recognized” versus “Federally-recognized” endangered and/or “of concern” species of life. As mentioned above the presence of environmentally sensitive box turtles and sedge grasses have been confirmed. The Boardman Lane site was listed as one of the top 5 most important wetlands in the City of Middletown, out of 107 that were studied.

    Why Boardman Lane – or Ken Dooley/Boardman – or whatever the Army Corps wants to call that parcel of land, is still on the list is disturbing to me. Especially when the residents followed a reasoned and civilized and democratic approach, and the City’s Common Council and Mayor have passed a unanimous resolution identifying this property as unsuitable, and our state legislators have voice their opposition, and some of our federal representatives have opposed the site, and the Governor takes significant action of removing a Reserve Unit so other locations can be found.

    Now we are faced with the deadline which is driving all the decisions, rather than a deliberate and collaborative approach to site selection. The Army “claims” collaboration, but it appears to me to be a “check the box – we engaged the locals” public relations ploy – and they’re going to do what they want regardless.

  24. Old Farms Home Owners Association

    The Old Farms Homeowners Association, comprised of 67 properties that are located less than a mile from the proposed Boardman/Ken Dooley building site, believe this location is not suitable for an Army Reserve Training Center. The Boardman Lane property poses serious historical, traffic and environmental risks for surrounding neighborhoods and the City of Middletown. Access from Kenneth Dooley Drive, which would appear to skirt the Council’s concerns as stated in Resolution 134-08 regarding the Boardman Lane side of the property, actually increases the proximity of the Reserve Training Center to the residential neighborhood of Timber Ridge. This results in increasing the concerns regarding construction blasting, traffic, safety, and property values. The members of the Old Farms Homeowners Association believe the Army Corps of Engineers should closely follow the city’s recommendations concerning the location of this Reserve Training Center in order to maximize the benefit of this base to the City and to minimize the risk and impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.

  25. Brenda M.

    This site is totally unaceptable. This area is surrounded by families with young children. The area of Timber Ridge Rd. and Hawks Nest houses over 90 families. This area is a great place to raise our children. We want it to remain this way! The wild life that lives on the property behind me needs to be protected. The Army needs to take this location off it’s list.

  26. Timber Ridge Resident

    Please consider the Cucia Park site, my property value is already sunk in the market and the roads have fallen into disarray with this new ExPedex tearing up Timber Ridge – and your passing up the P&W and Brown Sites why? I was a former DoD acquisition officer and I do not understand at all the rationale of this site consideration, and I would really like to see the GAO documentation substantiating it you really are stretching it. Well I do have to say sorry for the harsh CT feeling of “not in my back yard” but unfortunately it is these people that set my home value and if you put that site down there I will have to travel on tore up roads to my declining value raised ranch to no where

  27. Mark Winters

    Having served 6 years for the CT national guard, now I’m being asked to serve again in the form of higher property taxes, lower property values, quality of life issues, and increased traffic, in addition to all of the environmental issues. I welcome the Army, but there is a place for everything and this isn’t it. Cucia park may well be the ideal spot, and I want what is best for everyone concerned.

  28. Chris

    Boardman Lane site should be and needs to be removed from the site selection list. The list of concerns on this parcel is extensive and if the Army chooses Cucia Park they will be welcomed with open arms instead of the resentment from City residents and City, State and Federal leaders. NO BOARDMAN/KEN DOOLEY

  29. Sandi F.

    Well here we are, possibly coming to the end of an arduous, agonizing process for the citizens of Middletown, and particularly Westfield residents. “Frayed nerves” doesn’t begin to describe it. You have asked for our opinions, and we have given them to you, we have spoken out loud and clear. You have heard from many of our elected officials including our Mayor, our common council, State Reps, Attorney General Blumenthal, Secretary of Sate Bysiewicz, and Governor Rell, all with the same message. You have heard from Governor Rell both before and after changing from Boardman Lane to Kenneth Dooley, and her message is very clear, still not an acceptable use of this land and inconsistent with smart growth policies. You have all the cooperation we are able to provide, you have all the information we are able to give; the way is clear, the responsible choice laid on the table. The only question that remains now, is will you do the Right Thing.

  30. Joyce Powzyk

    Ken Dooley Drive will put hundreds and hundreds of cars and trucks onto a narrow, residential street (Timber Ridge) with 90 houses, and children playing ball in the road. The training facility, active on weekends, will be within 100 feet of many people’s homes. Boardman Lane property and the Ken Dooley Drive property will impact threatened species and wetlands, and Attorney General Blumenthal has stated that this site would require a full Environmental Impact Statement. This is an utterly inappropriate site for a military facility.

  31. Dylan

    I strongly believe that Boardman Lane should be removed from the selection list. I very much would like to do what we can to support the Army and help them build a new facility to better train those who sacrifice so much for our safety. However, I do not want to see our wetlands needless destroyed, and Boardman lane is simply way too close to so many people who bought a home in the area because they thought it was peaceful community to raise their families.

    This is not simply “not-in-my-backyard” mentality. The city has proposed several other, suitable alternative sites that seem to meet many of the requirements of the Army.

    The Army seems more concerned about the meeting the deadline of the BRAC legislation than about the long-term consequence of what they are proposing.

    I would like Middletown play it’s part in supporting the Army and see the Army help the area in and around Middletown grow. However, if the Army insists on using Boardman lane, I will do what I can to have my representatives in Congress tell the Army to build elsewhere in CT. And that will only further delay their plans.

    If the other sites are less appealing, please let us know how Middletown/State of CT can help make them more appealing. I would rather contribute a little more to help the Army use a different site than see them build on Boardman Lane. Thank you.

  32. Resident of Timber Ridge Road

    Please DO NOT consider Ken Dooley/Boardman Lane as an ideal site. We already have enough traffic from the surrounding industrial area. My neighborhood is full of families with young children and the “extra” traffic will create more burden on everyone else. I strongly propose “NO” to using such site.

  33. WESTFIELD RESIDENT

    NO TO BOARDMAN LANE !!

    IT’S THAT SIMPLE !!

  34. Westfield Resident

    NO NO NO to Boardman Lane for all the reasons listed above.

  35. Sandi F.

    I appreciate the ACE keeping the website open for one additional day. I think I heard something about Governor Rell’s letter of Sept 24th being included with the comments, but since it is such an important document, I wouldn’t want it to get lost in the paper shuffle and want others to get a chance to read it. Thus I am including the last 3 paragraphs, and urge you to post it in it’s entirety on the site. I agree with everything stated in this letter and urge you to remove Boardman lane and continue with the assessement of the other three sites, rather than putting us through this needless stress for two more months.

    The last 3 paragraphs of Governor Rell’s letter of September 24, 2008 states:
    “While it is true that the Boardman Lane site meets the basic criteria, it is known to have some fundamental flaws, including its proximity to residential areas, potential impact on wetlands and the high likelihood that Connecticut-listed species of special concern, such as the Eastern box turtle, are present on the site. There has been much local opposition to this site based upon these issues as well as the uncertain impact that the siting of the Reserve Center on Boardman Lane would have on the local economy. I would strongly encourage you, therefore, to remove Boardman Lane from the short list.

    In addition, the other sites on the short list appear to offer greater potential for the Reserve Center for both the Army and the community. Building the Reserve Center on one of these sites would be consistent with the State’s responsible growth principles. Each of these sites is near transportation routes and necessary infrastructure such as electric power, water and sewers. Furthermore, the use of one of these sites would allow us to preserve potential open space and “greenfields” through their productive re-use.

    Again, I thank you for enhancing public participation in this very important project. As I stated earlier, I strongly encourage you to remove Boardman lane from the list as it is currently constituted. Very legitimate concerns remain as to the viability of this site for the Reserve Center. I ask that you move forward with your in-depth analyses of the three remaining sites – Cucia Park, Mile Lane and Bysiwiecz Industrial Park.”

  36. Hi, very good website on this niche. I found it on Google. I will surely save it and come back to read it. If you accept a little bit of critique – it needs some iPhone 4S work on the lookpart 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s