|
(5-7-08)--KKC Back In Two Months; Some Conservationists Disappointed
(4-24-08)--GOSA Holds Fundraiser For Merritt Property
(4-24-08)--Wal-Mart Site Plan Withdrawn; IWA Application Stays
(4-17-08)--Wal-Mart IWA Hearing To Resume May 14; Planning Likely May 13
(4-8-08)--Date of Option Signatures An Issue In Wal-Mart Appeal
(4-7-08)--Public Meeting Planned On Land-Use Rule Rewrite For Groton
(3-29-08)--Deadline For Planning Decision On Wal-Mart Extended
(3-31-08)--Wal-Mart Developer Tries To Censor Public Drinking Water Talks
(3-26-08)--Groton Hires Midwest/West Firm To Help Rewrite Land-Use Regs
(3-13-08)--Planning Commission Study Of Wal-Mart As Yet Not Scheduled
(2-13-08)--IWA To Hear Wal-Mart Change Application April 9
(1-26-08)--GOSA Appeals For Funds For Merritt Property Purchase
(1-17-08)--The Day Urges Public To Pitch In On Merritt Fund
(1-09-08)--GOSA, Merritt Win Final Legal Battle In Contract Dispute
(12-20-07)--Mystic Woods Appeal Charges Bad OPDS Advice To Zoning Unit
(11-29-07)--GOSA Director Fairgrieve Urges Action On Open Space Plan For Groton
(12-12-07)--State Appellate Court Upholds Verdict Favoring Merritt, GOSA
(12-06-07)--New Mystic Woods Buffer From Adjacent Property Lines Larger By 25 Feet (with update)
(12-05-07)--Zoning Conditionally Approves Mystic Woods; Vote Split (with updates)
(11-07-07)--Zoning Unit Closes Three-Part Mystic Woods Hearing
(11-07-07)--Zoning Approves MX Floating Zone: The Day
(10-24-07)--What Is An “Open” Zoning Commission Meeting?
(10-15-07)--Mystic Woods Termed Too Big and Harmful For Fort Hill
(10-15-07)--Zoning Commission To Reconsider Floating Zone Vote
(09-12-07)-- GOSA Loses Appeal In Four Winds Case
(10-04-07)--GOSA, Neighbors Appeal IWA Approval of Mystic Woods
(10-11-07)--GOSA President Stresses Balance, Resource Protection, Quality of Life
(10-01-07)--TPL Discusses Land Protection at Conservation Commission
(10-03-07)--Zoning Commission Nixes Floating Zone Amendment
(9-19-07)--Hawthorne Presents “Mystic Woods” To Zoning: NEW MATERIAL ADDED AT END 9-21-07
(9-12-07)--Conservation Voters Give Rep. Wright 100% In Recent Ranking
(9-12-07)--IWA Approves Mystic Woods with Conditions
(9-05-07)--Zoning Commission Meeting Unveils Two Noteworthy Matters
(9-06-07)--Appellate Panel Hears Arguments In Merritt Case
(8-22-07)--IWA Continues Discussion of Mystic Woods to Sept. 12
(8-20-07)--Appellate Arguments Set For Sept. 6 In Merritt/GOSA v Ravenswood
(8-15-07)-- IWA Hearings on Mystic Woods Closed
(8-1-07)--Hearings On Floating Zone Continued To Sept. 5
(7-24-07)--Councilor O’Beirne Flags Floating Zone Proposal
(7-11-07)--IWA Continues Mystic Woods Hearing to Aug. 15
(6-28-07)-- SCCOG Draft Plan Termed Weak On Conservation
(6-27-07)--Zoning Unit Continues Floating Zone Hearing To Aug. 1
(6-26-07)--Planning Endorses Floating Zone But Seeks Refinements
(6-5-07)--Groton Floating Zone Applicant Reduces Scope Of Request
(5-22-07)--Paving Paradise: from The Day.Com
(5-22-07)-Schedule For Floating Zone Consideration Changed
(5-9-07)-Susan Sutherland Statement On Mystic Woods
(5-9-07)-UPDATED MAY 11: IWA Hears Revised "Mystic Woods;" Continued To June 13
(5-2-07)-GOSA Withdraws Proposed Zoning Amendments
(4-24-07)-Planning Backs Buildable Land Concept, Rejects GOSA Proposal
(4-14-07)-Planning Commission To Comment on GOSA Land Proposals April 24
(4-12-07)-Mixed-Use "Town" Plan Near Route 117/184 Corner: The Day
(4-3-07)-GOSA Director Arranges Haley Dog Cleanup System (with picture)
(3-28-07)-New Version Of Mystic Woods Introduced To IWA
(3-27-07)-Judge Studies Bonvie’s Proposed Appeal Drop
(3-25-07)-Mystic Woods Again On IWA Agenda
(3-5-07)-Environmental Review Report On Mystic Woods Released
(3-7-07)-Hill Friends’ASH Paper Discussion Barred; GOSA Application Taken
(3-4-07)-Groton Wal-Mart Developer Suing Town Commission
(2-2-07)-GOSA Seeks WRPD Moratorium
(2-16-07)-Wal-Mart Plan Denied
(2-16-07)-Groton Wal-Mart Plan Draws Fire
(2-7-07)-GOSA Formally Requests ASH Halt, Land Definition
(2-5-07)-Conservation Unit Urges Denial of Wal-Mart Application
(1-31-07)-WITH UPDATE: Zoning Meeting Canceled With ASH Halt Call Pending
(1-29-07)-Wal-Mart Runup: Annex Community Room 1 Site of Feb. 13 Airing
(1-24-07)-IWA Seeks Legal Opinion In Four Winds Case
(1-16-07)-GOSA Urges Priority For Open Space Protection
(1-14-07)-Watrous Property On State List For Possible Acquisition
(1-03-07)-Zoning To Mull ASH Halt Feb. 7; New Urbanism Discussed
(1-09-07)-Wal-Mart Discussion: To Be Continued Feb. 13
(12-20-06)-Appellate Court Remands 4 Winds to IWA; Review Scope Uncertain
(12-13-06)-Appellate Decision Seen Soon On Possible 4 Winds Remand
(11-29-06)-Situation Report: Appellate Brief Time In Merritt Case
(11-14-06)-Public Hearing On Wal-Mart In Watershed Area Cancelled (WITH UPDATES)
(11-08-06)-GOSA, Residents Ask For Moratorium On ASH
(11-08-06)-Town Council Approves New Land-Use Fee Ordinance
(10-23-06)-Developer Withdraws Mystic Woods Application
(10-18-06)-Council Holds Hearing On Fees Proposal; Question Arises
(10-18-06)-Planning To Hold Hearing On New Wal-Mart Nov. 14, 2006
(10-12-06)-State Archaeologist Points Out Groton’s Rich History
(10-12-06)-GOSA President Stresses Clean Water In Annual Address
(10-11-06)-IWA To Reach “Mystic Woods” Decision Oct. 25
(10-05-06)-Hearing Set For New Rule On Land-Use Application Fees
(8-23-06)-IWA Asks For Fort Hill ERT; “Woods” Project Sharply Criticized
(8-22-06)-Groton Council Tentatively OKs ERT For Mystic Woods Tract
(8-15-06)-City of Groton P&Z Unit Denies Baker Cove Zoning Change
(8-15-06)-Groton Town Council To Get Report On Mystic Woods
(8-3-06)-GOSA Urges Public Participation In Zoning Regs Rewrite
(7-26-06)-Mystic Woods Representatives Present Case To IWA
(7-13-06)-Stonington Officials Skeptical On Bond Issue But Want Town To Decide
(6-20-06)-Groton City Residents Petition Against Zoning Change
(5-21-06)-GOSA Director Allvord Receives Fort Griswold Award
(6-14-06)-Groton IWA Makes First Use Of New Expert-Hiring Power
(6-15-06)-SCCOG Meeting Dominated By Conservationist Opinion
(5-31-06)-Study Finds Stonington Should Float Open Space Bond
(5-16-06)-Groton City P&Z Unit Hears Zoning Change Proposals; Hearings Continued
(5-10-06)-GOSA Asks IWA To Reconsider Four Winds Case
(5-10-06)-Developers Present Plan For Major Senior Housing Complex
(5-11-06)-New State Measures Would Protect GU Water System
(4-29-06)-Annual Cleanup Day Heightens Beauty of Haley Farm State Park
(4-26-06)-GOSA Comments On Strategic Economic Development Plan
(4-26-06)-Groton IWA Approves Big Retail Project; Requires Special Bond For Water
(4-12-06)-Groton Wetlands Agency Adopts Expert Fee Amendment
(4-7-06)-DEP Approves Open-Space Land For Temporary Parking
(3-23-06)-Appellate Unit Won't Review GOSA Appeal On Four Winds Site Plan
(3-16-06)-David Leff To Retire From DEP
(3-08-06)-IWA Approves Kolnaski School, Groton Highpoint
(2-28-06)-UPDATED: New Land-Use Fee Proposal Presented To Council
(2-22-06)-IWA Sets Hearing For Fee Regulation Change
(2-9-06)-Mary Walton, Who Led Fight Against Jetport, Dies
(2-8-06)-IWA Considers "Expert Fee" Concept
(1-25-2006)-Groton Highpoint Hearing Continued
(1-11-06)-IWA Hears From Developer, GOSA On Groton Highpoint
(1-9-06)-GOSA Urges The Day To Recognize Eccleston Brook's Value
GOSA NEWS Archives
KKC Back In Two Months; Some Conservationists Disappointed
GROTON -- Kendig Keast Collaborative, a Midwest-based municipal planning consultant hired by Groton to update the town’s land-use regulations, is expected to publish some preliminary observations in a couple of months after a short recent fact-gathering trip May 6-May 9, 2008.
The visit, which began on the evening of May 6 and was to end at noon May 9, disappointed many conservationists, who had hoped to hear KKC plans for saving open space and for density limitations linked to a buildable land definition. Instead, KKC told them that saving open space through acquisition is “up to the taxpayers” and outside KKC’s current assignment. KKC said that density limits can ultimately work against the environment. Conservationists did hear a lot about ways of conserving open space within subdivisions through clustered development.
The regulation-update process had a public kickoff May 7 with a dinner-time meeting at the Town Hall Annex at which KKC colleagues presented an outline of their program and solicited public feedback. Lane Kendig, president, and Mac Birch, principal and manager for the Groton project, said KKC planned to have proposals ready for approval within a year. The town’s Office of Planning and Development Services, host of the affair, made water and cookies available to those attending.
KKC’s main office is in Chicago, while Mr. Kendig works out of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. The town has said that the consultants will concentrate on updating the zoning and subdivision regulations but also will evaluate inland wetlands regulations, prepare a design manual and help develop new stormwater ordinances.
More than 30 persons attended the May 7 meeting, which began at 6 p.m. In addition, KKC held separate meetings with “stakeholders” in the updating process--including realtors, conservationists, large property owners and those interested in commercial development. Attendance at the stakeholders’ meetings was by invitation only, and a GOSA director, Joan Smith, who attended one meeting without being asked, was told by the Office of Planning and Development not to attend any further meetings without an invitation.
Mr. Birch said the rewrite would be “more than a code-drafting exercise” in that it would help to reflect in land use regulations the goals of the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development and the Strategic Economic Development Plan.
Asked about one goal of the POCD--preserving more open space in the town of Groton-- Mr. Kendig said, “That is up to the taxpayers.” Michael J. Murphy, head of the town’s Office of Planning and Development Services, sitting in the audience, nodded in agreement. Mr. Murphy later told the meeting that green belts, brought up at the meeting by Noank resident Zell Steever, were outside the scope of KKC’s assignment.
Mr. Kendig said not many towns have the financial means to acquire large amounts of open space. A member of the audience told him that Groton qualifies for 65% reimbursement of the cost of acquiring property under the state’s Open Space and Watershed Acquisition program but that the town had not tried to take advantage of this.
Mr. Kendig replied that he had “no problem with that. Both of these [land protection through sensitive development and through land acquisition] are viable techniques.” He added that his firm has helped create plans for communities to protect open space through acquisition, but he made clear this was not part of the current Groton program with KKC.
Among Mr. Kendig’s other points:
--It is a “myth” that density and commercial development are inherently bad for community character and the environment while residential development on big lots is good. Properly designed dense developments can look more “rural” than residential development on large lots, he said. Commercial development can enhance community character and promote downtown business through sign control, design standards and architectural review. He said that downtown Groton contains some of the same bad “autourban” characteristics that are found on "60% of Route 1 from Maine to Florida."
--Clustering allows developers to use land efficiently and thus promotes environmental protection. “Developers are willing to protect the land if they don’t have to pay for everything” by losing lots, he said.
--Proper density should be achieved through a “site capacity calculation” that sets a “protection level” for various tracts of land. He did not explain these concepts in any detail May 7 or compare and contrast them with buildable land definitions and density limits based on eliminating or discounting unbuildable land from density calculations. He said that site capacity regulations will require preservation of open space and allow no “wiggle” about it. After the May 8 meeting, he told a questioner that he wants to eliminate land-use board discretion through tightly worded regulation.
--“If Wal-Mart [currently seeking to build a super center in the watershed of Groton’s drinking water reservoir] wants to be here, they’ll cave, but you’ll have to stick it out.” It was unclear whether he was referring to the Groton situation or to a dispute involving Wal-Mart in Sturgeon Bay, WI, or to both.
--While implying that dealing with global warming consequences is not part of KKC’s assignment in Groton, he personally foresees a rise of 2 meters in water levels by the year 2100, with further rises after that. This will force “triage” on coastal communities, which will have to decide what to save at great cost and what to let go.
The Groton Open Space Association turned in to KKC a memo calling for: more open space protection; a buildable land definition with density limits that could be modified for high-density nodes; careful examination of proposals for floating zones; separation of the planning and development functions of Groton town government to allow for independent thinking about planning; and better protection of the town’s drinking water supply.
^ back to headlines
GOSA Holds Fundraiser For Merritt Property
By Sidney F. Van Zandt, GOSA Director
GROTON -- A fundraising dinner to “Save The Merritt Family Forest” was held by the Groton Open Space Association (GOSA) on April 24, 2008, at the Fisherman Restaurant at 937 Groton Long Point Road on the shores of Palmer’s Cove in Noank, CT.
The forest is the Keystone of our Groton Greenbelt. It joins large open space parcels to the west with those in the east. It is a haven for ground-dwelling and aquatic wildlife and for birds that survive only in woodlands. This fund drive is being conducted by the Groton Open Space Association 41 years after GOSA’s first fund drive in 1967 to Save the Haley Farm from duplex development. Through GOSA’s efforts, the farm became a state park in 1970.
The speakers at the Merritt fundraiser were Gina McCarthy, commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, and Sidney F. Van Zandt, one of the founders and the first president of GOSA, who now is a GOSA director and the Merritt Fund chairman. Approximately 150 persons attended the dinner.
The fund drive follows a recently ended five-year court battle against a developer’s efforts to put a housing project on the 75-acre Merritt parcel. The DEP awarded GOSA a $650,000 grant on April 8, 2003. GOSA signed an agreement April 14, 2003, to buy the property. The court struggle began the next day and didn’t end until the developer bowed out in January, 2008, after its appeal was turned down in the Connecticut Appellate Court in Hartford.
To complete the $1 million purchase and pay associated costs, as well as to create a fund to maintain the property, GOSA needs a total of $1,080,000. That figure includes the state grant and a $90,000 deposit already paid to F.L. Merritt Inc.
Commissioner McCarthy emphasized in her talk the importance of contiguous open spaces, as well as the need to fully implement her “No child left inside” program. Ms. Van Zandt gave a short history of the efforts of GOSA to preserve open space in Groton, including Haley Farm, Bluff Point and now The Merritt Family Forest.
GOSA wishes to thank the benefit committee, headed by Lis Raisbeck of Noank, and John Williams, owner of the Fisherman Restaurant, for providing help in this very successful fundraiser.
^ back to headlines
Wal-Mart Site Plan Withdrawn; IWA Application Stays
HARTFORD -- Konover Development Corp. is withdrawing its site plan for a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 in the Town of Groton and will file a new application after it responds to comments and questions from the Office of Planning and Development Services, Diane W. Whitney, an attorney representing Konover, said April 24, 2008.
However, Ms. Whitney said, “We will go forward with the wetlands application for this property which is currently under consideration as presently scheduled.” Ms. Whitney works in the Hartford office of Pullman & Comley, LLC.
Ms. Whitney notified the OPDS of Konover’s intentions in a letter to Matthew Davis, town planning manager, which was copied to Marjorie Shansky, attorney for neighborhood interveners opposing the project, and to GOSA, also intervening against the project. The 37-acre tract involved is in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system.
The Planning Commission, which last year turned down a Konover previous application for a Wal-Mart Super Center on the same site, had been expected to consider the new site plan at a meeting May 13. The commission was operating under a deadline of June 21 for a final decision. Konover is appealing the Planning Commission’s 2007 denial of its application to the New London Superior Court, even as it has filed the new plan--and now withdrawn it.
Ms. Whitney said, “It is apparent that more time will be required to respond to the comments and questions from members of the Town’s staff than is possible given the statutory time constraints for dealing with applications such as this, so rather than rush to respond to the comments, Konover has decided to withdraw the application, prepare full responses, and file a new application at a later date.”
She said the new site plan application might be changed from the just-withdrawn plan and suggested that expert review be suspended until new plans are filed.
The Inland Wetlands Agency, which in 2006 approved an application for the project, is scheduled to consider planned modifications to the project at a meeting May 14.
^ back to headlines
Wal-Mart IWA Hearing To Resume May 14; Planning Likely May 13
By Joan Smith, GOSA Director
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency is scheduled to continue its hearings May 14, 2008, on Konover Development Corp.’s request for changes in a previously approved plan to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system.
Much controversy at the last meeting April 9, 2008, centered on the question of whether Konover’s request for what it called a small change could provide an opportunity for opponents to reopen hearings on the project as a whole.
The IWA approved the project April 26, 2006, after determining it was a “minor activity,” meaning one with minimal potential impacts on the town’s inland wetlands and watercourses. The Planning Commission, on the other hand, turned down the application early in the morning of Feb. 16, 2007, after a marathon meeting. The developer has appealed the Planning Commission decision and has filed a whole new application. The new application is expected to be heard by the Planning Commission May 13, 2008, though the agenda for that date has not yet been set.
Konover’s attorney, Diane Whitney, called the change that is now before the IWA a “very minor part of a minor activity.” Opponents at the hearing contended that the project never should have been classified as minor, that the information on which the IWA based its approval was flawed and that the original application ought to be reheard.
IWA Chairman David Scott argued that the hearing should consider only the changes proposed, which include reconfiguration of a stone wall between the proposed 37-acre Konover/Wal-Mart site and an adjacent office park, as well as a change in drainage of storm water. Mr. Scott said sentiment against Wal-Mart as a corporation appeared to play a part in opposition to the project and added that such feelings were irrelevant to the proceedings.
Marjorie Shansky, representing one intervener and filing intervention notices for two others, expressed “a certain degree of incredulity” at attempts to limit scope of IWA discussions. She said she has driven the perimeter of the reservoir and observed the fence that protects it from certain visible threats. She told the IWA:
“We are looking to you to protect it from the invisible threats.”
Steven Trinkaus, an engineer representing the interveners, told the IWA that the project’s planned storm water processors -- hydrodynamic separators -- do not remove 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) in water, as claimed, but average only 30% removal. The devices tend to become less efficient in cold weather, which increases the viscosity of water and reduces the centrifugal force of water swirling through the system.
Mr. Trinkaus added that water running off the roof is not planned to be treated, even though it can contain acids and particulates.
Elizabeth Raisbeck, of Noank, pointed out that Section 10.10a of the Inland Wetland Regulations allows the IWA to revoke a permit if it was granted on the basis of inaccurate information.
Mary Ellen Furlong, an alternate member of the IWA, said she believed the IWA had in fact acted on the mistaken information that swirl separators remove 80% of TSS and said she would not have voted for the project if she had known then what she knows now about swirl separators. She reminded Ms. Whitney that under terms of the IWA permit, storm water runoff would be tested following construction. If the water were found to be below standards set by Groton Utilities, then expensive remedial work would be required.
Ms. Furlong also noted testimony by Robert DeSantos, another consultant to the interveners, that the change being proposed would send an additional 365,000 gallons of water per year -- well over 1,000 gallons a day -- into a retention pond in the adjacent office park. She asked if this water -- and far greater flows on rainy days -- would then flow north under Route 184 and into Hempstead Brook, which flows into the reservoir and was informed this was the case.
Ms. Whitney told the IWA that Konover had offered to make changes in view of questions about the efficacy of swirl separators but had been told by the town that this was not necessary.
Joan Smith, a director of the Groton Open Space Association, raised the question of whether the applicant had authority to apply for a permit in the first place. She noted that a Konover option on one tract of land involved in the project was signed March 28, 2007, nearly a year after the permit was granted. Deb Jones, of the Town of Groton Office of Planning and Development Services, responded that the document involved was a new option with a new owner.
In continuing the session, Mr. Scott said that he would confer with the town attorney on this point and also would also look into a discrepancy between addresses of the project on the original application and the application for the changes.
Zell Steever, of Noank, who has a background as a wetlands ecologist and state water expert, told the IWA that the Wal-Mart application never was minor but rather was major. He urged that an independent expert be hired to determine the precise post-construction flow of water from the site with respect to wetlands, the Hempstead Brook and the Groton Utilities reservoir, which receives water from Hempstead Brook. He said the law allows the IWA to suspend hearings until it gets full information.
^ back to headlines
Date of Option Signature An Issue In Wal-Mart Appeal
By Joan Smith, GOSA Director
NEW LONDON -- The Town of Groton argued in Superior Court April 8, 2008, that a Konover Development Corp. legal challenge to the Groton Planning Commission’s refusal to approve a Wal-Mart Super Center off Route 184 is undermined by defective documentation.
Town Attorney Michael Carey told the court that Konover’s option on one parcel of land involved in the project is dated March 28, 2007, well after the Feb. 16, 2007, commission denial of the application.
The land involved is referred to as the Shetucket Plumbing parcel. Shetucket Plumbing is located on Route 184 in he area of the planned project. Mr. Carey said that in addition to the tardy signature, there were no witnesses to the signing. He said that Konover, without a title to or interest in the land, had no right to file an application to build on it. Therefore, he argued, Konover’s whole appeal is undermined.
Diane Whitney, attorney for Konover, could not immediately explain the late signing but got Judge Joseph Purtill’s permission for a two-week period in which to research the question and respond. She said that Konover would not have filed the application without consent of all owners of property involved.
The Wal-Mart project has proved highly controversial, in large part because the so-called super center would be built in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system and would, in the view of opponents, imperil the drinking water supply. Wal-Mart would cover approximately 40% of the approximately 38-acre development site. Other businesses would fill in the site later.
Ms. Whitney contended that the commission acted arbitrarily in denying the application. The commission was just saying “‘We don’t like this application. It isn’t good enough,’” she said. The denial was not based on concrete evidence, she argued.
Mr. Carey said the town based its decision in part on expert testimony, not challenged by Konover, that the proposed stormwater management system would not remove 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, as claimed. He added that the commissioners were not satisfied with the applicant’s answers to questions about containment of hazardous materials and runoff in the event of fire.
Ms. Whitney called the hazardous materials issue a “form of ambush.” She claimed that Konover had no idea of what the commission expected of it.
Marjorie Shansky, attorney for neighbors who are intervening in the process, said, “This is an era of consequences. The public drinking water supply is perhaps the most fundamental resource a municipality has.” Ms. Shansky said the commission has the authority to approve, disapprove or modify a plan and may decide upon the credibility of witnesses.
Judge Purtill was expected to decide on the appeal within 120 days.
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart has submitted a second, slightly modified application to the Planning Commission. The commission has until June 21, 2008, to decide on the new plan, but no date has been set for a meeting on it. The Inland Wetlands Agency, which approved the project in 2006, will hold a hearing April 9, 2008, on modifications of the original proposal.
(This account incorporates some material from a story in The Day April 9, 2008, by Katie Warchut)
^ back to headlines
Public Meeting Planned On Land-Use Rule Rewrite For Groton
GROTON -- A public meeting is scheduled for May 7, 2008, on plans to rewrite land-use regulations in Groton, Planning Manager Matthew Davis said April 7, 2008.
Mr. Davis said the meeting, co-sponsored by the Planning and Zoning commissions, will be held in the evening, with the time to be determined, at the Town Hall Annex. He said the meeting may be televised on the local access cable station, but no final confirmation exists on that.
He said the primary purpose of the meeting will be to provide an overview of what is involved in the rewrite process. The town signed a contract March 21, 2008, with Kendig Keast, a consulting firm, for assistance in the project. The initial meeting is expected to involve a presentation by Kendig Keast and “may” allow for some public input.
Mr. Davis said that the consultants, while in Groton, will conduct “stakeholder interviews.” Stakeholders are expected to be contacted shortly so interviews can be scheduled.
Kendig Keast’s website lists offices in Sturgeon Bay, WI; Chicago; Sugar Land, TX; and Centennial, CO.
^ back to headlines
Deadline For Planning Decision On Wal-Mart Extended
GROTON -- Konover Development Corp., the company that wants to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system, has agreed to an extension of the deadline for a Planning Commission decision on its new application for the facility.
Diane Whitney, attorney for Konover, has sent a letter to the commission granting a new date for final decision of June 21, 2008. Previously, the deadline had been April 17, 2008.
At the same time Konover is submitting a new application to the Planning Commission for the super center, it is appealing an early 2007 decision by the commission to deny its first application. The Superior Court at New London is due to hear arguments in the Planning Commission appeal on April 8, 2008.
The Inland Wetlands Agency approved the project in 2006, but will hear on April 9, 2008, Konover’s application to modify certain aspects of the approved plan.
Under Connecticut law, the Planning Commission must act upon a developer’s applications within 65 days of receiving it unless the developer agrees to an extension.
^ back to headlines
Wal-Mart Developer Tries To Censor Public Water Talks
GROTON -- The lawyer for a company that wants to develop a Wal-Mart Super Center in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system tried to prevent discussion of the project at a public meeting on drinking water quality March 31, 2008, in the Town Hall Annex.
Diane Whitney, attorney for Konover Development Corp., immediately interrupted Jim Furlong, a Mystic resident, at the meeting when he named the proposed Wal-Mart project on Route 184 as a potential threat that could attract further development to the watershed.
Ms. Whitney said that some members of the Inland Wetlands Agency were attending the meeting and asserted the project therefore should not be discussed. The agency, which previously approved the project, is scheduled to hear -- at its meeting April 9, 2008 -- some proposed changes in the Wal-Mart plan. Her implication presumably was that the members could be influenced by any discussion at the drinking water quality meeting.
The session was called to disseminate and gather information for the Drinking Water Quality Management Plan for Groton, Ledyard, Preston, Norwich, Montville, Waterford and North Stonington. It was conducted by representatives of Milone & MacBroom, Inc., of Cheshire, CT, the plan consultant. Approximately 25 persons attended the meeting, and provided wide-ranging input on shellfish, treatment costs, pervious hard surfaces and other matters.
After Ms. Whitney broke in, Mr. Furlong told the attorney that he hoped “Wal-Mart will let me speak.” He said that “censorship, here, in a public meeting, is not allowed.” He said members of the Inland Wetlands Agency would make up their own minds about the project.
Ms. Whitney did not pursue her objection further. Jeanine Armstrong Bonin, public engineer, who was moderating the discussion, asked Mr. Furlong to avoid discussion of specific projects. He finished his thought and moved on to his general points. The points were that commercial zoning along Route 184 is a source of potential damage to water quality and that the town itself has not proven an adequate guardian of water quality. He pointed out that the Groton Open Space Association had been forced to step in several years ago to limit the danger posed to Great Brook, main conduit between the upper and lower reservoirs, by the Great Brook subdivision. He urged the consultants to come up with a water protection plan with the “teeth” that currently are missing. The town’s Office of Planning and Development Services has distanced itself from the water-protection measures for residents that GOSA negotiated with the Great Brook developer.
(Mr. Furlong, a member of GOSA, is writer of this report.)
Among other public comments:
Joan Smith, of Groton, a director of the Groton Open Space Association, said that the time is opportune in Groton for new environmental initiatives to protect drinking water because the town has just hired consultants to help rewrite zoning regulations. In addition, she said that towns that set aside watershed land ought to receive payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT), as do towns that host state parks.
Syma Ebbin PhD, of the City of Groton, said Groton should avoid the need for extensive treatment of water by limiting sources of pollution. She noted that if heavy treatment should become required, the quality of untreated water flowing over the Groton Utilities dam into the Poquonnock River and Long Island Sound by implication would be bad. She said that New York City avoided having to make vast expenditures for new treatment facilities by implementing environmental protections in the Catskills around its reservoirs there.
Ed Murphy, chairman of the Town of Groton Shellfish Commission, said shellfish are entirely absent from western Connecticut. “Let’s not let that...happen here,” he said.
Sue Sutherland, a member of the Town of Groton Zoning Commission, speaking for herself, urged examination of potential impacts of full buildouts on water supplies. She took note of projections that southeast Connecticut’s need for water will exceed supply by 2010.
Rusty Warner, of Noank, a environmental consultant to architects, developers and homeowners, said “win-win” solutions to water problems are possible, but he urged the consultants to come up with enforceable measures that won’t be scrapped when budgets get tight.
Paul Bates, a director of the Noank Water Department, said the department wants to avoid the need for more treatment and would support efforts to acquire land to protect the watershed.
Sidney Van Zandt, of Noank, a member of the advisory board to the Drinking Water Quality Management Plan¸ urged that only low impact development be allowed in areas that function as watersheds for drinking water. She held up Jordan Cove in Waterford as an example for other towns to emulate, saying the development has no stormwater runoff.
Sandy Van Zandt, of Noank, urged the consultants to look into pervious pavements such as those under study at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center. He noted that pervious asphalt allows water to infiltrate straight down into the ground.
The Drinking Water Quality Management Plan consultants expect to hold meetings on a draft plan in October and publish a final version in November. The effort is funded by a state legislative act.
Further information on the plan is available at this Groton Utilities web address.
^ back to headlines
Groton Hires Midwest/West Firm To Help Rewrite Land-Use Regs
GROTON -- The Town of Groton Office of Planning and Development Services (OPDS) said March 26, 2008, that it has hired Kendig Keast Collaborative, a municipal planning group, to help rewrite the town’s land use regulations.
Matthew Davis, planning manager, said in response to a query that Groton had signed a contract with the firm March 21, 2008.
Michael J. Murphy, director of the OPDS, had said in July 2005 that he anticipated a comprehensive review of zoning regulations would take place in 2006. In May 2007, he cited the still-forthcoming review -- to be conducted with the help of outside consultants -- as one reason he opposed an application by the Groton Open Space Association for a buildable land definition, to be inserted into the zoning regulations.
Mr. Murphy said during a hearing on the application that he wasn’t prepared to work with GOSA on a zoning rule change prior to the review. GOSA’s application was turned down. However, Mr. Murphy later backed a successful floating zone amendment independent of the review process.
Kendig Keast’s website lists offices in Sturgeon Bay, WI; Sugar Land, TX, Chicago, and Centennial, CO.
Earlier this year, Mr. Davis offered the following in response to a GOSA query as to the identity of the project leader for Kendig Keast:
"...please be advised that we anticipate the scope of services/work program will include many opportunities for structured engagement by a
diverse group of interests, including interviews at an early stage in
the process. However, for budgetary and other practical reasons,
members of the public, individuals or those representing interest groups
will not be permitted to have direct contact with the consultant,
outside of the approved, adopted work program. This will not only allow
the Town to control costs and be efficient, but will also protect the
overall integrity of the process and in so doing, will enhance the
legitimacy of any eventual outcome."
^ back to headlines
Planning Commission Study Of Wal-Mart As Yet Not Scheduled
GROTON -- No schedule has been set for Planning Commission consideration of a developer’s new application to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184, Matthew Davis, town planning manager, said March 13, 2008.
Mr. Davis previously had noted that the application by Konover Development Corp., which would develop the Route 184 tract for Wal-Mart, was presented to the Planning Commission Feb. 12. The commission has 65 days from that date -- or until April 17 -- to act, assuming no extension of the decision period.
The Planning Commission has regular meetings on March 25 and April 8 between now and the deadline. A special meeting is a possibility.
An earlier Konover application for a Super Wal-Mart on the site -- which is in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system -- had been denied by the Planning Commission at its Feb. 15, 2007, meeting. Konover has appealed that decision to the New London Superior Court.
Wal-Mart would cover approximately 40% of the 38-acre site. Additional businesses ultimately would be placed on the site, but no application currently exists for these.
The Inland Wetlands Agency approved the project April 26, 2006. The new plan involves some changes that are subject to IWA approval, and an IWA hearing on these is set for April 9. Opponents are urging that the IWA review the entire project.
Mr. Davis has noted that statutes provide for automatic extensions of the Planning Commission’s deadline if the IWA hasn’t acted when the Planning Commission deadline is reached.
Wal-Mart currently has a Super Center in Waterford and a non-“Super” shopping facility in Groton on Route 184 near Route 12.
The New York Times reported March 12, 2008, that Wal-Mart has shelved plans to build a store in Monsey, NY, in Rockland County, following intense opposition by residents, who cited quality of life considerations, as well as economic issues raised by Wal-Mart’s giant size.
Opponent Christopher P. St. Lawrence, town supervisor of Ramapo, NY--which includes Monsey--said, “We’re very pro-business here, but it has to be the right business.”
^ back to headlines
IWA To Hear Wal-Mart Change Application April 9
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency has set April 9, 2008, for a public hearing on a developer’s request to modify its wetlands permit to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system.
The IWA had approved the project April 26, 2006, before the developer publicly confirmed speculation that its client for the project was Wal-Mart. The same project later was denied by the Planning Commission--at 2:20 a.m. February 16, 2007.
The application for the modification was introduced to the IWA at its meeting Feb. 13, 2008.
The town planning staff and Diane Whitney, attorney for Konover Development Corp., which would build the project on behalf of Wal-Mart, told the IWA that it could not legally reconsider the whole project but would need to confine itself to ruling on the small changes proposed.
F.A. Hesketh & Associates Inc., of Granby, engineers for the developer, said the changes would involve routing less runoff water to the Hempstead Brook area. The brook runs into the Groton Utilties reservoir system. In addition, the developer would build a natural stone wall between the proposed Wal-Mart parking lot and the adjacent Gold Star Office Park. Previously, composite stone wall had been contemplated.
The Groton Open Space Association argued that the IWA has “a duty to review the entire plan, including previously approved materials. A narrow focus on the proposed changes alone, without consideration of the entire context, ignores the potential for contamination of the water resources.”
Opponents of the Wal-Mart project presented a petition demanding a public hearing on the application to ensure the matter would get a thorough airing, and the April hearing was set.
The Wal-Mart complex would cover approximately 40% of the 38-acre site. Konover’s plans include additional businesses on other parts of the site, but no application has been submitted for them as yet. IWA alternate member Mary Ellen Furlong said that if the additional businesses should require tie-ins to the proposed
Wal-Mart storm water disposal system, then the plans for the whole site would have to be reviewed.
GOSA’s main concern with the project stems from a desire to protect the town’s water supply. Residents in the area worry about heavy traffic, noise and light pollution and esthetic deterioration. Wal-Mart’s anti-union policies concern others.
Karl Acimovic, a Groton Utilities engineer, had told the commission at its previous hearing that the proposed development “is situated in the southwesterly portion of our watershed and is in close proximity to the Hempstead Brook (within 500 feet), which feeds directly into our terminal reservoir system. By overland flow and stream from the southwest corner of the parcel, it is also within 1,000 feet of Poquonnock Reservoir and within 600 feet of wetlands surrounding the reservoir.”
Separately, Konover has submitted a new application to the Planning Commission for the project.
^ back to headlines
GOSA Appeals For Funds For Merritt Property Purchase
GROTON -- The Groton Open Space Association needs to raise an additional $200,000 for its purchase of the Merritt Property and is seeking public contributions.
Following is the text of a public appeal by Sidney F. Van Zandt, Chairman The Merritt Family Forest Fund Raising Committee:
GOOD NEWS! The five years of legal battles are over. The Merritt Family Forest can now be saved, and we need your help to do it!
Enclosed [see below] is a copy of the New London Day editorial of January 17, 2008, on the good news that GOSA has finally won our legal contest to save the Merritt property--after nearly five long years of continuous and costly effort. We are working with the Department of Environmental Protection now to arrange release of the $650,000 grant that the DEP has held in reserve for us for all these years. This should occur shortly. We now need to raise the balance of the $1 million purchase price.
Stretching along the south side of Route 1 between the summit of Fort Hill and Fishtown Road, the tract is the keystone of Groton’s eastern greenbelt. The greenbelt begins on the west with Bluff Point and the Haley Farm, both state parks that GOSA was instrumental in saving. Together, they total more than 1,000 acres, and they link up with the Mort Wright Preserve, which through the Merritt property in turn is connected to other publicly and privately protected green spaces to the east. These include Pequot Woods, the former Christmas tree farm on Route 1, and -- near Cutler Middle School -- Beebe Pond Park and Avalonia Land Trust tracts...
The Merritt Family Forest is not only strategically located but is also ecologically rich. It contains stands of trees not logged for more than 130 years, vernal pools, two pristine streams that converge to run into Palmer's Cove, and diverse wildlife habitat. This description of the environmental treasures of this 75-acre property is taken from an op-ed piece that appeared in The Day June 5, 2005, after GOSA's first victory, in Superior Court, in the legal drama to save this land. In spite of the optimistic op-ed headline, the legal battle continued until December 2007, when the Appellate Court ruled decisively in GOSA's favor. The op-ed gives the story of GOSA’s endeavor first to ease the impact of a proposed housing development, and its later discovery with disbelief that it might save the property...
Roughly half of Groton is still open land, but only 11 percent of the town is preserved open space, and development pressures threaten to quickly fill land that is not protected. GOSA feels that it is vitally important to save this valuable piece of property. We note that a proposed development of great density for the north side of Fort Hill has been making the rounds of the Inland Wetlands Agency and the Zoning Commission for over a year and a half. It would essentially clear cut much of those woodlands on that hillside.
Back in April 2003, GOSA signed a contract to buy the Merritt property for $1,000,000, with the aid of the $650,000 state grant. GOSA gave F.L. Merritt, Inc., a deposit of $90,000 at the time. Since then, we have raised more funds and estimate we have a need for an additional $200,000 for the purchase.
We now turn to you to take a stand. Once open space is gone, it is gone! Please join us in this crucial fight to save this jewel by making your most generous contribution to GOSA with the hope of passing on a living legacy for the generations that follow.
Help us in our final push to save this Keystone of the Greenbelt, The Merritt Family Forest.
[Please click "To Make A Merritt Property Contribution" high on this page for a guide to giving. GOSA is a charitable non-profit corporation, and contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by the law.]
^ back to headlines
The Day Urges Public To Pitch In On Merritt Fund
NEW LONDON -- The Day urged in an editorial Jan. 17, 2008, that supporters of open space contribute to a GOSA fund to help acquire the 75-acre Merritt Property atop Fort Hill.
Following is the editorial:
The 75-acre Merritt property in Groton is a densely wooded tract with rolling hills, a pond and moss-covered stone walls that serve as vestiges of its agrarian roots.The land, like so much other open space in the region, is adjacent to an extensive residential development — and until last week it appeared it would undergo the same, all-too-familiar transformation from forest to housing.
But after five years of litigation, the Groton Open Space Association (GOSA) finally was able to declare victory when a developer that wanted to build 48 single-family homes bowed to a state Appellate Court ruling and decided to give up its claim to buy the property atop Fort Hill just west of Fishtown Road.
“We won!” Sidney F. Van Zandt, director of the open-space organization, trumpeted earlier this week.
But the fight to save the land — which serves as a key link in a greenbelt that runs through Bluff Point Coastal Reserve, Haley Farm State Park, the Mortimer D. Wright Preserve, Avalonia Land Trust property and Beebe Pond Park — is far from over.
Now GOSA, a private, nonprofit, grassroots organization that for more than 30 years has helped preserve such significant open spaces as the Haley Farm and Bluff Point, must raise money to help buy the property, which would become known as The Merritt Family Forest.
Landowner F.L. Merritt Inc. has agreed to sell it for $1 million. GOSA, which already has made a down payment and also secured a $650,000 state grant to apply toward the purchase, has launched a campaign to raise the final $175,000.
We urge all who value open space and recognize the significance of this parcel to pitch in. More information on how to donate is available on the group's Web site, gosaonline.org.
“We turn to the citizens of southeastern Connecticut to help us save another piece of green space,” Mrs. Van Zandt said. “Once it is gone, it is gone. We will never have a chance again.”
^ back to headlines
GOSA, Merritt Win Final Legal Battle In Contract Dispute
HARTFORD -- The Groton Open Space Association and F.L. Merritt Inc. have won the final legal battle in their nearly five-year struggle to allow GOSA to purchase the 75-acre Merritt property on Fort Hill and preserve it as public open space, it was verified Jan. 9, 2008.
Lawyers for the Cheshire developer Ravenswood Construction LLC said the company hasn’t filed and didn’t intend to file an appeal of a crucial Appellate Court decision last month. That decision upheld a New London Superior Court jury dismissal in May 2005 of Ravenswood’s claim to have a contract to buy the land--a contract that Ravenswood contended pre-dated GOSA’s contract.
Ravenswood had 20 days to appeal following formal publication of the Appellate Court ruling Dec. 18. The developer could have applied to the Supreme Court for a review of the Appellate Court decision. The high court normally takes one to three months to decide on such applications. A review, if one had been granted, could have required more than a year to be completed.
GOSA signed a contract April 14, 2003, to buy the property from Merritt. The next day, Ravenswood asserted its claim of a prior contract, filed suit and placed a legal hold on the land. That began the lengthy legal battle through the Superior Court and then the Appellate Court that now has ended.
The struggle included a SLAPP suit filed by Ravenswood and Mystic Estates Partners of New London against GOSA and nine individuals accusing them of contractual interference and abuse of the legal process. The suit against GOSA -- SLAPP stands for “Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation” -- was dropped hastily in July, 2003. At the time, Groton Atty. Paulann H. Sheets, acting for GOSA, noted that state Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal and the Connecticut Fund for the Environment had been about to announce their intention to support GOSA in court when the suit was withdrawn.
Shortly before signing the contract, GOSA had won a $650,000 grant from the state Department of Environmental Protection toward the $1 million purchase price. The closing is to take place upon payment of the grant, which had been held up only by the legal block placed on the land by Ravenswood. The Merritt property stretches along the south side of Route 1 between the summit of Fort Hill and Fishtown Road.
GOSA President Priscilla Pratt said GOSA would move quickly to close. The property, to be preserved for passive recreation, will be known as The Merritt Family Forest.
Lead lawyer for the defendants was Elizabeth Leamon, of the New Haven firm of Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn. Other defense attorneys were Gerald A. Cory of New London and, on the brief, Ben A. Solnit, a partner at Tyler-Cooper.
Attorney William Kroll of Salem represented F.L. Merritt during the jury trial. Lawyer for GOSA was William Hescock of North Stonington.
Representing the plaintiff Ravenswood were Paul M. Geraghty and Michael S. Bonnano of New London and James M. Miele of Cheshire.
^ back to headlines
Mystic Woods Appeal Charges Bad OPDS Advice To Zoning Unit
GROTON -- The Groton Open Space Association has appealed the Zoning Commission’s approval of the Mystic Woods over-55 housing project, contending that the town’s planning staff gave bad advice to the commission, impermissibly advocated for the applicant developer, and usurped the commission’s role.
The appeal to the New London Superior Court, dated Dec. 20, 2007, seeks to overturn the Zoning Commission’s split 3-2 approval Dec. 5 of the Mystic Woods development. GOSA has been joined in the appeal by several owners of abutting property. The project’s approximately 70 buildings containing 201 units would sit on 47 clear-cut acres of a 105-acre tract on Fort Hill.
Atty. Peter B. Cooper, of the New Haven firm of Cooper, Whitney, Cochran & Francois, represents GOSA in the Zoning Commission action.
This is the second appeal against a land-use commission approval of the project. The Inland Wetlands Agency’s split Sept. 12, 2007, approval of Mystic Woods also is subject of a Superior Court appeal by GOSA and Fort Hill neighbors.
The Zoning Commission appeal argues that the Commission, in deciding whether to grant a special permit, such as is required for Mystic Woods, has the discretion to determine whether a project would be suitable from the points of view of harmony with the existing neighborhood; traffic flow; and environmental impact. The document said that a majority of the commission “accepted erroneous legal advice from the Commission’s staff that it had no discretion but to approve the density level as proposed in the application, without independently subjecting the effects of that proposed density” to the special permit standards. It said the commission in acting on a special permit is not bound to the “mechanical application of density and bulk regulations.”
Among other key points of the appeal:
--During the commission’s deliberations Dec. 5, the planning staff “interjected itself to such a significant extent...that it crossed over the line between permissible consultation and planning advice as requested by the Commission to an impermissible advocacy role on behalf of the applicant.” The applicant is Hawthorne Development Partners LLC of Woburn, MA.
--Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, told the Commission Dec. 5 that “The applicant is meeting the standards of the regulations now...this is not a site plan.” The appeal says that “the legal conclusion that the standards of Section 8.3-8 [special permit zoning regulations] have been met is a Commission function, not a Staff one. In short, the Staff impermissibly usurped and effectively limited the necessary discretionary role of the Commission...”
--The development density of 201 units on 47 acres is double the norm for the RU-20 zone involved and would thus be inharmonious with the orderly development of the RU-20 district. It said Mystic Woods would imperil valuable Wetland #11 near the entrance/exit road and would create adverse traffic impacts on Flanders Road.
--The tract is “in the rural residential or RU-20 zone which is designated by the Town Plan of Conservation and Development as a conservation area, and which recommends topography based density limits in order to be in compliance with the ‘harmony’ provisions of the special permit objectives.”
--The plan was impermissibly re-engineered “on the fly”--in the words of Chairman Stephen Hudecek--in a way that was not subject to review and analysis of the intervenors and the public after the public hearing had closed. [After staff objected to member Richard Haviland’s proposal for a reduction in the number of units, Mr. Haviland quickly called for an increased buffer between certain boundary lines of existing houses in the neighborhood and proposed buildings in the project. He asked for a ruler and drew lines on a plan to show his suggestion to other Commission members.] The proposal, which the appeal called “cosmetic...but unanalyzed,” was accepted by the Commission majority.
Voting against the Zoning Commission decision Dec. 5 were Chairman Hudecek and member Mariellen French. Voting to approve were members Haviland, Douglas Brandt and Robert O’Neill.
The appeal, which names the Zoning Commission and Hawthorne Development Partners as defendants, calls for the defendants to respond by Jan. 29, 2008.
^ back to headlines
GOSA Director Fairgrieve Urges Action On Open Space Plan For Groton
GROTON -- GOSA Director Edith Fairgrieve has urged town officials to give more priority to developing a plan for protecting remaining open space in the town.
She told a meeting of the Committee of Chairpersons Nov. 29, 2007, that the topic largely is confined to the Conservation Commission.
Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, responded by saying that the press of other work had prevented the OPDS from taking action on the Conservation Commission’s list of properties desirable for protection.
This is Ms. Fairgrieve’s statement:
Any suggestion that Groton needs to develop a town open space plan and the measures to implement it is officially ignored outside of the Conservation Commission.
The commission issued a map and list of “Properties Desirable for Protection” in November 2005 and submitted it to the Planning Department for the pending update of the Plan of Conservation and Development. No action was taken by Planning. Two years later the Conservation Commission is revising the list to be resubmitted for the same purpose with a number of properties dropped from the list because of development.
GOSA asks, “Will the revised list quickly move to be included in the updated Plan of Conservation and Development?” “Will there be a hearing for community input?”
It is important to open the subject of open space preservation for town-wide discussion. Presently the topic is bottled up in the Conservation Commission.
^ back to headlines
State Appellate Court Upholds Verdict Favoring Merritt, GOSA
HARTFORD -- The state Appellate Court has ruled in favor of F.L. Merritt Inc. and the Groton Open Space Association in their contract dispute with Cheshire developer Ravenswood Construction LLC over who will buy the 75-acre Merritt property on Fort Hill.
The ruling was released Dec. 12, 2007, and is to be published in the Connecticut Law Journal Dec. 18. Ravenswood will have 20 days from Dec. 18 to decide whether to seek a review by the state Supreme Court. The state’s highest court usually grants only a small percentage of requests for a review.
If Ravenswood should request a review, the Supreme Court probably would take one to three months to decide whether to hear the case. If the court refuses, the proceedings are over. If it should agree, a final decision could take another 12-16 months.
A three-judge panel of the Appellate Court heard oral arguments in the case Sept. 6, 2007. The panel consisted of Chief Judge Joseph P. Flynn, Judge Thomas A. Bishop and Judge Trial Referee David M. Borden. The decision was written by Judge Flynn, with the other judges concurring.
GOSA had signed a contract April 14, 2003, to buy the Merritt property, a wooded tract cut by two streams, from F.L. Merritt Inc. for $1 million, with the aid of a $650,000 state grant. The property would be preserved as public open space. Shortly afterward, Ravenswood sued F.L. Merritt to compel it to perform on what Ravenswood said was its own pre-existing contract to buy the land. GOSA later voluntarily joined the suit as a defendant.
A Superior Court jury found May 18, 2005, that Ravenswood’s claim to have a
pre-existing contract was not valid. Superior Court Judge Seymour Hendel then ruled that GOSA’s contract was valid. Atty. William Kroll of Salem represented F.L. Merritt in the jury trial. GOSA was represented by Atty. William Hescock of North Stonington. Ravenswood appealed the verdict.
The Appellate Court now has upheld the jury’s finding and Judge Hendel’s conduct of the trial. Ravenswood had contended that Judge Hendel erred by: failing to instruct the jury properly, allowing into evidence an unsigned contract rider, restricting
cross-examination of a witness, and failing to overturn a jury verdict that was (1) against the weight of the evidence and (2) against the court’s instructions. The Appellate Court turned down each point of the Ravenswood appeal.
Lead lawyer for the defense was Elizabeth L. Leamon, of the New Haven firm of Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn. Other members of the defense team were Gerald A. Cory, of New London, and, on the brief, Ben A. Solnit, of Tyler-Cooper.
Representing the plaintiff were Paul M. Geraghty and Michael S. Bonnano, of New London, and James M. Miele, of Cheshire.
For the full text of the Appellate Court decision, click here.
^ back to headlines
New Mystic Woods Buffer From Adjacent Property Lines Larger By 25 Feet
GROTON -- A condition imposed on Mystic Woods by the Zoning Commission Dec. 5, 2007, enlarges the buffer between some buildings in the project and the boundaries of adjacent properties, the Office of Planning and Development Services said Dec. 6, 2007. (See story immediately below for background.)
The buffer enlargement--to a minimum of 100 feet from the 75 feet specified in the Active Senior Housing section of the town zoning regulations--would apply to property boundaries at the north ends of Hemlock and Stonecrest roads and to several properties on the southwest side of Hemlock. However, a sizeable stretch on the west side of Hemlock is excluded from the condition.
At a Nov. 7, 2007 hearing on the project, the focus regarding buffers was on the distance between buildings in the project and neighboring buildings, rather than the property boundaries of neighbors. Under a developer’s concession announced then, the nearest house would be 207 feet from the nearest ASH building--on a structure-to-structure basis.
The impact, if any, of the shift on numbers of buildings in the project was not immediately clear. Zoning Commission Chairman Stephen Hudecek pointed out during the deliberations that the proposed change would not necessarily require any reduction in numbers of buildings.
It is clear from the plan that the location of some buildings would have to be changed, though the vast majority already conform to the mandated change. An OPDS planner declined to estimate the number of buildings--as opposed to dwelling units-- that would have to be reconfigured, moved or removed as a result of the condition. A GOSA guesstimate--but only that--might be six buildings, of which two already had been scheduled to be relocated or eliminated in accordance with a proposal by the applicant Nov. 7, 2007.
^ back to headlines
Zoning Conditionally Approves Mystic Woods; Vote Split
GROTON -- The Zoning Commission by a split 3-2 vote gave conditional approval Dec. 5, 2007, to the Mystic Woods Active Senior Housing project on Fort Hill.
The approval at the commission’s regular meeting included a condition that the development’s proposed motor vehicle exit onto Route 1 be restricted to emergency use.
The public hearing on the application had ended Nov. 7.
The second condition comprised new 100-foot setbacks from existing neighborhoods. These setbacks were drawn on a map during the meeting by commission member Richard Haviland but not shown to members of the public attending the commission’s deliberations.
It was not clear immediately whether and to what extent these setbacks would affect the number of units in the development, which had stood at 201. Harry Heller, attorney for Hawthorne Development Partners of Woburn, MA, had told the Nov. 7 hearing that the development had agreed to widened separation of the new housing complex from the two closest existing neighborhood houses.
Mr. Haviland originally had urged that the developer scale the project back to around 160 units but withdrew his suggestion in favor of larger buffers after Matthew Davis, town planning manager, indicated that a numerical limitation could be interpreted as “arbitrary.”
Chairman Stephen Hudecek heatedly contended that Mr. Haviland’s hastily drawn new setbacks on a map amounted to impermissible “re-engineering of [the] project on the fly.” He said, “We have no idea what the project will look like after the change.” He told Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, that Mr. Murphy had advised in the past against such wholesale changes to applications.
Mr. Murphy insisted that conditions of this type were permissible in a special permit process, such as is involved with Mystic Woods.
Mr. Hudecek said he felt the planned development would have negative effects on traffic, the environment and existing neighborhoods--the three key points to be considered when commissions weigh applications for a special permit.
Voting for the conditional approval were commission members Robert O’Neill, Douglas Brandt and Mr. Haviland. Voting against were Mr. Hudecek and Mariellen French. Ms. French had expressed reservations about project's scale and its impact on the Long Island Sound and traffic on Flanders Road. She also said she didn’t feel comfortable about the type of change in the application being made by the commission.
Prior to the closure of the session, Mr. Hudecek said the action of the commission was “way different from anything we’ve ever done.” He expressed disappointment not only with the evening’s proceedings but also with the town’s staff work on the Active Senior Housing amendment, adopted in 2005, “which allowed these things in the first place.” The ASH amendment was adopted without a buildable land definition.
A buildable land definition, long advocated without result by GOSA, would permit cluster housing, such as ASH, but would have the effect of limiting numbers of units in them by discounting unbuildable acres from the computation of permitted dwellings.
Mr. Murphy countered Mr. Hudecek’s criticism by saying, “They’re good regulations. Things change. They don’t stay stagnant.”
Earlier in the discussion, members Brandt, O’Neill and Haviland all had expressed unease about the size of the project -- more than 70 buildings -- and its traffic impact, though members Brandt and Haviland did not show concern about environmental damage. Town staff contended that possible adverse traffic impacts on Fort Hill would be taken care of by limiting the Route 1 exit to emergency-only use. Mr. Murphy said that a reduction in the number of units in the development wouldn’t have a significant impact on traffic. Mr. Murphy also dismissed the size issue by saying that the developer had met the density standards laid down by the town.
The reservations of members Brandt, O'Neill and Haviland about size and harmony of the project with the existing neighborhood disappeared quickly after Mr. Haviland made his setback adjustments, though the changes' impact seemed far from clear.
Mr. Murphy has made it known that he feels that the project would conserve open space much better than would single family housing. The project also would result in extension of a sewer line to Flanders Road, laying the groundwork for additional development along that road.
^ back to headlines
Zoning Unit Closes Three-Part Mystic Woods Hearing
GROTON -- A three-night public Zoning Commission hearing on the proposed “Mystic Woods” active senior housing project on 105 acres atop Fort Hill closed around midnight, Nov. 7, 2007. The final session drew a capacity crowd to Community Room 2 at the Town Hall Annex and held much of its audience until the closing gavel.
Under zoning regulations, the five-member commission had 65 days from the closing to decide whether to grant a special permit to Hawthorne Development Partners LLC of Woburn, MA, to build a 200+ unit complex on the hill between Flanders Road and Fort Hill Road (Route 1). However, the commission’s deliberation and decision could come as early as the next scheduled meeting of the commission Dec. 5, 2007. The two preceding Zoning Commission public sessions on Mystic Woods took place Sept. 19 and Oct. 15.
The main news coming out of the last hearing session was that the developer had increased the proposed distance of the new development from the two closest existing neighborhood houses. The closest existing house now would be 207 feet from any building in the new development, up from about 150 feet under the previous plan, according to Harry Heller, attorney for Hawthorne. The margins would be increased by eliminating one two-unit building, reorienting and moving a second, relocating a third and reducing it by one unit, and splitting a four-unit fourth building into two buildings.
The changes would reduce the number of planned units to 201 from 204 previously and from 211 when Hawthorne applied for Inland Wetlands Agency approval. The IWA approved the development Sept. 12, 2007, but imposed conditions that resulted in loss of 7 units. Mr. Heller said the increased buffers came about because of talks between Hawthorne and the nearest neighbors.
The hearing began at 7:50 p.m. with a 125-minute presentation by Mr. Heller and his team of specialist consultants. It consisted to a large extent of a repeat of material that Mr. Heller and his consultants had aired in an approximately 170-minute presentation Sept. 19, 2007.
The length of Mr. Heller’s presentations had spectators speaking of a “filibuster.” Even members of the commission were smiling in amused exasperation as Mr. Heller repeatedly stepped to the microphone and announced as a preface:
“For the record, my name is Harry Heller.”
However repetitious, Mr. Heller’s presentation had the practical effect, favorable for the applicant, of reducing the amount of time and commission patience that was left for some opponents of the project. As the clock approached midnight, citizens were being asked to severely limit their input. One Fort Hill neighbor was asked not to show a traffic video he had made. Instead it was entered into the record.
But the tactic was not all favorable for the applicant. At one point, Commission Chairman Stephen Hudecek asked Mr. Heller to stop introducing letters of endorsement for the project. Mr. Hudecek said that such material normally is reserved for the citizen input portion of a hearing.
When Commission Member Mariellen French asked Mr. Heller for further information about a letter writer who had been identified only by name and address, Mr. Heller acknowledged that the writer was an employe of Academy Point, a Mystic assisted-care facility developed by Hawthorne Development Partners.
The hearing had been preceded by distribution of a Nov. 2, 2007, memorandum from the town planning staff cautioning the Zoning Commission not to usurp the authority of the Inland Wetlands Agency, the Planning Commission or the Connecticut Department of Transportation. It said that intervention in the case (by the Groton Open Space Association) under state law “does not expand the scope of your authority, nor does it allow the Commission the ability to convert a special permit application into a de facto detailed site plan application... [I]ntervention does not allow the Zoning Commission to take on regulatory authority granted to the inland wetland agency, or to review and ‘approve’ the detailed sedimentation and erosion control plan, which in the town of Groton is under the purview of the Planning Commission.”
It said further that “it is important to keep in mind that the Commission does not have the authority to regulate traffic operations on State Highways [meaning Route 1], nor to act as a surrogate for the State Traffic Commission.”
The town’s zoning regulations stipulate that the Zoning Commission, when hearing requests for special permits, such as would be required for Mystic Woods, should consider three main factors: traffic, the environment, and harmony of the proposed project with the surrounding neighborhood.
GOSA attorney Peter Cooper had replied to the planning staff with a 4 ½ page detailed letter of refutation elaborating on this early paragraph:
“With respect, I conclude that the claims of the planning staff as to the jurisdictional limits on your Commission’s authority and responsibilities are not legally supportable.“
Whether or not as a result of Atty. Cooper’s letter, the staff did not attempt, as feared, to limit discussion of traffic or the environment.
During public input, Flanders Road resident Anna Sullivan said:
“This [planning staff] memo is a blatant directive to approve the application, and the language is highly biased in favor of the applicant. It is obvious that town staff is promoting this project, and this attempt to box the Zoning Commission in and remove their authority is highly disturbing to me. The Zoning Commission should take umbrage at this power grab.”
During GOSA presentation to the Commission, GOSA board member Joan Smith summarized the organization’s supplemental notice of intervention. The intervention notice said, among other things, that the intense proposed development threatened vernal pools, was likely to impact the slope stability of portions of Fort Hill with potential harm to Fort Hill Brook and ultimately the Long Island Sound, and would cause severe loss of wildlife habitat. The intervention notice also noted that Hawthorne has declined to provide the Zoning Commission with results of its archaeological investigations of the site and has failed to give the agency with a full set of plans reflecting the changes that responded to Inland Wetlands Agency conditions.
Commission Member Mariellen French estimated conservatively that at least 1,000 trees, each now absorbing about 10,000 gallons of water a year, would be clear-cut to make way for the development. She asked how this water, amounting to 10,000,000 gallons a year, would now be handled. She was told by an engineer hired by the applicant that storm water management engineering guidelines used by the applicant factored such tree loss into account.
George Logan, a wetlands biologist hired by Hawthorne, said -- referring to “Best Management Practices” storm water treatment basins -- that he had never seen such a “BMP-rich” storm water treatment program as the one Hawthorne plans for Mystic Woods.
Ms. French also quoted from a state statute that requires Zoning Commissions in coastal municipalities to consider the health of Long Island Sound.
Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, immediately interjected that the statute that Ms. French quoted applies to the writing of regulations. The Active Senior Housing regulation was adopted by the Zoning Commission in a split vote Feb. 2, 2005, and became effective March 1, 2005.
GOSA Director Marty Young read a letter from Steven Trinkaus, a Southbury engineer hired by GOSA. The letter found fault with the clarity and adequacy of plans submitted by the applicant and said many technical issues remain unaddressed by the applicant.
Mr. Heller acknowledged that under state definition, Mystic Woods would be a “major traffic generator.” He contended, however, that this term applies to any project with 200 parking spaces or 100,000 square feet of floor space.
He said the designation was merely “a term of art.”
In response to a question, a representative of the town-hired independent traffic consultant, Camp Dresser & McKee, said the firm had not collected its own data regarding the potential impact of Mystic Woods on Fort Hill but had done a “peer review” of the data collected by the applicant’s consultant, as requested by the town.
Wendy MacFarland, a Bel-Aire resident, earlier had told the commission, “The misuse of the experts hired to address engineering and environmental problems [involved with Mystic Woods] was shocking.” She said that in one case a wetlands expert was hired as an expert consultant to the Inland Wetlands Agency on hydrology and that town-hired consultants have been absent from hearings on occasion.
Much of the discussion at the hearing centered on whether the proposed development, consisting of more than 70 tightly spaced buildings on 47 acres, would fit into the neighborhood--where, a GOSA study showed, the average lot size is about four fifths of an acre.
James O’Donnell, a professor of marine sciences at the University of Connecticut at Avery Point, contended that the development would be “incongruous.” Placing one of Mr. Heller’s display boards on an easel, Mr. O’Donnell pointed to a thick arc of ASH buildings opposite spacious lots on Hemlock Road.
“It’s not in harmony,” he said.
^ back to headlines
Zoning Approves MX Floating Zone: The Day
Groton — Reversing a previous decision, the Zoning Commission approved Nov. 7, 2007, a regulation amendment that would allow creation of floating mixed commercial-residential zones in certain areas of the town, The Day Reported.
Following is from an article by Katie Warchut, with some additional information provided by GOSA:
The mixed-use zone, meant to be an alternative to traditional residential neighborhoods and strip development in four targeted areas of town, passed in a 4 to 1 vote.
Though commissioners rejected the so-called floating zone in a 3-2 vote last month, the town attorney advised them to reconsider after attorney Timothy Bates challenged the legality of the vote.
Bates represents the applicant, L&L Groton LLC, a division of READCO Management, which owns land in one of the areas the new zone would affect, at the intersection of routes 184 and 117. Bates had said alternate member Susan Marquardt should have been a voting member instead of Susan Sutherland, who had previously voted against the zone.
This time around, Marquardt approved the zone, as did commission Chairman Stephen Hudecek, who had previously voted against it.
Members Bob O'Neill and Richard Haviland also supported it, while Mariellen French was the lone dissenter.
[Ms. French objected that the regulation had been written by the lawyer for an applicant, rather than by the town. "This seems backwards," she said.]
The zone is designed to allow small, village-type development with commercial and residential features.
In addition to the area around routes 184 and 117, the zone would be allowed around the Naval Submarine Base; the intersection of routes 1, 12 and 184; and in downtown Groton, around the intersection of Route 1 and Poquonnock Road.
Instead of being drawn on a map, the proposed zone can only “land” when the commission approves a project.
[The Planning Commission would be consulted on such landings. A negative recommendation by the Planning Commission could be overcome only by a supermajority on the Zoning Commission.]
Commissioners made some changes to the plan, increasing the minimum development area from 3 acres to 5 acres in all areas except downtown and reducing some of the maximum heights allowed.
[The limits include 45 feet around the junction of Route 1 and 12, down from 75 feet previously, and 45 feet in the downtown, where no limit previously existed.]
Groups such as the Southeastern Connecticut Housing Alliance have supported the plan, as L&L Groton's proposal supports “work-force housing.” Town Councilor Frank “Mick” O'Beirne has been an opponent, saying the regulations are too vague and that the Zoning Commission would have too much power to approve such projects.
[GOSA opposed the original proposal, which would have allowed floating zones in eight areas plus in the 1,200 acres of industrial zones. The proposal eventually was trimmed back to four zones and it excluded the 1,200 acres. Following this change, GOSA advocated building height limitations and some procedural changes -- not adopted -- for landing a zone.]
^ back to headlines
What Is An “Open” Zoning Commission Meeting?
GROTON -- Is it possible for a Zoning Commission meeting to be both open and closed at the same time?
That question arose following a 6 p.m., Oct. 15, 2007, special Zoning Commission session.
The agenda posted by the Office of Planning and Development Services in Community Room 2 of the Town Hall Annex listed two items of business:
1. A proposed executive (closed to the public) session regarding “pending litigation” on Floating Zone amendment application. The application had been turned down by the Commission on a 3-2 vote Oct. 3.
2. Discussion and possible action on a request for reconsideration of the negative vote.
The Day newspaper, which had a reporter in the lobby outside the meeting room during the vote, reported the session as if it all had taken place behind closed doors. The GOSA website summarized The Day’s story, attributing it to the newspaper. The website report indicated the commission’s decision to reconsider at a forthcoming meeting Nov. 7 came during the executive session.
The OPDS later said the unanimously voted decision to reconsider had been made during a portion of the meeting that was open to the public. It asked the GOSA website to correct its story. It said that a vote could be taken only during a public session.
The OPDS said that a sign was posted on the door of Community Room 2 when the closed session began. The sign was taken down after discussion of the “pending litigation” and prior to the reconsideration vote, the OPDS said, calling this a “very common and prudent practice.”
An official of a neighboring town agreed that signs are common but said the common practice also includes a loud announcement to members of the public outside the door when a sign is taken down. No such announcement was reported Oct. 15. As best could be determined, no member of the public, including a representative of L&L Groton LLC, the applicant, who earlier had been dismissed from Meeting Room 2, was aware of the reopening.
“Maybe someone forgot to shout,” said the neighboring town official.
The “pending litigation” was a threatened appeal of the Oct. 3 vote by L&L Groton LLC Atty. Timothy Bates, who after the Oct. 15 meeting said the vote to reconsider had prevented an appeal.
Is a threatened appeal the same as “pending litigation?” One lawyer said no.
In any case, is a threatened appeal sufficient to justify an executive session? An official of the Freedom of Information Commission in Hartford said, without getting into the specifics of this case, that a vague threat of a suit does not justify an executive session. However, a specific threat in writing “could be OK.” The exact form of Mr. Bates’s threat was not immediately determined.
What remains fully open as a practical question is whether a Zoning Commission meeting can be both open and closed at the same time.
^ back to headlines
Mystic Woods Termed Too Big and Harmful For Fort Hill
GROTON -- The proposed Mystic Woods Active Senior Housing project would clash both with existing neighborhoods and with the land atop Fort Hill, and it would create serious traffic problems there, opponents told the Zoning Commission Oct. 15, 2007, during continuation of a hearing that began Sept. 19.
Hawthorne Development Partners LLC, of Woburn, Massachusetts, is seeking a “special permit” from the commission in order to build a 200+ unit complex of nearly 70 buildings on 105 acres of what are now sloping woods and wetlands. The RU20-zoned Fort Hill neighborhood now consists predominantly of single-family residences on lots of one half acre or more.
In the special permit process, the Zoning Commission is empowered to ensure that a project would fit in with the orderly development of a neighborhood and would do no traffic or environmental harm. Opponents -- both from GOSA and the neighborhood -- contended Oct. 15 that the project is far too big and out of character to be harmonious and that it would cause major traffic problems as well as environmental harm.
Mr. Heller said that Hawthorne had drawn up a revised plan to take account of conditions imposed by the Inland Wetlands Agency in its Sept. 12, 2007, approval of the application. The revised plan envisions 204 units, down from 211 proposed earlier, he said. (GOSA has appealed the IWA approval to the New London Superior Court.)
The Active Senior Housing project is the first to be applied for since the
Zoning Commission passed -- by a split vote -- an amendment to the Zoning Regulations Feb. 2, 2005 allowing ASH. Commission Chairman Steven Hudecek based his “no” vote on the belief that the amendment as written would allow overly dense development.
In a letter read to the commission by GOSA member Robert Schneider, New Haven Attorney Peter Cooper said, “It is vital for the future appropriate and orderly development of the Groton community that the precedent your Commission sets is the right one.”
He said the application involves 69 “townhouse-style residential buildings of a repetitive and similar nature crammed into a very small location.” He said the project does not meet regulatory requirements for diversity, balance and choice. Mr. Cooper said the uniformity of the housing and “the abruptness with which it concentrates itself in close proximity to the existing low-intensity housing...shows that the application’s design is flawed, inharmonious, and fails to meet the purpose and intent of the special permit regulations...”
After further noting traffic and environmental problems, Mr. Cooper urged that the application be denied or withdrawn.
GOSA engineering consultant Steven D. Trinkaus of Southbury said the development foresees “no effective buffer” from the surrounding neighborhood. He said grading associated with construction would remove almost all natural vegetation between the ASH units and the property line. He said, “The large buildings, approximately 70 feet by 100 feet in length and a minimum of 35 feet in height, will be a visual intrusion to the existing residential uses...”
He said that the storm water treatment systems proposed for the development have shown
promise but “the long-term effectiveness of these systems has not been verified at this time.”
Summing up, he deplored the planned removal of all trees in the housing area, as well as “significant cuts and fills to remake the topography of the site to fit the layout of the proposed buildings instead of making the development conform to current land forms.”
Lloyd J. Hutchins of Stonecrest Road, near the site of the project, pointed out numerous traffic problems that the project would entail, despite the assurances of the applicant’s traffic consultant that Mystic Woods would have no significant traffic impact. Mr. Hutchins said:
--A 48-lot project called Mystic Estates has been proposed for the south side of Route 1. One entrance of Mystic Estates would be close to the proposed entrance to Mystic Woods off Flanders Road. (Mystic Estates is subject of continuing litigation between GOSA and Ravenswood Construction LLC, a developer.) He said Mystic Estates should be factored into the traffic study.
--With Mystic Woods “doing the town a big financial favor by extending the sanitary sewer line over to Flanders Road, did the consultant consider a full buildout of Flanders Road and the impact of this on potential traffic...?”
--Mystic Woods could become a shortcut from Flanders to Route 1 for drivers seeking to avoid the traffic light atop Fort Hill, a concern also expressed by Patricia Olivier, a Hemlock Road resident.
--Entry onto Route 1 from Lemont Road already is difficult and would be aggravated by “400+ cars from Mystic Woods.”
--Drivers will be tempted to defy planned rules by turning left from the Route 1 exit of Mystic Woods and by entering Mystic Woods from Route 1.
Michael Jasenek, of Hemlock Road, a direct abutter, said the project means “we’ll be looking at concrete boxes. Lights will glow from what is now forest.” Anna Sullivan, of Flanders Road, said the intersection of Flanders Road and Route 1 now is the scene of many accidents and that “traffic barely flows through Route 1 at present.” She also expressed concern about light pollution in the currently forested area.
James O’Donnell, PhD, of Groton, a professor of marine sciences at the University of Connecticut, said the proposed storm water treatment system is “experimental” and has had only three years of testing at the University of New Hampshire, where it was developed. “It’s clear they (UNH) like it. That doesn’t mean it’s good.” He noted that plans call for the UNH storm water center to monitor the system in the post-construction period, and he asked whether this was “the fox guarding the henhouse.” Robert Roseen, PhD, director of the UNH Stormwater Center, said three years constitutes a lengthy test.
Lorraine Santangelo, a GOSA director, presented a précis of GOSA’s verified notice of intervention in the Zoning proceedings under Section 22a-19(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes. GOSA contends, among other things, that the wetlands impacts of the project is -- in the language of the statute -- “reasonably likely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying the public trust in the air, water, or other natural resources of Connecticut.”
Jim Furlong, a GOSA director, submitted to the commission a series of spreadsheets that show the average acreage of houses in the neighborhood of the project is 0.81 acre. He argued that the high-density Mystic Woods community would not fit harmoniously in with this neighborhood. He said that if the 105-acre parcel, half of which is unbuildable, were used for single family housing, a developer could build at most a little more than 100 units, assuming he could meet environmental and traffic objections. He suggested that this would be a good criterion to use in evaluating the size of a cluster development like Mystic Woods. He said that when Mr. Heller told the commission the developer was entitled under the regulations to build as many as 304 units, Mr. Heller was dealing with a figure that was “bizarre and unreal.”
The hearing was continued to Nov. 7, by which time the town's traffic consultant -- Camp Dresser and McKee of Cambridge, Massachusetts -- is expected to be ready to present its report.
^ back to headlines
Zoning Commission To Reconsider Floating Zone Vote
GROTON -- The Zoning Commission decided Oct. 15, 2007, to reconsider its vote to reject a regulation amendment that would allow floating zones to be established in four areas of the town, The Day reported.
The amendment had been rejected Oct. 3 by a vote of 3-2, with Chairman Steven Hudecek, Mariellen French and Sue Sutherland casting “no” votes and Richard Haviland and Robert O’Neill voting for the amendment.
Atty. Timothy Bates had raised questions about the vote because alternate member Susan Marquardt had been scheduled to vote on the issue but was replaced by Ms.Sutherland when Ms. Marquardt showed up late. Mr. Bates contended Ms. Marquardt, though late, should have been allowed to vote instead of Ms. Sutherland when Ms. Marquardt arrived.
Mr. Hudecek made the motion in or after (click below) a closed-door session to reconsider the vote, with Ms. French and Ms. Sutherland voting for the motion, though “with reservations,” the article said.
(See additional information)
Mr. Bates said he was glad the commission decided to do “the right thing.” He said the decision had eliminated any need for an appeal by his client L&L Groton LLC, which initiated the request for an amendment. Town Attorney Michael Carey participated in the meeting.
Ms. Marquardt will vote Nov. 7, date for reconsideration, instead of Ms. Sutherland, the article said.
| 
Charles Pratt, pioneering conservationist and a GOSA founder
