(Dates on stories and headlines generally refer to the date of the main reported event, which may be earlier than the website posting.)

NEW LONDON--A Superior Court judge has turned down GOSA's appeal against the Groton Planning Commission's approval of the site plan for the projected 147-unit Four Winds "residential life care community" on 105 acres of the Watrous property.

GOSA has 20 days from Dec. 23, 2005, the date of Judge Joseph J. Purtill's decision, to file a request for an Appellate Court review.

UPDATE: GOSA filed Jan. 11, 2006, a request for Appellate Court review. GOSA's petition for certification contended, among other things, that environmental issues fell between the cracks as land-use agencies improperly delegated responsibilities to each other.

Judge Purtill found that the Planning Commission's approval of site plan Sept. 28, 2004, was "reasonably supported by the record" of its study of the project.

GOSA had contended in its appeal against the Planning Commission and the developer, Mystic Active Adult LLC, that the Planning Commission:

--failed to consider prudent and reasonable alternatives to the developer's plan.

--didn't weigh the project's impact on the environment.

--didn't recognize that Four Winds is not a "residential life care community."

The Watrous property is site of one of New England's most biologically productive vernal pools, as well as home to sensitive species like wood turtles and red shouldered hawks.

Mystic Active Adult LLC is headed by Ron Bonvie, developer of an active adult community, Southport, in Mashpee, Massachusetts.

GOSA's previous appeals against Four Winds, involving approvals by the Zoning Commission and Inland Wetlands Agency, have been turned down by the Superior Court, and the Appellate Court has declined in each case to provide a review. However, the Appellate Court has agreed to review Judge Purtill's finding in favor of Mr. Bonvie in a related case. That involves Mr. Bonvie's appeal against the IWA's decision to disallow a wetlands crossing on the north side of the Watrous property.

NOANK--Noted marine artist and illustrator James A. Mitchell of Noank has published a letter in the Mystic River Press strongly criticizing the environmental stewardship of Stonington officials and citing the general threat to all the "little seaside towns from Guilford to Westerly."

Mr. Mitchell says the whole quiet corner could be headed down the same road as taken by Bergen County, NJ, and suggests that politicians replacing trees and marshes with car lots and big box stores ought themselves to be replaced.

Mr. Mitchell's letter, in the Dec. 22, 2005, issue, said (begin text):

The poet of New England said, "Something there is that doesn't love a wall."

If Robert Frost had lived around here, he would have had to change it to "Something there is in Stonington that doesn't love a tree"--or much else in the landscape for that matter.

Since when don't mature spruce trees "fit in with the new high school?" Too big? Are trees not regulated to proper size, to fit in with stark modern buildings? The recent destruction of large pines is right in line with a longstanding policy by Stonington politicians and builders of parking lots and gas stations, along with marsh fillers for car lots and big box stores. It's forgotten now, but in sight of the lost pines was the big swamp maple right across from the old police station. It was cut away for no reason, not even a parking lot.

About that time, 1970, the golf clubhouse at the corner of Route 1 and Flanders Road got bulldozed for a gas station and the two rare elm trees cut at the entrance, the stone pillars destroyed--nothing there now. More recent is the senseless destruction of all the big trees to make a shadeless parking lot for the A&P grocery. Included in this destruction was the century-old maple tree, 80 feet in from the centerline of Route 1. With it went the fieldstone house.

Then there was the row of trees by the Seaport on Route 27, all cut because, as the Museum explained, one was diseased, so they all had to go for a sidewalk.

Unfortunately, Stonington is not alone in uglification. Drive over to Saybrook, once the jewel of the shoreline, now a sea of car lots. Stop by Avery Point campus where the copper beechas cut down to make a sidewalk in spite of student protest and cut down on a Sunday when the students were off watch.

On Route 2, a fort-like cinema block house was built and an entire forest slaughtered, hundreds of trees gone so that the thing could be seen from the highway. Now comes a "floating zone," really an enabling act to open the door wider for big developments to ease in.

All these little seaside towns from Guilford to Westerly are subject to losing the charm that attracted people in the past. If this trend is not halted, the quiet corner could wind up like Bergen County, NJ, now down to less than 2,000 unpaved acres.

The only thing that could stop this would be legislation such as in England where the cutting of large trees is a serious matter. May I suggest that if a marsh can be replaced, why not a politician?

GROTON--The Inland Wetlands Agency decided at a meeting Dec. 14, 2005, to pursue regulation changes that would allow the agency to hire experts to evaluate development proposals and bill the experts' fees to the developers making those proposals.

Any such change would require a public hearing. The IWA decided also to study whether and how much to increase fees payable by developers for filing applications requiring IWA review, independent of whether experts are required.

The Groton Office of Planning and Development Services is understood to be at work on a proposed ordinance that would increase fees generally to account for costs involved in evaluating developers' plans. Whether such an ordinance would operate in tandem with, or replace, the IWA's regulation changes wasn't immediately clear.

Many communities in Connecticut, including Old Saybrook, are empowered to bill experts' fees to developers.

GROTON--The Inland Wetlands Agency has scheduled a hearing for Jan. 11, 2006, on the proposed Groton Highpoint subdivision that would be built on a former sheep farm at 245 Hazelnut Hill Road.

The proposed 34-house project would be located on 63 acres and would be served by town sewer and water. The project is envisioned to include 33 acres of open space plus 9 acres of conservation easements on rear slopes of some lots.

The open space would be located on both sides of Fort Hill Brook, which runs through the property down to Long Island Sound, at one point coursing over an approximately 15-foot rock waterfall.

Originally, developer Otto Paparazzo had proposed an age-restricted condo project for the property, but a regulation change now requires such projects to be located off main roads. Hazelnut Hill Road does not qualify. Therefore, Mr. Paparazzo came up with a new plan.

GROTON--The Inland Wetlands Agency is expected to consider later this month whether to change its regulations to allow the agency to hire experts at developers' expense when such experts are needed to evaluate impacts of proposed projects.

Minutes of the Nov. 9, 2005, IWA meeting show that commission Member Eunice Sutphen asked that the agency discuss this matter at its Dec. 14 meeting.

Earlier in the meeting, Alternate Member Mary Ellen Furlong had reported that the state had urged local inland wetlands agencies around the state that don't currently have such powers to acquire them. The urging came at a meeting that Ms. Furlong attended of the Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions Nov. 5 in Wallingford.

GROTON--Town Councilor Elissa Wright has released a position paper calling for prompt appointment of "a task force to undertake a thorough, in-depth study and analysis of the real property tax burden in Groton."

"The tax environment is very important to individuals, to businesses, to the social fabric, to the quality of life and the future direction of our town," the paper said. "We have an urgent need to improve our understanding of the real property tax burden, its impact on citizens of the town, and the relationship between the state and local governments when it comes to who provides what services and how funds are raised at each level of government to pay for those services."

Ms. Wright, a candidate for the new council that will be elected Nov. 8, 2005, said in the paper that "today's fiscal reality is characterized by decreased funding of municipal programs by the state and federal governments, with increasing reliance on the real property tax to finance this widening gap."

"Our increasing dependence on the local property tax ultimately contributes to density, sprawl and traffic congestion as the race for ratable growth gobbles up more open land for development, in turn increasing the demand for costly municipal services, skewing the balance between preservation and development, and diminishing the quality of life...," she said.

The paper said a buildout analysis would determine fiscal impacts of land development on local government. It said the analysis would provide a "sound factual and theoretical basis to guide long-range planning about the future direction of our town." Ms. Wright called for retention of existing businesses, and local and regional efforts to promote new products and enterprises, while preserving the quality of life that makes the town "an attractive place for business to locate and for people to live."

GROTON--Two town councilors differed at the council meeting Nov. 1, 2005, on the content of discussions between the town and state over a possible use of the 35-acre Merritt Property near Fitch High School.

Town Councilor Paulann Sheets had reported to the council Sept. 20, 2005, that David Stygar, of the state Department of Environmental Protection, told her by phone of an approach by an engineer or architect representing the town. She said Mr. Stygar remarked that the representative inquired as to whether a building could be constructed on the Merritt Property. She quoted Mr. Stygar as discouraging the idea because it would represent a conversion of the property from its intended use--25 acres as passive open space and 10 acres as athletic fields.

The land was acquired in part with state money and also with funds raised by a bond issue approved by Groton voters in 1988 for open space, conservation and recreation.

Mr. Stygar told Councilor Sheets that the original call was followed by a second call, from another town representative, who then asked about the feasibility of putting a temporary parking lot on the property during scheduled construction at the high school, she said.

Town Councilor Natalie Burfoot-Billing told the Nov. 1, 2005, council meeting that she had called Mr. Stygar to dig more deeply into the matter. Ms. Burfoot-Billing said she asked him, "Has anyone from Groton ever called you to discuss plans to put a building on the Merritt property?" She said that he replied, "No."

On Nov. 2, Ms. Sheets released a statement from Mr. Stygar that said in part:

"I have been informed that...[Councilor Sheets told the town council] that someone, probably an engineer, contacted me regarding the use of the Merritt Property. The exact time I cannot account for. I regarded this inquiry as a preliminary step in the design of the school. As with any project protected by an open space agreement, I discouraged the placement of any structural building on the property. It would be a conversion, a long process, and the Town would be responsible for replacement of lost land. All alternatives needed to be reviewed... My conversation with Councilor Sheets took place around Sept. 12, 2005. I did receive another call regarding the Merritt Property with a different proposal, that of a temporary parking area during construction, with the parking being converted to athletic fields once construction was completed. This later proposal was a more acceptable action.

"I still hold to point that all action to date has been preliminary in nature. I have not received any site plans, no indication of the affected size/area, time lines or official request to change the layout of the Merritt Property.

"I also had [a] telephone converation with Councilor Natalie Billing on November 1, 2005. I did at that time not recall the 'building' option as previously identified." Mr. Stygar's faxed statement was dated Nov. 2, 2005, the day after the council meeting.

The controversy took place against the background of environmentalists' opposition to the proposed parking lot, as well as support for a resolution proposed by Councilor Elissa Wright to put strong protection into the land records for tracts purchased with open space funds approved by voters in 1988. Ms. Wright's resolution was defeated in July and replaced by a less strongly worded and less comprehensive measure proposed by Ms. Burfoot-Billing.

GOSA contended in a citizen's petition to the Town Council Oct. 18, 2005, that the council should have been made aware -- during the debate on the Wright resolution -- of discussions for use of the property. The GOSA petition noted that Town Manager Mark Oefinger told the council [in September] that he knew of plans for the parking lot as of May 26, 2005.

[Note: the GOSA citizen's petition was read by Jim Furlong, a GOSA director, who wrote the news item directly above.]

GROTON--The Groton Open Space Association told the Town Council meeting Oct. 18, 2005, that statements by some councilors regarding dedicated town lands spell strife in the future and cast a shadow over those lands.

GOSA also said in a citizen's petition that council discussions of this topic this year have been hampered by a lack of needed information and by inadequate direction from the town attorney.

The topic of protection of these lands arose in May, when Councilor Elissa Wright proposed to add strong language to town land records noting that the five lands had been purchased with proceeds of a 1988 bond issue authorized for open space, conservation and recreation purposes and thus were legally dedicated to those purposes. The council rejected Ms. Wright's proposal in July in favor of a watered-down measure that applied to only four of the five lands.

The topic resurfaced in September when Town Manager Mark Oefinger asked the council to approve construction of a "temporary" parking lot on one of the lands, a 35-acre parcel near Fitch High School, that would accommodate student cars during planned construction at the school. The parcel involved would have been covered by Ms. Wright's resolution but was not covered by the substitute resolution.

The citizen's petition, delivered by Jim Furlong, a GOSA director, said:

--The council should have been made aware during the discussion of Ms. Wright's resolution of plans to build the parking lot. Town Manager Mark Oefinger, who later said he had known of the proposed lot since May 26, didn't mention it during the discussion. In this situation, one town councilor dismissed concern about the lands as a "manufactured crisis" engineered by special interest groups out to mislead the public. GOSA also noted that Councilor Paulann Sheets said in September that she had learned from a state official that the state had discourged an earlier idea to put a building on the parcel before the parking lot was proposed.

--The town attorney's opinion, dated June 28, on the matter was, by its own evaluation, "not intended to be definitive." The opinion also contained numerous confessions of uncertainties that made it unfit as a basis for a decision. Nonetheless, the opinion caused the council to turn against Ms. Wright's resolution, which the Council had tentatively approved 6-3 at its May 24 meeting. GOSA urged the town to get a new and authoritative legal opinion from independent lawyers.

--Since receiving the legal opinion, some councilors have made troubling statements. These statements include assertions that the lands purchased with bond issue funds may not be dedicated to the purposes set forth in the bond ordinance, that all town land is held for general municipal purposes and that it is "egocentric" for any council to preserve open space for even a decade in advance because the council cannot see that far into the future. The citizen's petition commented that it was fortunate this last-cited line of thinking had not aborted Bluff Point State Park and Coastal Reserve, Haley Farm State Park, and Yosemite.

--Regardless of any legal considerations, funds explicitly approved by voters for a specific purpose should be used for that purpose so that the town government maintains credibility.

--The town should talk with St. Mary, Mother of the Redeemer Church, adjacent to the high school, about using its large parking lot during construction. GOSA has ascertained that the church is willing to discuss the possibility with the town, GOSA Director Lorraine Santangelo said in a subsequent citizen's petition.

GOSA also asserted that far from being a "special interest group," it is a "public interest group" that has made many outstanding contributions to the quality of life in Groton. These include playing major parts in preserving Bluff Point and Haley Farm and, recently, in achieving an agreement to prevent planned development near Great Brook from polluting the town's drinking water. Great Brook is the main conduit of drinking water from the Ledyard Reservoir to the Groton Reservoir.

In the discussion that followed, Mr. Oefinger was directed to discuss the possibility of parking at the church. Councilor Heather Bond said she been told earlier that the church was not suitable because it had unpredictable weekday functions, like funerals, but she endorsed looking at the idea again.

Councilor Frank O'Beirne said he would look further into information that a building had been proposed for the site.

Video of the citizens petitions and subsequent comments can be viewed on the Groton Town website (link to the town website is on the GOSA website under Upcoming Events). Click on Meetings at the town website and then on Streaming Video for the Oct. 18 meeting.

GROTON--Addressing the GOSA annual membership meeting Oct. 13, 2005, President Priscilla Pratt characterized the organization as a "public interest group" with the mission of protecting important open space and recreation areas for the common good.

The packed meeting was held at the Latham-Chester Store in Noank. The get-together also included a presentation on "Haley Farm as a Working Farm," put on by three men who had worked there in the 30s and 40s and by Sidney Van Zandt, GOSA's first president.

Ms. Pratt said, "We first proved the value and popularity of natural resource protection 35 years ago when we were instrumental in the establishment of the Haley Farm as a state park, and 31 years ago when we were active in the establishment of Bluff Point Coastal Reserve."

She said the goal of GOSA's continuing efforts is to protect the environment and to enhance the "quality of life for all citizens."

She rejected the label "special interest group" that some critics have used against GOSA.

"All GOSA people are volunteers and no one receives a salary," she said. "We are a 501 c(3) non-profit organization and completely funded by donations." She noted that GOSA expenses are heavy because in addition to funding the annual mowing of fields at Haley Farm State Park, the organization pays for environmental experts to testify at land-use commission hearings and hires "lawyers when we have to--as a last resort--utilize the legal system to maintain our positions with strength."

The term "special interest group," normally used to describe organizations that stand to profit financially from certain public projects or policies, has been applied by several town officials to the non-profit GOSA, either by name or by implication. Most recently, this occurred at a Town Council meeting July 19, 2005.

Ms. Pratt reviewed GOSA's activities in the year just ended. These included achieving a ground-breaking agreement with Downes-Patterson Corp., a developer, to protect public drinking water; continuing a 2 1/2-year legal battle, now before the Appellate Court in Hartford, to acquire the 75-acre Merritt Property--between the top of Fort Hill and Fishtown Road--for use as public open space; and challenging in Superior Court a site plan for a senior condo development on the 160-acre Watrous Property, an action that still is pending.

Other issues of concern to GOSA outlined by the president include town plans to build a "temporary" Fitch High School parking lot on a 35-acre parcel adjoining the high school. The land was purchased in part with funds from an open space-conservation-recreation bond referendum that was passed by voters in 1988. In addition, Ms. Pratt said GOSA continues to wait for action from the town Planning Department on promises to come up with a definition of buildable land and to authorize land-use commissions to hire independent expert consultants, with developers paying the bills.

Ms. Pratt noted that Downes-Patterson's Great Brook development originally was envisioned as comprising 104 housing lots, but now has been reduced to 54. The development takes its name from nearby Great Brook, the main conduit of public drinking water from the Ledyard Reservoir to the Groton Reservoir. GOSA has worked out agreements providing for $75,000 in payments by the developer for water testing for 5-7 years into the future; non-clearing easements and covenants that will create natural barriers to runoff from houses; and restrictions that will apply to residents regarding such matters as car washing and use of pesticides and herbicides.

She expressed GOSA's thanks to Attorney Mark Kepple, of Stonington, who worked for GOSA pro bono in negotiations for the agreement; to Attorney Tim Bates, who represented Downes-Patterson; to environmental consultant Sigrun Gadwa of Cheshire who worked out testing procedures and other environmental protections; and to Nancy Klotz, president of Downes-Patterson, "for her cooperation and willingness as a developer to be so sensitive to the need to protect watershed properties."

Ms. Pratt said GOSA was disappointed that the Town of Groton has chosen not to become a grantee of the Great Brook easements but said she hoped that "the town planning staff and the town council will be more sensitive, in the future, and more cooperative, with sincere citizens' and developers' efforts to protect our water supply."

"The Story of Haley Farm as a Working Farm" followed Ms. Pratt's presentation. The story was told by several men with intimate knowledge of the dairy farm, which became a state park in 1970, in large part because of work by GOSA. The men were:

--Don Schoonmaker, who grew up on the farm. Don's grandfather, Frank, and his father, Eli, ran the farm for Caleb Haley and his son, Samuel.

--Don's cousin, Richard Patterson, who began to work for Don's grandfather while still in grade school.

--Vernon Schaefer, a friend of Don, who worked in the mid and late 1940s for George Beckwith, the last person to run Haley Farm.

Among the highlights of the presentation were memories of morning milk runs on days that started at 4:30 a.m. These runs wound through Noank; West Mystic; Mystic, including some stops over the bascule bridge; past the Baptist Church; down Fishtown Road and back to Noank. The price of the raw, unpasteurized milk was $1 for 8 quarts.

Mr. Schoonmaker recalled an incident in the mid to late 1930s. A family dog, curled up on the seat of a tractor in a barn, was surprised when Sam Haley entered the barn in a business suit and reached an arm to the seat, unaware that the dog was there. The dog bit into the sleeve of Mr. Haley's suit coat and ripped it away from shoulder seams. The shaken Mr. Haley left the barn, marched to the house and informed Frank Schoonmaker that he'd have to get rid of the dog.

Frank Schoonmaker thought a couple of minutes and then said, "Suppose you had been an ill-intentioned person who had wanted to steal the tractor. The dog would have protected it."

Mr. Haley replied, "You're right. Keep the dog, and I'll stay out of the barn."

Mr. Patterson, seeing a picture of Palmer Cove at the edge of the farm, recalled his ice boating experiences. He said he reached great speeds for short periods but created a lengthy walk back because he couldn't tack. He also remembered feeling a special cold on one morning milk run and finding out later that the temperature had dropped to minus 32 degrees. He said that Beebe Cove froze over that day and that he skated on the Cove. He said "some kids" skated all the way on the Mystic River to the railroad bridge.

Mr. Schaefer said he worked at the farm between 1945 and 1949, around the "end of the Haley Farm era." He said the farm couldn't pay its way in an era of pasteurized milk and that its soil was too shallow and rocky to allow much plowing. He said that after leaving the farm, he went into the Army. On getting out of the military, he went back to see the Beckwiths but found the farm no longer was operating and the Beckwiths were gone. The new residents "didn't even know them," he said.

The three men's lively presentation, illustrated by photos projected onto a screen by Ms. Van Zandt, was videotaped by Terri Roper for broadcast on local television at times to be announced. The GOSA website, among other sources, will carry the times.

GROTON--The Town Council Committee of the Whole rejected Sept. 27, 2005, a proposal that would have given the town a role in a settlement between a developer and GOSA that is designed to protect Groton Utilities' public drinking water supply, The Day reported.

The newspaper said in an article by Gladys Alcedo (verbatim text follows):

The decision came after a lengthy debate and unsuccessful efforts by two councilors who sought to save the deal.

Instead, the committee agreed to follow the recommenation of town planning staff to step up efforts to protect a public drinking water supply through a comprehensive regulatory approach. This would include a study, public education and the development of local laws aimed at protecting the watershed.

The town was being asked to accept the conveyance, easements and convenants negotiated by The Downs-Patterson Corp. and the Groton Open Space Association. The documents were drdafted in an attempt to end a legal dispute between the two groups over the developers' plans to build 51 homes on 125.4 undeveloped acres east of Great Brook and north of Route 184.

Great Brook, which is located in the town, feeds into Groton city-owned reservoirs that serve more than 35,000 people.

The covenants set tree-clearing limits and regulate the use of herbicides, pesticides and other products that could be harmful to the water. Under the covenants, the town would have had the option to enforce restrictions that would help prevent the pollution of the brook.

The City of Groton already has agreed to accept that role, which would be shared with the new development's homeowners' association.

By getting the town involved, Councilor Paulann H. Sheets said it would give the public, which depended on the water supply, an extra layer of protection. Sheets is a member of GOSA.

But Councilors Thomas J. Skrmetti and Frank O'Beirne Jr. objected to the idea, saying the town should not get involved in a deal negotiated between two private parties without any town involvement.

Skrmetti and O'Beirne, along with Mayor Harry A. Watson Jr. and Councilors Heather Sherman Bond and Catherine Kolnaski voted to support the town staff's recommendation and reject [participation in] the deal between GOSA and the developer.

Sheets and Councilor Elissa T. Wright tried separately to get the town involved in the covenants and easements.

NEW LONDON--Superior Court Judge Joseph Purtill heard oral arguments Sept. 27, 2005, on GOSA's appeal against the Groton Town Planning Commission's approval of the site plan for the proposed Four Winds "residential life care community" on the Watrous Property off Noank-Ledyard Road.

Attorney Richard Dixon, appearing for GOSA, argued that the developer failed to follow through with specific details at the Planning Commission review on a promise it made, during the earlier Zoning Commission hearings, to provide 24-hour-a-day access to nursing and emergency services for residents. He contended further that the traffic impact study was flawed in that it assumed all drivers in the new development would be retired. In fact, Mr. Dixon said, age rules about who can live in the development mean that as few as 20% of the drivers may be retired. He also argued that the Planning Commission failed to live up to its responsibility to consider prudent alternatives to the plan presented, after GOSA had made a prima facie case that the project could cause unreasonable environmental damage.

Attorneys for the town of Groton and for Mystic Active Adult LLC, the would-be developer, pointed out that GOSA had lost appeals made to Judge Purtill of both the Zoning and Wetlands approvals of the project and that the Appellate Court in Hartford had declined to hear GOSA's appeals of the judge's decisions. They said this meant that all zoning and wetlands questions had been finally adjudicated. They said the Planning Commission did find that the project wouldn't cause unreasonable environmental harm. Thomas Londregan, respresenting Mystic Active Adult, said the Planning Commission's decision was set out in a document that "is nine pages long--nine pages."

Michael Carey, attorney for the Town of Groton, indicated that GOSA's stand on its alternative--two small unconnected housing developments--was inconsistent because GOSA has opposed Four Winds partly on grounds that it consists of two centers. However, Mr. Carey failed to mention that GOSA's objection is not to the two Four Winds centers but to the road through the wetlands that is projected to connect them.

Judge Purtill said he would study the matter. Judge Purtill, earlier this year, in addition to denying GOSA's two appeals, also ruled against Groton's Inland Wetlands Agency in the case. He found in favor of Mystic Active Adult LLC when it appealed against the IWA's veto of a wetlands crossing near the northern border of the Watrous Property. However, the IWA appealed Judge Purtill's decision, and the Appellate Court has agreed to hear the case.

Mystic Active Adult LLC is headed by developer Ron Bonvie, who has built a large retirement community in Mashpee, Massachusetts, called Southport.

GROTON--The Groton Open Space Association has urged the State to veto a plan approved by the Town Council to create a 100-space "temporary" parking lot on Fort Hill land that was acquired with funds raised by a bond issue approved in 1988 for buying open-space, conservation and recreational acreage.

Priscilla Pratt, GOSA president, said in a letter dated Sept. 20, 2005, to the Department of Environmental Protection that creation of the parking lot would violate the citizens' trust in the 1988 bond issue referendum and "would set a dangerous precedent and open the door for future requests."

The state has a say in the matter because some state money was involved in the purchase of the 35-acre Merritt property along Route 1. (This is not the 75-acre Merritt property that GOSA has a contract to purchase.)

The Town Council had approved the parking lot by a 7-2 vote Sept. 20, 2005. The lot was described as "temporary" for use during construction work at the school, but "temporary" was not defined. Councilors Elissa Wright and Paulann Sheets cast votes against.

In a Sept. 22, 2005, editorial, the Mystic River Press opposed the plan, asking "when will the Merritt property stop being a parking lot? What will it be used for once the cars go away?" It noted that bus service is available to the school. "Instead of a temporary parking lot, perhaps it would be wiser to have a temporary moratorium at Fitch, prohibiting some or all of the student body from driving to school until the construction is completed."

The Merritt property was one of six lands, acquired with 1988 bond money, that Councilor Wright sought earlier this year to protect more securely. Ms. Wright tried to have strong language inserted into the land records noting the purpose for which the lands were acquired. Instead, the council passed a watered-down measure sponsored by Councilor Natalie Burfoot-Billing that did not mention the Merritt property.

During the debate on Ms. Wright's proposed resolution, Councilor Thomas Skrmetti dismissed supporters of her measure as "special interest groups," and he contended the issue of protection was "an engineered crisis led by a small group of people."

In a letter published in the Mystic River Press Sept. 22, 2005, Noank resident Edward R. Johnson said he would "go so far as to say that the timing of the recent Council vote in favor of the ... [Burfoot-Billing] proposal, combined with this latest maneuver to alter the use of the Merritt property, seems suspicious."

HARTFORD--Ravenswood Construction LLC of Cheshire filed Sept. 7, 2005, a motion to appeal the verdict of a New London Superior Court jury that dismissed Ravenswood's suit to force the Merritt family to sell a 75-acre parcel atop Fort Hill in Groton to the construction company, rather than GOSA.

The motion was filed 20 days after Superior Court Judge Seymour Hendel had denied Ravenswood's motion to have the jury verdict, arrived at May 18, 2005, set aside.

GROTON--The Groton Open Space Association asked the Zoning Commission Aug. 3, 2005, to declare a moratorium on approvals of any applications for Active Senior Housing pending adoption of a definition of buildable land that is linked to density limits.

GOSA director Edith Fairgrieve made the request at the commission's monthly meeting after Planning Director Michael J. Murphy said in a letter dated July 26, 2005, that the Office of Planning and Development Services would come up with such a definition only next year. The Zoning Commission had created the new class of development in Groton called Active Senior Housing Feb. 2, 2005, over the objections of GOSA, which had asked for simultaneous adoption of a buildable land regulation. At the time, Mr. Murphy said the OPDS was working on the matter. The 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development had recommended adoption of a buildable land rule.

After getting expert advice, GOSA has urged that non-buildable land in any project area be excluded from the calculation of total units that can be constructed on buildable portions of the area. Mr. Murphy has said that he contemplates discounting non-buildable land but has not indicated what size discount he has in mind--creating a wide range of uncertainty. Non-buildable land includes steep slopes, wetlands/watercourses and floodplains.

GROTON--The Connecticut Appellate Court has agreed to hear the appeal of Groton's Inland Wetlands Agency against a New London Superior Court ruling in the Four Winds "residential life care community" case, lawyers have confirmed.

The IWA had voted April 27, 2005, to file a petition of certification seeking a hearing by the Appellate Court. Superior Court Joseph Purtill had ruled in favor of Massachusetts developer Ron Bonvie and against the IWA April 13, 2005. Judge Purtill overturned two IWA restrictions on Mr. Bonvie's proposed development. The first restriction would have banned Mr. Bonvie from building a wetlands crossing, called Crossing C, near the northern border of the property. The second restriction would have required the developer to close the project's interior road during the salamander mating season.

The right to appeal to the Appellate Court is not automatic in land use cases, but the IWA now has achieved the opportunity to be heard at the higher level.

The Appellate Court earlier, on June 22, 2005, had declined to hear GOSA's appeals of Zoning Commission and IWA rulings on the Four Winds project. Still pending in Superior Court, New London, is GOSA's appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Four Winds site plan.

GROTON--The Town Council approved July 19, 2005, a weakened measure to afford some protection to town lands that were acquired with proceeds of a 1988 bond issue to raise money for buying open space tracts.

In approving the weaker measure of Councilor Natalie Burfoot-Billing, the council rejected stronger protection that had been proposed by Councilor Elissa Wright and that sought to note in land records of the six parcels their status -- "in perpetuity" -- as open space for conservation and recreation. Ms. Burfoot-Billing had drafted her version in response to Ms. Wright's.

Ms. Burfoot-Billing's measure, approved by a vote of 6-2, with Ms. Wright and Councilor Paulann Sheets voting against, provides that the source and purpose of the purchase funds would be placed in the records of four of the six lands. It makes no reference to the phrase "in perpetuity," which is included in the title of Ms. Wright's resolution.

Records of five of the six lands did not mention how they were acquired. Ms. Burfoot-Billing's measure leaves out two of the tracts--the 240-acre Copp Property, because its deed does include restrictions, and the 35-acre Merritt Farm because some information exists on its records as a result of state contributions to its acquisition. (The Merritt property differs from the 75-acre Merritt tract, also atop Fort Hill, that GOSA is seeking to buy with the help of a state grant.)

The council's decision was preceded by considerable debate and public input. The town attorney had questioned Ms. Wright's resolution on grounds that it might unduly restrict future governments. This concern was echoed by Ms. Burfoot-Billing and Councilor Thomas Skrmetti.

Mr. Skrmetti was scornful of advocates of Ms. Wright's measure, commenting after their input:"It's really good to see special interest groups alive and well in Groton. I really think this is an engineered crisis led by a small group of people." He did not define "special interest group," a term often used for an organization that stands to profit from certain pieces of legislation. GOSA is incorporated as a non-profit organization under Chapter 501 (c) (3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. In response to a question from GOSA President Priscilla Pratt, Mr. Skrmetti said his previous talk of selling the lands was "hypothetical."

Councilor Frank O'Beirne, apparently attempting to find common ground, said all members of the council were interested in protecting the land "to a certain extent." This statement seemed to sum up the basic disagreement, because Ms. Wright aimed to provide protection to the full extent possible under the law, in order that future generations could enjoy the lands without fear of future deals to sell it off or to use it for purposes other than those authorized by referendum voters.

Former Councilor Richard Dixon, who played a key role in acquisition of the lands, said it was the intent of the council that approved the bond issue that the lands should be held "in perpetuity."

Councilor Wright said that the six properties "are committed. It is not in the power of anyone on this council to change that. The lands are held in trust for the purposes approved by the voters, and that is in perpetuity."

At one point during the debate, Councilor Peter Bartinik proposed an amendment to Ms. Wright's resolution to delete a controversial reference in the resolution to the history of the Spicer Property atop Fort Hill. The property, donated by Elihu Spicer for a poor farm, wound up being used for a police station, public works garage, municipal office and public meeting facility. Mr. Bartinik's motion failed to pass by a vote of 5-3, with Mr. Bartinik, Ms. Wright and Ms. Sheets voting in favor.

NEW LONDON--Groton town councilors Elissa Wright and Paulann Sheets published articles July 14, 2005, in the New London Day and the Mystic River Press, respectively, urging approval by the Town Council of Councilor Wright's resolution to add language to the land records protecting properties acquired with proceeds of a 1988 open space bond issue.

Councilor Wright's resolution is to be discussed again by the council Tuesday evening, July 19, 2005. Recently, the town attorney, Michael Carey, expressed skepticism about the measure, which had been referred to him for a routine check. Mr. Carey said it might "deprive [a future town government] of a discretion which public policy demands should be left unimpaired."

He advised the town in a letter that he is "not certain" that Groton "could not decide to use one [or] all of the five parcels for a different purpose" from that specified in the language of the referendum bond ordinance. The ordinance said that the lands were to be used for "open space, conservation, and recreational purposes."

Ms. Wright wrote in The Day that the town attorney "apparently does not credit the dedication and restriction on the uses of these lands as binding future generations or recognize their legal effect. And although he acknowledges the public park trust doctrine, under which the town also would hold these lands in trust as parkland for the benefit of the public at large, he apparently is not convinced that Poquonnock Plains Park, the Copp Park, and the other lands at issue are 'parks.' So just when is a park a park? When a town attorney says it is--or isn't?"

Both Ms. Wright and Ms. Sheets -- the latter writing in the Mystic River Press -- noted that Elihu Spicer had donated land at the top of Fort Hill as a "poor farm" but that the land wound up being used for a police station and public works garage. Ms. Wright and Ms. Sheets, both attorneys, said this misuse illustrated the need for language in the deeds of the open space lands to guard against any recurrence.

Of the six properties acquired with the 1988 bond monies, only one -- the Copp property -- has restrictive language in its deed.

NEW LONDON -- Ravenswood Construction LLC got two weeks July 12, 2005, from Judge Seymour Hendel to prepare and file a brief in support of its motion to set aside a jury verdict that went against the Cheshire developer in the F.L. Merritt Inc. land case.

Judge Hendel had been prepared to rule on the motion when Attorney Michael Bonnano for Ravenswood asked for time to submit a brief. The judge gave Ravenswood a July 25 deadline for the brief, after which Merritt and GOSA, defendants in the Ravenswood suit, will have until Aug. 8 to respond. Ravenswood will have a week to answer the defendants' response.

The judge then will schedule oral arguments on the matter. If Ravenswood's motion is denied, the company will have 20 days to decide whether to file an appeal.

On May 18, 2005, a jury rejected Ravenswood's suit aimed at compelling F.L. Merritt to sell a 75-acre parcel of land atop Fort Hill to Ravenswood for a housing development instead of to GOSA for preservation as open space. The jury did not accept Ravenswood's argument that it had a valid contract that pre-dated GOSA's contract of April 14, 2003, to buy the land for $1 million.

NEW LONDON -- Downes-Patterson Corp. withdrew its appeal of a Groton Inland Wetlands Agency ruling as part of an agreement with the Groton Open Space Association on the developer's proposed Great Brook subdivision north of Route 184.

Withdrawal of the appeal, lodged in July 2004, took place at a hearing in Superior Court, New London, June 21, 2005, before Judge James Devine. Attorney Timothy Bates of Noank represented Downes-Patterson, the appellant. The defendants -- the Town of Groton and GOSA -- were represented at the hearing, by Michael Carey and Mark Kepple, respectively.

Mr. Kepple, of Stonington, has worked pro bono for GOSA during the negotiations with Downes-Patterson. GOSA was a defendant because it had intervenor status in Inland Wetlands Agency hearings on Great Brook.

Downes-Patterson's appeal had centered on its objection to the IWA's requirement for 150-foot buffers to protect wetlands in the project area. Withdrawal of the appeal means the buffer requirement remains intact.

GOSA had taken an interest in the development because it is located in the watershed of Great Brook, the main conduit -- open and unprotected -- of water between the upper and lower reservoirs of Groton Utilities. The development, originally foreseen at 104 houses, has been reduced to 51 houses.

While GOSA would have preferred no development in this sensitive area, it was unable to find a buyer for the land who would preserve it as open space. Therefore, GOSA entered into negotiations with Downes-Patterson in December 2004 with the aim of creating an environmentally friendly, scaled-down development. The two parties disclosed essential features of an agreement to the town Planning Commission April 26, 2005. The plan subsequently was approved by the commission.

Some of the environmental protections GOSA sought are built into the physical design of the development. Others--providing for water quality and flow testing, independent erosion inspection during construction, and establishment of a homeowners association to enforce lot clearing limits and minimize harmful runoff--are subject to an agreement between GOSA and the developer.

GOSA had agreed not to appeal the Planning Commission decision if it acknowledged the pact.

Priscilla Pratt, GOSA president, said following the Superior Court hearing that the GOSA/Downes-Patterson negotiations had led to a "pioneering" agreement.

For more details, click on Background.

NEW LONDON--Ravenswood Construction LLC has filed a motion to have a jury verdict against it in the Merritt property trial set aside, Merritt Attorney William Kroll of Noank said May 29, 2005.

Mr. Kroll said the motion contends that both the judge and jury committed errors. It claims the judge improperly allowed an objection by Mr. Kroll to questions that Ravenswood sought to ask during the trial. It also alleges that the jury failed to follow the judge's instructions to interpret ambiguity in a document in favor of the party that supplied the document.

Mr. Kroll said Merritt will oppose the motion, which he said had little chance of success. The motion should be heard within the next several weeks, he said.

Ravenswood's attorney, Paul Geraghty, has been quoted in the press as saying an appeal in the matter is likely. Ravenswood has 20 days after the clearing of all post-trial motions to file an appeal, which could take 18 months to adjudicate.

GOSA officials have expressed readiness for a further prolonged legal battle, if that is necessary. They also have expressed the wish that Ravenswood, a major builder that operates in many Connecticut communities, will be persuaded by a combination of legal, business and human considerations to move on, rather than to continue its battle, now more than two years old, to block sale of the land to GOSA. The leadership of the family-owned F.L. Merritt Inc. company is elderly and eager to sell. One family member, Ruth Orkney, of Groton, died May 23, 2005, at the age of 91.

For trial story, click: Background.

GROTON--The Town Council Committee of the Whole approved May 24, 2005, by a vote of 6-3 a resolution by Councilor Elissa Wright intended to ensure that five town properties acquired with open-space funds are securely dedicated to open space.

Ms. Wright's resolution was approved and sent to the town attorney for fact-checking and proofreading only. Following the review, the resolution is to be returned to the council for final action and approval in a regular session.

Voting for the resolution were Councilors Peter Bartinik, Heather Sherman Bond, Frank O'Beirne, Paulann Sheets, Harry Watson and Elissa Wright. Voting against were Councilors Natalie B. Billing, Catherine Kolnaski and Thomas Skrmetti.

The resolution would clarify on the town's land records that the five properties involved were purchased with funds raised by an $8 million open space bond issue in 1988. Ms. Wright said that without specific information in the records future generations could "lose track of the fact that said properties are restricted and dedicated in their use for open space, conservation and recreation."

NEW LONDON--A Superior Court jury returned a verdict Wednesday, May 18, 2005, against a developer who had sued to prevent the sale of the 75-acre Merritt tract on Fort Hill to the Groton Open Space Association.

The jury of four men and two women deliberated for about 1 1/2 hours Wednesday afternoon before finding against Ravenswood Construction LLC, Cheshire, and in favor of F.L. Merritt Inc.

Following the verdict, Judge Seymour Hendel declared GOSA's contract to buy the property for $1 million to be valid and ordered it carried out, subject to its terms and conditions.

Ravenswood has 20 days to decide whether to appeal the verdict to a higher court.

The trial began Tuesday morning, May 17, 2005, and jurors returned their verdict about 3:45 p.m. Wednesday. They had started deliberating at 2 p.m., after lunch Wednesday, and took one 15 minute break, shortly before announcing their finding.

Ravenswood filed notice of its suit against Merritt April 15, 2003, one day after GOSA signed its contract with Merritt, and the case had been in vigorous litigation since then. The construction company asserted that it had a prior contract with Merritt dating from March 14, 2003.

Nelson Merritt, president of the family-owned F.L. Merritt Inc., signed a Ravenswood-proposed agreement in private at his lawyer's office Feb. 28, 2003, to be held for release later. His lawyer, Robert Lane, of Greenwich, notified Ravenswood on March 14 that he was prepared to forward the agreement to be held in escrow pending receipt of certain releases. Shortly after, Mr. Merritt came to an agreement with GOSA. Mr. Lane then voided the Ravenswood papers by cutting out Mr. Merritt's signature and sent them back to Ravenswood, along with a check for its $50,000 deposit. Ravenswood cashed the check.

Merritt's attorney, William Kroll, of Noank, pressed the point that a rider to the proposed Ravenswood-Merritt agreement required delivery of a fully executed contract in order to become effective and that such delivery never took place. He said in his closing argument that the plaintiffs had avoided the issue of delivery "like the plague" because it was fatal to their case. William Hescock, attorney for GOSA, said, "No matter how close you get, you don't have a contract until both parties agree... There was no final deal." Paul Geraghty, attorney for Ravenswood, argued unsuccessfully that Mr. Merritt had accepted the contract when he signed it. He said, "There is nothing in the contract that says you can sign it conditionally."

GOSA won a $650,000 state grant toward the purchase on April 8, 2003. GOSA's application for the grant notes that the property lies in a greenbelt of approximately 1,500 acres. It is the site of two Class A streams that converge to flow into Palmer Cove on the Fisher Island Sound. Its northwest section includes an area of hardwood trees that has not been logged since 1868. Two state species of concern--Red- Shouldered Hawks and Wood turtles--are found in the forest. Aquatic life includes Marbled and Spotted Salamander, Fairy Shrimp and Wood Frogs. The land is home to Fox, Mink, Muskrat, Raccoon, Coyote, Deer, Opossum and Wild Turkey, among other species. The application also notes the presence of "an extensive variety of forest-interior and neo-tropical migrant birds."

Ravenswood had applied in 2000 to build a 79-lot subdivision, called Mystic Estates, in the area. Subsequently, regulators whittled that number down. In early 2002, GOSA appealed a Planning Commission decision to allow a 48-lot subdivision. GOSA's appeal was denied by the Superior Court, but the organization won the right to take its case to the Appellate Court, where the issue currently is pending.

The action on which the jury decided May 18, 2005, was separate from the so-called SLAPP suit filed by Ravenswood and Mystic Estates Partners against GOSA and nine individuals in June 2003. The suit alleged that GOSA and the others named had abused the legal process and interfered with the plaintiffs' contractual relationships. The action was dropped quickly in July 2003 as the office of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal prepared to step into the case on the side of GOSA and the other defendants. SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.

Groton Attorney Paulann Sheets represented GOSA in the successful opposition to the SLAPP suit.

NEW LONDON--Ravenswood Construction LLC called four witnesses May 17, 2005, the first day of a jury trial of the Cheshire construction company's suit against F.L. Merritt Inc., owner of a 75-acre tract on Fort Hill that GOSA seeks to preserve as open space.

New London Attorney Paul Geraghty called: Dean Fiske, Ravenswood's president; Nelson Merritt, president of F.L. Merritt; William Bentley, partner in DiCesare-Bentley Engineers of Groton; and James Miele, a Cheshire attorney who worked with F.L. Merritt on a proposed 2003 contract between Ravenswood and Merritt.

Mr. Geraghty planned to call one more witness May 18, Robert Lane, Greenwich-based attorney for Merritt, after which Attorney William Kroll of Noank was expected to begin the case for the defense.

Judge Seymour Hendel decided to allow testimony on a rider to the proposed Ravenswood-Merritt contract, a rider that required delivery for the contract to take effect.

GOSA contends its April 14, 2003, contract to buy the land for $1 million is the only valid contract.

NEW LONDON--Judge Seymour Hendel of the New London Superior Court heard arguments May 12, 2005, on a motion by developer Ravenswood Construction LLC of Cheshire to bar from a forthcoming trial evidence on a rider to a proposed contract between Ravenswood and F.L. Merritt Inc., owner of a 75-acre property on Fort Hill in Groton.

The rider required delivery of a fully executed contract to the buyer in order for a sale to become final. No such delivery took place, and that is one reason Merritt contends that it did not sell the property to Ravenswood prior to signing a contract April 14, 2003, to sell the land to the Groton Open Space Association for $1 million.

Judge Hendel will announce his decision formally early next week. Jurors have been selected, and trial of the case is set to begin May 17, 2005.

NEW LONDON--Lawyers for GOSA, F.L. Merritt Inc. and Ravenswood Construction LLC finished May 11, 2005, selecting a jury of consisting of six regular members and two alternates to hear the Merritt case. Four jurors were selected May 10 and four more May 11. On May 12, Judge Seymour Hendel will hear a motion by Ravenswood. Attorneys are: William Hescock of North Stonington for GOSA; William Kroll of Noank for Merritt; and Paul Geraghty, assisted by Michael Bonnano, both of New London, for Ravenswood. The trial is expected to begin May 17.

[To spare the reader repetition, this and subsequent brief daily updates will provide minimal background. Any further needed information is contained in earlier items, which can be displayed by searching for the key word "Merritt" with your browser's search engine.]

NEW LONDON--Jury selection is scheduled to start Tuesday, May 10, 2005, for a trial on the fate of the 75-acre Merritt property on Fort Hill in Groton.

The trial seeks to determine whether Ravenswood Construction LLC, of Cheshire, has a valid contract to buy the property from F.L. Merritt Inc. GOSA maintains that Ravenswood does not have a contract, written or otherwise, and that GOSA's contract with Merritt--signed by Merritt and GOSA April 14, 2003--is the only one that exists.

GOSA won a $650,000 state grant in April 2003 toward the $1 million purchase price of the land.

Judge Seymour L. Hendel will hear the case. He is at the court Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. The first several days of the proceedings are expected to concern selection of jurors. Presentation of evidence appeared likely to start May 17.

Ravenswood proposes to build 48 houses on the tract, which lies south of Route 1 between the summit of Fort Hill and Fishtown Road to the east. Developers first applied for a 79-lot subdivision on the land in June 2000, but the Inland Wetlands Agency and Planning Commission reduced the number allowed to 48.

STONINGTON--Thomas L. Crowley, 81, of Stonington, who for 19 years mowed the fields at Haley Farm State Park under contract to GOSA, died April 29, 2005, at his home in Stonington.

In a letter to Mr. Crowley's family, GOSA Director Sidney Van Zandt wrote, "He was an icon for us at the Groton Open Space Association. When he began, the fields had reverted badly, but over the years, he and you have brought back so many of the fields and uncovered so many of the stone walls that had long since disappeared under vines and brush. That allowed them to return to their peaceful grandeur instead of being hidden by the march of the forest." Mr. Crowley used a 1953 John Deere tractor in the mowing.

Ms. Van Zandt said separately, "Because of Mr. Crowley's ill health this year, his grandson, Brian, cut most of the fields, despite the enormous amount of snow and time spent away helping care for his granddad. Mr. Crowley's, son, Thomas, was back at the Haley Farm a few days after Mr. Crowley's death tending to the 'edging' with another helper, using their weed-whackers to attack the vines on the walls."

An obituary in the Westerly (R.I.) Sun said that Mr. Crowley was born in New Jersey and that he married the former Florence Schweitzer in 1951 in Yonkers, NY. A resident of the Wequetequock section of Stonington for many years, he operated the Crowley Farm and delivered cordwood to many homes in the area. He also was employed at one time as a rigger at the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics. Mr. Crowley was described as an avid collector of coins, stamps and rocks. He is survived by his wife and two sons, Thomas F. Crowley of Pawcatuck and Raymond J. Crowley of Great Barrington, RI, three brothers, seven sisters and five grandchildren.

GROTON--Both GOSA and the Town of Groton have decided to contest New London Superior Court rulings favoring Massachusetts developer Ron Bonvie's plan to build a "residential life care community" on a 105-acre portion of the Watrous property west of Noank Ledyard Road.

GOSA has filed "petitions for certification" seeking permission to take appeals to the Appellate Court. The appeals would be against decisions April 13, 2005, by Superior Court Judge Joseph Purtill dismissing GOSA's objections to approvals by Groton's Inland Wetlands Agency and Zoning Commission of Mr. Bonvie's proposed 147-unit "Four Winds" project. Mr. Bonvie's company is Mystic Active Adult LLC.

UPDATE: The Appellate Court declined June 22, 2005, to hear either of GOSA's appeals.

The Inland Wetlands Agency voted unanimously April 27 to file a petition for certification to argue against Judge Purtill's decision for Mr. Bonvie in his appeal against restrictions imposed by the IWA on the Four Winds project.

Background on these cases is contained in an April 21, 2005, article.

GROTON--Developer Downes-Patterson Corp. and GOSA disclosed April 26, 2005, terms of a tentative negotiated settlement of a dispute over a planned residential development in the watershed of Great Brook, a main conduit of water into the Groton reservoir system.

The Downes-Patterson/GOSA agreement and associated covenants, unveiled at a Planning Commission meeting, would create a scaled-down, environmentally friendly Great Brook north of Route 184 between Daboll Road and Gales Ferry Road. The developer will dedicate 65 acres of the 125-acre tract to open space, of which 34 acres would be held by the town and 31 acres by the City of Groton, subject to the city's final approval. The city owns Groton Utilities, which is responsible for the reservoirs.

Downes-Patterson said it would eliminate several lots, reconfigure several others and shorten a cul de sac to reduce threats to a vernal pool. It also agreed to financing of longer-term testing of water in nearby wetlands and observation of storm water outflows; imposition of clearing limits on lots; redesign of storm water basins; and the hiring of a third-party inspector to check on erosion during construction. The developer said it would establish a homeowners association with powers to enforce clearing limits; regulate use of herbicides, pesticides, detergents and petroleum products; and encourage sound environmental stewardship by owners. The homeowners association will own conservation easements on properties in the subdivision. Attorney Timothy Bates, for the developer, said that the easements are crafted in such a way that the town or another entity can become a co-owner, or grantee, if it expresses an interest in doing so before the easements are recorded.

Town Planning Director Michael Murphy said the town would examine the arrangement and come up with recommendations to the Commission. He said, "Everything is good insofar as it protects the environment, but we can go only so far with our regulations." He said that while the town can't enforce easements negotiated by GOSA and the developer, it can allow the developer to note on plans accepted by the town that certain activities are subject to "additional agreements."

The settlement provides that if the Downes-Patterson concessions are incorporated in the Planning Commission's approval of the subdivision application, Downes-Patterson will drop its July 2004 appeal of an Inland Wetlands Agency decision to impose 150-foot wetlands buffers, and GOSA will not appeal Planning Commission approval of the project. Downes-Patterson's dropping of its appeal also is conditional on no other party, besides GOSA, appealing a Planning Commission approval.

The agreement would result in a subdivision of 51 houses. Plans presented by Downes-Patterson in the spring of 2003 had envisioned a subdivision of 104 houses. This number has come down in stages to 63, 54, and now 51. The biggest cut, to 63 from 104, was made after it came to light that the site was located in a state non-sewering area, a designation aimed at discouraging dense development in the watershed.

Principal participants in the talks that led to the agreement were Nancy Klotz, president of Downes-Patterson; Priscilla Pratt, President of GOSA; Attorney Bates of Noank for the developer; Attorney Mark Kepple of Stonington for GOSA; Sigrun Gadwa, of Carya Ecological Services of Cheshire, CT; and DiCesare-Bentley Engineers, of Groton. Ms. Gadwa acted as consultant to GOSA and recommended most of the environmental protections provided by the agreement and covenants.

GOSA agreed in December 2004 to participate in negotiations after it realized it would not be able to find a buyer to protect the land as open space. GOSA had opposed the project since it was proposed in the Spring of 2003 and had acted as intervenor in two sets of Planning Commission and Inland Wetlands Agency hearings on it.

At the April 26 Planning Commission hearing, GOSA made a request for Cape Cod (slanted) street curbing to be installed in areas near wetlands to facilitate migration of amphibians to and from vernal pool areas. Ms. Gadwa said amphibians tend to keep vernal pools healthy in themselves and free of public health dangers like the West Nile virus-bearing mosquito, Culex pipiens, which seeks pools free of amphibian predators. Mr. Murphy said he would discuss the request with the Engineering Department. Ms. Gadwa said DiCesare-Bentley had told her the curbing requested would not affect drainage calculations.

The public phase of the current Planning Commission hearings ended April 26 after several members of the commission praised the cooperation that had led to the agreement. Ms. Pratt lauded Ms. Klotz, who was present at the hearing, as a "developer who has proven herself an exceptional steward of the land." Ms. Pratt said Ms. Klotz at several points in the negotiations had to make choices between her economic interest and protection of the watershed and "she decided in favor of the watershed."

Ms. Pratt characterized the agreements as a "leap of faith" in the future homeowners association and individual homeowners.

GROTON--Recent, current and possibly imminent development involves at least 800 acres of Groton land, a recent study by GOSA and the Office of Planning and Development (OPDS) shows.

The "Pipeline" study, suggested by GOSA and carried out by the OPDS in April, 2005, lists 31 parcels of land. The parcels were selected for inclusion because they are either:

--the sites of recently completed developments

--in development

--in some stage of the process of application for development or

--well known to be for sale for development

They range in acreage from 125.6 for the proposed Great Brook subdivision down to 1.0 acre for the proposed Library Hill subdivision. The projects go back as much as five years. They involve 1,381 identified residential units, plus an unknown number of units on 175 acres that either are for sale or for which the exact number of units has not yet been worked out. Several of the development approvals are under appeal, either by GOSA or other parties.

The analysis presented in this article represents GOSA's interpretation, not that of the OPDS, which supplied the Pipeline data.

The number of units that would be built on the 175 acres referred to above is, as stated, unknown. However, based on zoning of the areas and what little is known about plans for them would suggest to GOSA that an estimate of 250 units is reasonable. That would bring the total number of units in the Pipeline to 1,631. The 1,631 units are equivalent to more than 9% of the Town of Groton housing stock of 17,320 units in 1999, latest year for which figures were immediately available.

The Pipeline numbers exclude developments that are known to be commercial or industrial in nature, rather than residential. GOSA notes that the figures do not capture every new house or every undeveloped property that is advertised for sale. They also do not count land that may be "banked" by large development companies, either in the form of ownership or options to purchase. That means that the figures understate the true situation by an unknown but probably significant amount. They should be regarded as only an initial effort to put numbers to a matter that needs more study.

To place the figure in further perspective: 800 acres represents an area about 7% bigger than the 745-acre Bluff Point State Park. It is four times the size of 200-acre Haley Farm State Park before it was enlarged in 2002.

A study of Groton's open space, released in February 1999 by Planimetrics of Avon, CT, showed that Groton had 6,231 acres of unprotected, undeveloped private land. The Pipeline acreage amounts to approximately 13% of that figure and is a subtraction from it. The Planimetrics study is a supplementary booklet to the Groton Plan of Conservation and Development, also prepared by Planimetrics.

How much open space does Groton have? This often-asked question is answered in the Planimetrics study. The short answer is that Groton has a lot of actual open space and comparatively little securely protected open space. Planimetrics found that Groton had 10,617 acres of actual, or "perceived", open space, of which only 2,311 acres were securely protected as open space, either by the State of Connecticut, Town of Groton (dedication to open space) or land trust. The perceived open space amounted to 52% of Groton's total acreage, while the securely protected open space came to just 11%. Since those 1999 figures were released, some 57 acres have been added to open space, in the form of an enlargement of Haley Farm, and at least 800 acres have entered the development pipeline. Big development companies like Toll Brothers and Pulte are interested in this coastal area, which as we all know is located about midway between Boston and New York.

The full Planimetrics breakdown of the 10,617 acres of perceived open space in its 1999 report is as follows:

Municipal Dedicated* 1,198 acres

State of CT* 1,020

Land Trust* 93

Public Managed 302

Private Managed 258

Supply Watershed 1,318

Golf Course 134

Cemeteries 63

Undeveloped Land 6,231

____________

*Classified by Planimetrics as preserved

Copies of the Pipeline and 1999 open space study can be obtained by e-mailing jfurlong1@comcast.net. GOSA would welcome any suggestions for additions to or corrections of the figures.

GROTON--Lawyers for the Groton Open Space Association are examining texts of several New London Superior Court rulings favoring a developer's plan to construct what he contends is a "Residential Life Care Community" on 105 acres of the 160-acre Watrous Property.

Judge Joseph Purtill on April 13, 2005, denied appeals by GOSA against approvals of the "Four Winds" project by the town's Zoning Commission and Wetlands Agency. He also allowed an appeal by the developer, Ron Bonvie, against two restrictions placed on the development by the Groton's Inland Wetlands Agency (IWA).

GOSA has 20 days from April 13 to decide whether to seek permission from the state Appellate Court in Hartford to appeal Judge Purtill's rulings to that court. GOSA is actively considering all options, officials of the conservation association said.

The town has not said whether it will contest Judge Purtill's dismissal of two IWA restrictions placed on the development: the denial of a wetlands crossing, known as Crossing C, near the northern border of the property, and the imposition of a seasonal closure of the development's main interior road during salamander mating season. The IWA's denial of Crossing C would have had the effect of reducing the planned number of units in the community to 147 from an originally proposed 161 and blocking Mr. Bonvie's access to a large parcel of land to the north for possible expansion.

GOSA contended in its zoning appeal that Mr. Bonvie's plan did not meet town requirements for a "Residential Life Care Community" and was in fact only an age-restricted condo development. GOSA's wetlands appeal alleged, among other things, that the IWA failed to consider alternatives to the Bonvie plan and that the IWA did not adequately protect wildlife, biodiversity and trees. GOSA contended that regardless of the Avalon Bay Supreme Court decision, which severely undermined biological protections, these resources should have been protected under the terms of the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), which GOSA had invoked.

Under state legislation adopted in the wake of the Avalon Bay decision on October 14, 2003, "a municipal inland wetlands agency shall not deny or condition an application...in an area outside wetlands or watercourses on the basis of an impact...on aquatic, plant, or animal life unless such activity will likely...affect the physical characteristics of such wetlands or watercourses." The full legal ramifications of this legislation, signed into law June 3, 2004, have yet to be determined in the courts, in part because biologists have determined that aquatic life does in fact have physical impacts on water quality. That determination broadens the range of activities outside wetlands that may affect physical water quality within wetlands and watercourses.

GOSA still has an appeal pending before another judge against the Planning Commission's approval of the Four Winds site plan.

EAST LYME--A special town meeting voted overwhelmingly April 11 to approve up to $2 million to preserve open space in the town, The Day reported.

The newspaper said in an article by staff writer Karin Crompton: "Although the money can be used to buy land anywhere in town, the focus will be on purchasing land in the Oswegatchie Hills, a 700-acre expanse of woodlands that borders the Niantic River.

"About 300 people attended the meeting, held in the high school auditorium. Only two or three people voted no in the voice vote.

"Immediately after the motion passed, the room erupted into cheers, hollers and whistles. Half the room stood and applauded while others hugged and pumped their fists.

"'You could feel it here tonight--this was a community, it was everybody,'" said Marvin Schutt, president of the nonprofit Friends of Oswegatchie Hills Nature Preserve. "'Previous times, there wasn't the unification of communication and of desire.'

"Many people who want to preserve the Hills have lamented the town's failure to buy a key chunk of land there 18 yeas ago. In 1987, the town received a $1 million state grant to help it buy land in the Hills, but East Lyme failed to use the grant and the state repealed it in 1989.

"Now, that same property belongs to developer Glenn Russo, who owns Landmark Development LLC of Middletown. Russo either owns or has the option to buy 230 acres in the northern end of the Hills and has twice applied to the town to build market-rate condominiums and affordable housing units there."

Osprey Nesting Platform At Haley Farm Renovated

GROTON--A crew from several conservation organizations and the state Department of Environmental Protection extensively renovated the osprey nesting platform and its supporting structure at Haley Farm on March 16, 2005.

Jim Morgan, of the Potapaug Audubon Society of Old Lyme, took the lead in erecting the platform on a marsh near the shore of Palmer Cove. He was assisted by Linda and Ed Bireley, of the Lyme Land Trust; Sidney Van Zandt and Doug Smith of the Groton Open Space Association; Jon Lincoln, state parks and recreation supervisor with the DEP; and Rick Niedojadlo, park maintainer.

Mr. Morgan and his crew used a cordless electric drill, a small gasoline-powered chain saw, a level, and a hacksaw in shaping and assembling the platform in an approximately two-hour operation on the partly frozen marsh. They carefully preserved the matted mud, grass and sticks that formed the nest on the old platform. When construction was complete, Mr. Morgan carried them in a bucket to the platform, making several trips up a ladder, and spread them out neatly for prospective new tenants.

The Potapaug Audubon Society paid for the materials used in the structure. The column on which the platform sits is bolted to an "A" frame in the front of the base and to a long supporting board behind. Together, the frame and supporting board provide three "feet," each anchored by a sharpened wooden stake driven into the marsh. A fourth anchor is provided by the column itself, the bottom of which was sunk into the marsh. The platform is elevated about 12 feet above the marsh and is protected from potential climbing predators by a downturned metal collar on the column below the platform.

Mr. Morgan estimated the structure would last for 20 years. He has been building and repairing nesting platforms for 30 years, and he shored up the Haley Farm platform last year, to what he said was the alarm of the osprey parents occupying the platform at the time.

Town Council Defeats Wright Proposal On Transfer Tax

GROTON--The Town Council defeated March 15, 2005, a proposal by Councilor Elissa Wright to allocate a portion of revenues collected in Fiscal Year 2005 under the increased Real Estate Conveyance Tax to the town's new open space land acquisition fund.

The vote against the proposal was 6-2. Voting against the open space measure were Councilors Thomas J. Skrmetti, Frank O'Beirne, Catherine Kolnaski, Mayor Harry Watson, Natalie Burfoot-Billing and Peter Bartinik. Mr. O'Beirne asserted the measure would be a "back door" means of devoting money to open space. He said contributions to open space should be a "specific amount, argued about and agreed."

Voting for the proposal were Councilors Wright and Paulann Sheets. Ms. Wright had said it appeared that the amount that could be put into the open space fund this year under her proposal could total some $120,000.

The council didn't vote on two other open-space related proposals by Councilor Wright. (See Feb. 26, 2005 story.)

GOSA Addresses Council On Zoning Hearing

GROTON--The Groton Open Space Association told the Town Council March 1, 2005, that it was concerned about "flaws" in the adoption of a major zoning amendment last month.

GOSA Director Robert Schneider read to the Council the following letter, dated Feb. 20, that GOSA had sent to Michael Murphy, director of planning and development, and Stephen Hudecek, chairman of the Zoning Commission, with copies to other members of the Commission and to Town Manager Mark Oefinger:

- - - -

The Groton Open Space Association would like to express its concern about flaws in the process that led to the Commission's 3-1 vote Feb. 2 to approve the zoning amendment that created Active Senior Housing.

GOSA also seeks remedial action. GOSA had opposed the amendment in the form presented because it contained no definition of buildable land and no link between the number of permitted units and buildable acres. Such a definition and link are needed to prevent unacceptably high densities.

At the Commission's December meeting, Chairman Hudecek had clearly identified the weakness of the amendment as proposed. Without a buildable land definition, the amendment theoretically could allow 30 units to be crowded into 2 acres of a 15-acre tract with half-acre zoning if the other 13 acres were not buildable. Mr. Hudecek later voted against the measure as presented.

The first flaw in the approval process has to do with the introduction of the topic. The amendment had been tabled at the December 1 meeting after the Commission approved clarifications of rules pertaining to Residential Life Care Communities and similar types of housing. One member pointed out at the time that the Commission, by making the clarifications, had taken care of the urgent matter at hand and didn't need to go further.

One the morning of Feb. 2, GOSA members were startled to read in The Day that at "7 tonight, the Zoning Commission will consider a proposal that would amend the regulations" to include Active Senior Housing. This story, quoting Mr. Murphy, appeared to sideline the Commission, which should have been allowed to decide for itself what it would and would not consider, without steering from the town staff.

When the Commission meeting took place on the evening of Feb. 2, no motion was made to take the matter from the table. Such a motion would have been appropriate from both procedural and fairness points of view, given that no consensus existed at the end of the preceding meeting to take up the matter again.

Mr. Haviland then contributed a second flaw. Before reading a motion to approve the amendment, he said he believed that an absent member, Mr. Marcus, would approve of it. He did not present any information, documentation or argument for this judgment. How Mr. Marcus would have voted if he had attended the meeting and listened to all argument cannot be known. Mr. Haviland's unsupported assertion, which may have influenced other voters, should not have been made.

Third, we noted that a new Commission member, Mr. Sergeant, dominated the discussion, acting as a strong advocate for the amendment, although he hadn't sat as a member at any of the hearings and therefore wasn't allowed to vote. The chairman at one point asked Mr. Sergeant if he was a developer, a question that indicated that Mr. Sergeant hadn't been properly introduced to the Commission and its chairman. This matter is puzzling.

For the three reasons cited above, we believe the Feb. 2 meeting served to undermine, rather than strengthen, the public's confidence in the fairness of the process by which this amendment was adopted.

Mr. Murphy said he did not insert a buildable land definition into the amendment because a planned definition, when it is ready, will have to be applied across the board, rather than to just one measure. If this is the case, then we feel the Commission should have delayed action until the definition was ready. We urge that a generally acceptable definition of buildable land be arrived at quickly and that it be inserted into the Active Senior Housing amendment as soon as possible. Until then, we urge a moratorium be observed on applications for this type of housing.

- - - -

GOSA recapped the letter at the Zoning Commission meeting March 2. Mr. Murphy earlier had commented, without elaborating, that the letter was not accurate as to the law. The Commission did not discuss the letter at the meeting.

GROTON--Town Council Member Elissa Wright has proposed several resolutions to protect and enhance open space in the Town of Groton.

The Council's Committee of the Whole is expected to consider the resolutions at its next meeting March 8, 2005. Citizens will have a chance to speak in support of the measures in the citizens' petition segment of the next council meeting March 1.

Ms. Wright's three resolutions would:

1. clarify on the land records that five town properties were acquired for open space, recreation and conservation purposes with funds raised by an $8 million bond issue in 1988. Ms. Wright notes that at present the land records do not show this in the cases of: the 35-acre Merritt Farm on Fort Hill along the south side of Routes 1 and 215 (not the Merritt property GOSA seeks to acquire); two Mystic Community Center parcels comprising nearly 40 acres on the easterly and westerly sides of River Road north of I-95; the 5.76 Kiely Property north of the Groton Senior Center; the 75.67 acre Boyer-Napert Property (now the Mortimer Wright Preserve) on the northerly side of Route 215; and Burrows Field, now known as Poquonnock Plains Park. Ms. Wright says that without such specific information in the records, "future generations will lose track of the fact that said properties are restricted and dedicated in their use for open space, conservation, and recreation purposes."

2. allocate a portion of revenues collected in Fiscal Year 2005 under the increased Real Estate Conveyance Tax to the town's new open space land acquisition fund. Ms. Wright said it appears that the amount that could be put into the open space fund this year under her proposal could total some $120,000.

3. dedicate to open space an undeveloped, approximately 7-acre tract of town land abutting the historic Jabez Smith House on Route 117. The Jabez Smith House and the abutting lands are "the sole remaining undeveloped areas now in public ownership and control within the bounds of the original land grant to Nehemiah Smith in 1652, which predates by three years the first permanent settlement on Groton Bank in 1655...," her resolution says. The town's Conservation Commission has recommended that the land be preserved as open space.

NEW LONDON--F.L. Merritt Inc. won't be permitted to put an expert witness on the stand in the May Superior Court trial to determine whether GOSA or a developer will acquire the 75-acre Merritt property on Fort Hill.

Superior Court Judge James Devine said in a ruling that reached GOSA Feb. 20, 2005, that University of Connecticut law Professor Lewis Kurlantzick would not be permitted to testify as an expert for F.L. Merritt Inc., which seeks to sell the land to GOSA for $1 million. The developer, Ravenswood Construction LLC, had filed a motion to bar Prof. Kurlantzick's testimony on grounds that an expert witness testifying on matters of contract law would usurp the role of the trial judge.

Merritt's attorney, William Kroll of Noank, said that although Prof. Kurlantzick now won't testify, his expert advice will be of great value in the trial.

In another matter related to the Merritt property, a settlement hearing Feb. 15 at the Superior Court in New London on a GOSA appeal was continued to early June. The hearing on GOSA's appeal to the state Appellate Court was put off pending the outcome of the May trial. In the appeal, GOSA seeks a reversal of a Superior Court ruling that upheld the Groton Planning Commission's approval of 48-house subdivision on the Merritt property.

GROTON--The Town Council unanimously expressed interest Feb. 8, 2005, in purchasing a 29.7-acre property overlooking the Thames River, The Day reported.

The newspaper said the Council at its committee of the whole meeting didn't make a decision to buy the so-called Copp/Burrows property but did ask town staff to explore funding possibilities, to refer the matter to the Planning and Conservation Commissions, and to come up with a schedule for a possible