headline

By STEVE BIGHAM

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Full Text:

GENNEWS OR PAGE ONE

TOWN SEEKS INJUNCTION

ON LOCAL WINERY

B Y S TEVE B IGHAM

The Legislative Council Wednesday night directed Town Attorney Dave Grogins to

seek an injunction against McLaughlin Vineyards for operating a business in a

residential zone without a permit.

The Alberts Hill Road winery has been battling the town over its right to hold

wine-tasting parties and summer jazz concerts on its property for years. Town

officials advised vineyard manager Morgen McLaughlin to apply for a special

exception with the Planning & Zoning Commission, which, if approved, would

allow her to legally hold many of the events she currently puts on.

When no application ever came in, the Board of Selectmen finally lost its

patience. Earlier this month, selectmen endorsed a plan to seek a court order

to cease-and-desist any actions at the vineyard that do not fall under the

regulations. The council gave the final okay Wednesday.

However, Ms McLaughlin has said all along that she had been planning to file

for the special exception, but was unable to do so until after she received

approval for a driveway permit from the Conservation Commission. That approval

finally came last week, and Ms McLaughlin now says she'll file for the special

exception once a site plan is finalized.

"We're moving forward," she said Monday.

The town, however, is going forward with the injunction, which isn't expected

to affect business at McLaughlin Vineyards, since most of the events in

question go on during the summer. Nevertheless, Ms McLaughlin said she is

upset. She said she had to wait until receiving approval for the driveway

plan, and now has found that the earliest she can get on the P&Z agenda is

January.

"No matter what we do, the town's taking us to court," she said. "If the

town's litigation goes through, I'm going to counter-sue."

According to Mr Grogins, a special exception would only allow the vineyard to

sell wine and hold wine tastings. It would not allow jazz concerts, a use

which would require an amendment to the regulations.

Ms McLaughlin said wineries in Stonington, New Preston and Litchfield

currently hold concerts on site, and she has begun researching the issue to

determine how they are permitted under the various towns' land-use

regulations.

Ms McLaughlin said work on the driveway is expected to begin later this month.

The Way We Were

Malcolm Andrew 'Andy' Bryant

Top Of The Mountain

Garden Club Spring Plant Sale Saturday

Full Slate Of May Programs Planned By Flagpole Photographers

The editorial took no position on the budget going up or down so you're reading things into the editorial that simply aren't there. The turnout is tied to the lack of passage, in that people who came out to vote last time did not this time, indicating a lack of support on their part. Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough, but that's what the editorial was driving at, people showing lack of support by not casting a vote. The editorial did address likely concerns among voters that may have led to lack of support and lack of turnout. This lower turnout also follows increasing turnout over the past four referendums in three years (meaning it is an aberration from that), and increased turnout is something that I do push for regularly in editorials. Any disappointment you might be seeing is at the break in that trend, not at whether the budget passed or not. I'd rather see more people come out and vote "no" then not vote at all.

Lower Turnout Results In Two Budget Defeats

Clearly, property owners no longer want to bear the burden of expenses while the state does not meet it’s responsibilities. Rising costs must be addressed by actions that do not include yearly increases of property owners’ taxes. The state of CT must meet its share of the educational costs, and other costs.

Town And School Budgets Fail At Referendum

This feels like an oddly misleading headline and narrative, particularly coming from the Editorial Board. The headline "Lower Turnout Results in Two Budget Defeats" pushes a misleading narrative regarding voter turnout, and then seeks to tie the outcome of the referendum to that misleading narrative. Sure, voter turn out for this year's referendum, 18%, was lower than last year's. However, last year's turnout, 25.4%, represented the highest turnout in the most recent 10 budget referendums. If you take the time to examine turnout percentages between 2017 and 2026 (2017: 19.9, 2018: 15.7, 2019: 17, 2020: 0, 2021: 8.98, 2022: 7.7, 2023: 8.8, 2024: 15.1/17.49, 2025: 25.4, 2026: 18), this year's turnout was actually the third highest in the past 10 cycles. Perhaps the headline of this article should say "Lower Voter Turnout Than Last Year", which is more accurate, rather than creating an impression that this year's turnout is some type of aberration - a narrative that the turnout numbers, in all their binary glory, simply do not support. Further, the headline of this article appears to tie the "lower turnout" to the defeated budgets. Sure, that could be true. But, perhaps, its more likely that Newtown residents are feeling the squeeze of multiple economic influences. In Newtown, we've experienced property revaluations and increased municipal spending. Eversource continues to raise rates. The state legislature gives PURA the authority to impose Public Benefit charges that benefit a tiny percentage of the public (and subsequently burdening the rest of us). At the national level, inflation has run rampant for years and many of those costs remain high to this day. In short, the data tells a far less dramatic—and far more honest—story than the headline suggests. This wasn’t an electorate vanishing in apathy; it was a fairly typical turnout delivering an verdict that, perhaps, some at the Editorial Board didn't like. At some point, it’s worth considering that residents aren’t confused, disengaged, or misled by turnout; they’re simply doing math at their kitchen tables and concluding that “no” is the only responsible answer left.

Enjoyed the forum which only confirmed my support for Brandon Moore as the Democratic candidate to run for the state representative position. Brandon Moore did not waiver about his duty to all the people, if elected, when an issue presents itself that requires that he voice a difference of opinion for the wellbeing of Newtown residents. If Michelle Ku’s 16 years have led to her loyalty being to other elected officials, as she implied, then Newtown is going to continue to witness actions that do not protect its residents. She could not unseat republican, Mitch Bolinsky, during a Blue Wave, and once again, will not do it now. Winning that seat is critical for all. That explains why her previous campaign committee now campaigns for Brandon Moore. It explains all the endorsements he has received from local elected democratic officials. It’s why we need Brandon Moore to be the democratic candidate to run for state representative.

Second Newtown DTC, League Of Women Voters Candidates Event Planned

Appreciated the opportunity to hear from both candidates as we were present for the College Dems forum but only heard from Brandon Moore. It was an opportunity to see who can unseat the Republican incumbent and there is no doubt that Brandon Moore should be the Democratic candidate. One concerned parent posed a question about discrimination unaddressed by the school district and interestingly enough, Michelle Ku, who proudly speaks of her Board membership years, said little, while Brandon Moore passionately addressed the issue along with his experience as an Apache Helicopter Commander. This family is supporting Brandon Moore. We need change and someone who is not afraid to disagree, especially about the rising costs of living in Newtown.

Log In

headline

Leave a Reply Cancel reply