Home About Us Accomplishments Current Projects Get Involved Become a Member Contact Us
Welcome to GOSA!
What's New?


Priscilla Pratt signs option agreement in October 2008 on 65-acre former sheep farm on Hazelnut Hill Road. Priscilla died June 15, 2009.





Fort Hill Brook waterfall, part of Hazelnut Hill Road property that GOSA plans to buy.



At the Merritt Property closing May 16, 2008!



Sidney Van Zandt, Merritt fund-raising chief, and DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy at Merritt Property benefit April 24, 2008



Artists thank GOSA for Haley Farm: 2008 (Click for full picture)



Bluff Point in autumn


Charles Pratt, pioneering conservationist and a GOSA founder



Hello!

Welcome to the GOSA website.

The Groton Open Space Association (GOSA) is a non-profit group working to preserve open space in the greater Groton area. We hope you will use this site as a resource to learn about our organization, and, more importantly, to find out how you can get involved in local preservation efforts.

Check this page regularly for news and upcoming events.

TO MAKE A MERRITT PROPERTY CONTRIBUTION, PLEASE CLICK HERE. (We are still raising funds following the acquisition to pay off a bridge loan, recoup expenses and build a fund for insurance and other future outlays.)

(Click on color pictures to enlarge.)

   Find out about Upcoming Events.

   Check out GOSA NEWS.

   GOSA In-Depth Features:

   Watrous Property: Biology and    Beauty

   Haley State Farm: A History

   Saving Haley: Sidney Van Zandt    Reminisces

   Four Pioneers NEW!

   Missed a GOSA NEWS article?
   Visit the
GOSA NEWS Archives.
 
   Upcoming Events                               ^ top

The "Stone Puller" used to build some of the three miles of high walls on the Haley Farm -- a hobby of Caleb Haley. The machine was invented by Francis Merritt.

EVENTS last updated July 1, 2009.

Wednesday, July 1, 7 p.m., Zoning Commission meeting, Town Hall Annex.

Monday, July 13, 4 p.m., GOSA directors meeting. Pratt-Wright Gallery, Noank.

Tuesday, July 14, 7 p.m., Planning Commission to consider whether to recommend that the town ask the state to force GOSA to change its management policy for The Merritt Family Forest.


 

Complete Schedule of Town Meetings: Groton Town Website. Please refer to this source for the full schedule. The only town meetings listed on this GOSA page will be those of expected special environmental interest. To use the town schedule, click on the calendar displayed and move forward and backward with plus and minus signs. TOWN WEBSITE VIDEO: Video of Town Council meetings. Click on GMTV on Groton home page and then on Streaming Viceo.


   GOSA NEWS                                         ^ top

 


[News last updated: July 1, 2009 Please contact us at gosamail@gmail.com with suggestions, questions and criticisms.]


(Click on headlines to see full stories. Dates refer to time of event, not to web posting, except on forward-looking articles or where otherwise indicated. All stories written by GOSA, except those attributed to other publications.)

(6-23-09)--OPDS Says GOSA Plan For Merritt Conflicts With Town Goals

(6-21-09)--Eulogy For Priscilla Pratt

(6-20-09)--Text Of Obituary For Priscilla Pratt

(6-10-09)--IWA Makes First Set Of Changes To Groton Wetlands Regulations (WITH UPDATE)

(6-9-09)--GOSA Offers Suggestions For Planning Commission Bylaw Rewrite

(4-28-09)--GOSA Argues Against Deletion Of “Purposes” from Subdivision Regs

(4-28-09)--Murphy Rebuke Of Engineer Termed Heavy-Handed, Paranoid

(4-20-09)--Omar Allvord, GOSA Director, Dies At 86

(4-2-09)--GOSA Explains Merritt Family Forest Protections

(3-4-09)--KKC Illustrates Spreadsheet Planning For Zoning, Planning Boards

(3-3-09)--Strong Support For Wright Bill To Shield Municipal Open Space

(3-1-09)--Blogger Wirzbicki Endorses Wright Bill, Laments A Reason For Opposition

(3-1-09)--Some Councilors Reported Upset Over Bill To Protect Open Space From Diversion

(2-15-09)--GOSA Plans Benefit Feb. 26 For Resource Protection

(1-27-09)--Planning Asked To Tighten Water Protection In Land-Use Rule Rewrite

(1-14-09)--CT Blue Questions OPDS Stance On Wal-Mart

(1-14-09)--Konover Asking Intervenors To Drop IWA Appeal: The Day

(1-13-09)--Wal-Mart Says It Has No Current Plans To Build In Groton: The Day

(1-8-09)--KONOVER OUT AS INTEREST HOLDER IN PROPERTY SLATED FOR WAL-MART SUPERCENTER; PROJECT STATUS UNCLEAR

(1-7-09)-- KKC To Hold Feb. Meeting With Zoning, Maybe Jointly With Planning

(1-2-09)--Land Use Rewrite A Topic On Jan. 7, 2009, Zoning Agenda

(12-29-08)--Some OPDS Replies To GOSA Questions On Land-Use Rule Rewrite

(12-29-08)--Text Of GOSA Feedback On KKC Report

(11-12-08)--Wal-Mart Wins Split IWA OK For Super Store Near Reservoir

(10-29-08)--KKC Holds Last Public Land-Use Info Meeting; Questions Remain

(11-8-08)--GOSA Submits Questions On Land-Use Report

(10-24-08)--GOSA BUYS OPTION ON FORMER SHEEP FARM ON HAZELNUT HILL ROAD

(10-24-08)--Public Info Meeting On Land-Use Rules To Begin At 6 p.m., Oct. 29

(10-16-08)--Past Year Saw Triumph and Challenge, GOSA President Says

(10-16-08)--Text of President Priscilla Pratt's Annual Report

(9-24-08)--KKC Presents Preliminary Report On Groton Land-Use Rules

(9-10-08)--Wal-Mart Hearing To Resume October 8

(9-14-08)--Aug. 15, 2005: Text of State Press Release on Wal-Mart Settlement

(9-9-08)--Hawthorne Temporarily Withdraws Mystic Woods Site Plan Application

(9-3-08)-- KKC “Assessment Report” To Be Publicly Viewable By Mid-Month

(9-2-08)--Land-Use Regulation Update On Sept. 3, 2008, Agenda Of Zoning Commission

(7-23-08)--Konover Submits Third IWA Application For Watershed Wal-Mart

(6-25-08)-- Wal-Mart In Preliminary Talks With IWA: UPDATE 6-27-08: WAL-MART TO APPEAL

(6-11-08)--IWA Denies Wal-Mart Application For Changes

(5-30-08)--Court Sets Back Wal-Mart Plan For Watershed Development

(5-28-08)--IWA Continues Wal-Mart Deliberation To June 11

(5-14-08)--IWA To Deliberate Wal-Mart May 28 After Earlier Lively Discussion

(5-13-08)--Councilor Sheets Asks 1-Year P&Z Halt In Some Watershed Areas

(5-16-08)--The Merritt Family Forest A Reality After 5-Year Delay

(5-16-08)--Statement By Nelson Merritt On The Merritt Family Forest

(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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OPDS Says GOSA Plan For Merritt Conflicts With Town Goals

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Eulogy for Priscilla Pratt

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Text Of Obituary For Priscilla Pratt, GOSA President

* * *  ^ back to headlines


IWA Makes First Set Of Changes To Groton Wetlands Regulations (WITH UPDATE)

- - - -

(NEW) (c) For purposes of this section, (1) “wetlands or watercourses” includes aquatic, plant or animal life and habitats in wetlands and watercourses, and (2) “habitats” means areas or environments in which an organism or biological population normally lives or occurs.

(NEW) (d) A municipal inland wetlands agency shall not deny or condition an application for a regulated activity in an area outside wetlands or watercourses on the basis of an impact or effect on aquatic, plant, or animal life unless such activity will likely impact or affect the physical characteristics of such wetlands or watercourses.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Offers Suggestions for Planning Commission Bylaw Rewrite

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Argues Against Deletion of “Purposes” from Subdivision Regs

GOSA would like to comment briefly on an OPDS draft of changes to the subdivision regulations.

The draft, dated Feb. 24, 2009, would eliminate the statement of purposes currently located in Section 1.2 of the regulations. The purposes set out in clear and forceful language a foundation for the work of the commission.

Among the purposes that the OPDS proposes to eliminate are those laid out in Items 10 and 11.

Item 10 reads in part: “To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds; ...to safeguard the water table; and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of land.”

Item 11 reads: “To preserve the natural beauty and topography of the Town to insure appropriate development with regard to these natural features.”

These proposed OPDS deletions are particularly worrisome for conservationists, but many other worthy purposes also are scheduled for elimination. These include but aren’t limited to the protection of public health and safety, town character, and social and economic stability.

Striking out the statement of purposes would tend to cut the commission loose from its moorings and to set it adrift. For example, Section 1.9 makes reference to the “intent and purpose of these regulations.” What intent and what purpose would be left?

The goals set out in Section 1.2 aren’t numbers, and they won’t fit into Kendig Keast’s planning spreadsheets. [Kendig Keast Collaborative, of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, currently is acting as a consultant to Groton in a comprehensive rewrite of land-use regulations.] To apply the statement of purposes requires human judgment. The purposes are important to the continued authority of the Planning Commission and to the protection of the town.

We urge the Planning Commission to instruct the OPDS to preserve the purposes section of the Subdivision Regulations, instead of discarding it.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Murphy Rebuke Of Engineer Termed Heavy-Handed, Paranoid

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Omar Allvord, GOSA Director, Dies At 86

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Explains Merritt Family Forest Protections

I hope I can help to clarify our stewardship of The Merritt Family Forest and the issues you addressed. Please grant me the privilege of a lengthy letter, because I feel deeply about this and of course hope our neighbors will be grateful to have this beautiful land so near their homes and be understanding of our position.

First, let me say that none of us are against dogs. In fact, GOSA was responsible for the establishment of Haley Farm State Park in 1970, a popular dog walking area; was active in the purchase of additional land at Bluff Point and the formation in 1974 of the Bluff Point Coastal Reserve, which is open to dog walkers; GOSA helped promote the successful Groton Open Space referendum in 1988 which resulted in such acquisitions as the Copp property, which now has a well used dog park, and other town open space lands, including the Mortimer D. Wright Preserve, all of which are open to folks walking their dogs.

I myself was a director of the former Connecticut Branch of The Humane Society of the United States and was a volunteer representative locally for the Friends of Animals spaying program, which provided low cost or no cost neutering for pets of qualifying pet owners, a program that prevented much suffering associated with the surplus animal problem. In addition, my husband and I worked many years ago for reforms at the local dog pound. A memorial fund was established in his memory for the pound, and we have adopted wonderful dogs over the years from the Groton Animal Shelter and the Connecticut Humane Society.

GOSA has a long history of attempts to protect the Merritt property, going back at least seven years when the property was scheduled to become a tightly packed 79-house subdivision. Had this happened, the Merritt property would be a far cry from the open space land that it is today. But GOSA intervened, fighting first for a more environmentally friendly design to the subdivision, and eventually helped whittle down the projected size of the development to 48 houses. GOSA had hired an expert environmental consultant and a fine local attorney, and obtained the pro bono services of an engineer to assist in this endeavor, as well as spending much volunteer time and energy.

When the developer allowed its option to lapse—without abandoning its plan to build there—we took a deep breath and decided to try to buy the property ourselves. Against the odds, we won a state grant and obtained a contract with the Merritts by the skin of our teeth. One day after we signed the contract, the developer sued Merritt, asserting possession of a pre-existing contract.

A short time later, the developer sued GOSA and nine individuals for damages for allegedly interfering with its supposed contract. The suit for contract interference was dropped in the face of threatened intervention by the Connecticut attorney general, but the legal battle for the right to buy the land persisted for about five years before GOSA finally purchased the property last spring.

At one point during the litigation, both sides were directed by the court to seek a negotiated settlement. We made a bona fide effort. The developer offered to drop its suit if GOSA would agree to the building of a 15- or 16-house subdivision in the middle of the tract. Several directors visited the property one sunny morning. They walked the rolling contours of the forest floor under tall trees, and decided this fairly slender piece of land could not stand that kind of intrusion without a complete loss of character.

They then took to the board the recommendation that GOSA reject the offer and roll on to a court decision, come what might. We placed a calculated all-or-nothing bet and won when the Appellate Court unanimously upheld a New London Superior Court jury decision in our favor and the developer dropped the suit.

GOSA is in the position of being a new steward of this 75-acre parcel of land, which would now be a thickly settled subdivision if we had not acted. Although some members of the public did use the property during the Merritt ownership, this use was in defiance of no-trespassing signs. GOSA has, in fact, opened up land that was previously private and restricted.

We want to afford this gem a high level of protection to its terrain and wildlife and plants. We want to leave only light footprints. Bikes, horses and dogs would leave big footprints on the fragile Merritt Family Forest, each category in its own way and all in a combined manner. We don't want to begin our stewardship by compromising the conservation of the land that we fought so long and hard to preserve.

One of our members, a plant scientist, and another, a landscaper, are inventorying the plant and animal life in the forest. They have compiled a pages-long list of species, and it is lengthening all the time. At a recent board meeting, a bucket of fairy shrimp from a pool on the land was brought in for inspection. (They were returned after the meeting.) They are among the hundreds of aquatic, terrestrial and avian species on the property that we want to protect.

Our board has decided that a combination of horses, bikes and dogs would seriously compromise The Merritt Family Forest. All people are welcome in the forest—to walk, jog, take pictures, stroll with friends and family, study nature, refresh themselves in the beauty of the place. We are designing and building paths that will take visitors close enough to natural places of interest to observe but far enough away so that all of us together won't destroy that which is observed.

We considered seriously the possibility of special status for abutters, but ultimately decided against it. An exemption for abutters would strike non-abutters as discriminatory, and rightly so. A rule cannot apply just to most; it has to apply to all. If some people were walking dogs on the property, or biking, or riding horses, it would be impossible to explain to others why they had to adhere to the rules, and our attempt at maintaining a light footprint on the property would become meaningless.

We genuinely ask for your understanding of our attempts to conserve this environmental treasure, and thank you for the opportunity to explain our work to you.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


KKC Illustrates Spreadsheet Planning For Zoning, Planning Boards

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Strong Support Shown For Wright Bill To Protect Municipal Open Space

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Blogger Wirzbicki Endorses Wright Bill, Laments A Reason For Opposition

According to the Day’s headline writer (we can’t blame the reporter for this) an Open-Space Bill [has taken] Groton By Surprise. The text of the article [March 1, 2009] tells a bit different story. We townsfolk are in fact going about our business in as placid a state as the impending Depression permits, unfazed by the Open Space Bill to which the article refers. In fact, it appears that “Groton”, so far as the bill is concerned, boils down to one person, Town Councilor Heather Bond (it may or may not be a coincidence that Wright beat Bond in the election that sent Wright to the statehouse), who professes to be shocked at a bill proposed by State Representative Elissa Wright:

[Quote from Day article]"When voters approve municipal funds to purchase open space, measures should be taken to protect that land permanently, state Rep. Elissa Wright, D-Groton, said.

"Wright has proposed a bill that would do just that, saying that such town open-space purchases should fall along the same lines as purchases that use state funds - a permanent conservation easement is placed on the land.

But her bill has frustrated several Groton Town Council members who were unaware that their representative had proposed it and believe it has the potential to tie towns’ hands in future uses of such property." [end quote from article]

Other than Bond, none of the “frustrated” Town Councilors are identified. The claim made in the article that somehow the bill was represented as having been proposed at the council’s instigation is poorly supported.

This brouhaha does illuminate a couple of odd things about our Town Council. First, and I can attest this from personal experience, is the idea that somehow our state representative is personally answerable to the Town Council. That is manifestly not the case.

More troubling is the idea that the town is free to, in essence, defraud its own citizens by getting their okay to buy land for a stated purpose-in this case open space, and then turn around and use it for another purpose without getting their okay. The council considers it an affront that their hands should be tied. Years ago they were all set to hand one of the properties purchased as open space to a for-profit minor league baseball team. Had that happened we would now, like Norwich, be looking forward to an empty baseball stadium after years of handing tax breaks and concessions to the team. It didn’t happen only because the piece involved was the one piece (the Copp property) purchased for open space purposes that did, in fact, have restrictive language in the deed.

Those events took place prior to my time on the council. When I became a member of that august body, I was somewhat surprised at the degree to which they resented the legal strictures on their ability to do whatever they wanted with the Copp property.

They perceived it as an affront, despite the fact that the town had acquired that particular piece for a below market price precisely because it came with the legal restrictions required by the former owner.

The other properties have no legal restrictions, but the fact is the folks who paid (the taxpayers) agreed to do so on the express representation that the land was being purchased as open space. In the world of private actors, when one induces someone to part with their money based on a representation of fact, and then one acts in a manner inconsistent with that representation, it is called fraud, or, at the very least, breach of contract. Why the town council feels it is appropriate for it to retain the ability to dedicate that land to other uses, at their sole whim and without further taxpayer input, has always mystified me.

I hope Representative Wright’s bill becomes law. She is asking nothing more than that towns abide by the representations they make to their own taxpayers. That’s not really asking that much.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Some Councilors Reported Upset Over Bill To Protect Open Space From Diversion

When voters approve municipal funds to purchase open space, measures should be taken to protect that land permanently, state Rep. Elissa Wright, D-Groton, said.

Wright has proposed a bill that would do just that, saying that such town open-space purchases should fall along the same lines as purchases that use state funds - a permanent conservation easement is placed on the land.

But her bill has frustrated several Groton Town Council members who were unaware that their representative had proposed it and believe it has the potential to tie towns' hands in future uses of such property.

Councilor Heather Sherman Bond brought the issue to the council's attention last week, saying testimony on the bill, which was heard before the environment committee Feb. 18, implied Groton officials were involved in the proposal, though the Town Council was not asked for input.

”Elissa is supposed to be our representative,” said Bond, who ran against Wright for the legislative seat in 2006, adding that the council deserves “at least a little more information on what she's proposing.”

The issue is familiar to some councilors, going back to a proposal Wright raised four years ago while serving on the council.

Though voters approved $8 million for open-space purchases in a 1988 referendum, Wright said the deeds of five of the six parcels failed to specify that they were to be dedicated for open space, conservation or recreation purposes.

She proposed a resolution requiring that land records indicate that the parcels were to be preserved in perpetuity.

It failed to pass, however, due to concerns about its language and whether it was legally binding.

Wright resurrected the issue at the state level, and has received support from the Groton Open Space Association, the Connecticut Forest & Park Association, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment and the Rivers Alliance of Connecticut.

Rivers Alliance Executive Director Margaret Miner wrote in her testimony that, “This bill was written in response to an issue in Groton” - a statement Bond protested.

Wright said she could not comment on another person's testimony, but that she did become aware of the need for the bill while serving on the Groton council. ”It's not simply a local issue ... as the testimony verifies,” Wright said. “It's a concept of paramount interest throughout the state.”

As far as the council's involvement, Wright said she represents the entire district and believes the bill is in the best interest of her constituents. The bill was included in a council information packet, and legislative process is a matter of public record, she said.

The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, however, said in its testimony that land decisions made with local funds should be allowed to be changed through the same process used to approve them should the needs of the community change.

”It would be wrong for the state to dictate to local governments what they can do with items purchased with their own funds,” according to CCM's testimony.

Wright said if a town envisions wanting to use land for purposes other than open space, they can frame the referendum to include “a full range of future uses.”

”It's a matter of respecting the integrity of voters ... they are entitled to know that their vote is going to be respected and honored,” she said.

Connecticut Light & Power and Yankee Gas also expressed concern about the bill's impact on the companies' ability to serve its customers if transmission-line rights of way traverse undeveloped land acquired for open space.

Groton town councilors agreed to send a letter to environment committee leaders and other local legislators asking that the bill not be acted on until they have a chance to get it clarified and specifying that it was not something the Town of Groton had asked for. Wright will meet with the council Tuesday, and said she has requested that it be televised so she can address their concerns “in a similarly public manner.”

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Plans Benefit Feb. 26 For Resource Protection

er

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Planning Asked To Tighten Water Protection In Rule Rewrite

* * *  ^ back to headlines


CT Blue Questions OPDS Chief's Stance On Wal-Mart

The Day has a follow up article on the Wal-Mart situation (Some Celebrate Wal-Mart’s Loss Of Interest). Indeed, more than some are celebrating. Unfortunately, not everyone:

Director of Planning and Development Michael Murphy said it was “unfortunate that the project didn’t move forward,” as staff believed the improvements being proposed would have protected the watershed.

From a town policy standpoint, he said, the developer had met, and even went beyond, the requirements to build on the site.

”It’s a matter of how development is done there, not that it shouldn’t be done,” Murphy said. “An opportunity was lost in an area designated for commercial development. Hopefully there will be more opportunities in the future.”

Mr. Murphy has a perfect right to his opinion. My question is whether the Planning Department has a right to an opinion. The Planning Department was instituted in the old Charter. Reference to it was removed in the new Charter, but it continues to exist under the old provision pursuant to a savings clause. Here’s what the old Charter had to say:

["]The department of planning shall be responsible for assisting the planning and zoning commissions in the development and maintenance of a comprehensive plan of development for the town. The department shall make studies and prepare recommendations and reports for orderly community development in the areas of zoning, subdivision regulations, land use and other phases of municipal development. The department shall have such other powers and duties as the council may prescribe.["]

So far as I can see it is not the province of the Planning Department to advocate for a developer, or to take a public position on the extent to which any particular proposal should or should not be approved. One of their functions is to act as a resource for the Planning Commission. They are not supposed to set themselves up in opposition to the Planning Commission, which is precisely what Murphy has done.

Town Planners must be closely watched. They can’t really have much fun unless they get to do a lot of planning, which means they have a bias toward development. Land preservation is boring. Not only is planning what they do, but additional commercial development means additional tax revenue, and town governments are, shall we say, biased toward expanding the commercial tax base. In addition, the system is structured in such a was as to get the planning office emotionally invested in a project before it ever gets to the Planning Commission. The developer goes to them, asks their opinion, consults closely, and acts on their recommendations before submitting a definite proposal. All of this makes a certain amount of sense, but the upshot is that the final proposal is the child of both the developer and the planner, and everyone wants their child to thrive.

In the Wal-Mart case the planner became such an advocate that the developer, at least at one point, took the position that the Planning Commission had to approve the project because the planner said that it had to do so. A planner should never give a developer an opening to make an argument like that, and once the Commission has made its decision, it should be the Planner’s role to support that decision, or keep respectfully silent.

Now that we’re entering a depression, the pressure to make a strip out of Route 184 may relent for a while. Who knows, maybe the Connecticut Legislature will take advantage of the crisis to finally reform our system of taxation so that towns don’t feel pressured to encourage the type of commercial development that has blighted so much of our landscape. It’s time we put an end to these big box stores, for both environmental and esthetic reasons. No uglier architectural style has ever evolved in the history of mankind.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Konover Asking Intervenors To Drop IWA Appeal: The Day

Neighbors and local environmentalists who opposed plans to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter on Route 184 were glad Tuesday to see an end to a project they believed would have harmed their community. Konover Development vice president Michelle Carlson confirmed Tuesday the company is dropping plans to build the Supercenter. ”We are focusing our resources on projects we can bring to closure a lot quicker,” she said.

The company dropped its options to buy the Route 184 properties and dropped its appeal of the Inland Wetlands Agency's application denial, Carlson said.

The firm also asked the intervenors to drop their appeal of the wetlands board's subsequent approval.

Carlson said the poor economy was a factor in the decision, and alluded to the obstacles the company has faced from land-use commissions in developing the site, which is zoned commercially but lies in the water-resource protection district.

Residents and anti-Wal-Mart unions had rallied against the project.

The Groton Open Space Association, known for opposing large developments, helped lead the charge against the project, rallying neighbors and bringing in consultants to offer evidence about environmental impact.

”We're very gratified if this means there won't be a large building at that sensitive site,” said GOSA President Priscilla Pratt. “Our concern is the protection of the watershed ... which has an impact not only to Groton but to the whole region.”

Neighbor Michael Brown, of Spyglass Circle, said he was relieved to hear the news. He had been concerned about chemicals leaking in a location “so close to our drinking water source,” he said.

The Planning Commission denied a site plan in 2007, citing possible impacts on the watershed. Konover lost its appeal in Superior Court, but continued to pursue changes to its wetlands applications, finally getting approval in November.

Director of Planning and Development Michael Murphy said it was “unfortunate that the project didn't move forward,” as staff believed the improvements being proposed would have protected the watershed.

From a town policy standpoint, he said, the developer had met, and even went beyond, the requirements to build on the site.

”It's a matter of how development is done there, not that it shouldn't be done,” Murphy said. “An opportunity was lost in an area designated for commercial development. Hopefully there will be more opportunities in the future.”

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Wal-Mart Says No Plans Now To Build In Groton: The Day

Konover Development Corp. said in papers filed in New London Superior Court that it is no longer interested in the property.

The company appealed the Inland Wetlands Agency's denial of an application for the site, which is to the east of Antonino Road.

”Wal-Mart has no plans at this time,” a company spokesman said, but would not elaborate on what that means for the site. The spokesman, along with Konover attorney Diane Whitney, referred questions to Konover officials.

”As far as I know, it won't be built,” Whitney said. Wal-Mart filed plans in 2006 for a 200,000-square-foot building with retail space, warehouse storage, a fast-food restaurant and hardware store on about 30 acres of land.

Plans called for the existing store on Route 184 to close. It has faced opposition from neighbors and the non-profit Groton Open Space Association. The Planning Commission denied site plans for the store in 2007, mainly due to its location in the water resource protection district.

A subsequent application to the wetlands agency was denied, but the agency approved changes to existing permits in November.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


KONOVER OUT AS INTEREST HOLDER IN PROPERTY SLATED FOR WAL-MART SUPER CENTER; PROJECT STATUS UNCLEAR

* * *  ^ back to headlines


KKC To Hold Feb. Meeting With Zoning, Maybe Jointly With Planning

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Land Use Rewrite A Topic On Jan. 7, 2009, Zoning Agenda

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Some OPDS Replies To GOSA Questions On Land-Use Rule Rewrite

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Text Of GOSA Feedback On KKC Report

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Wal-Mart Wins Split IWA OK For Super Store Near Reservoir

* * *  ^ back to headlines


KKC Holds Last Public Land-Use Info Meeting; Questions Remain

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Submits Questions On Land-Use Report

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Buys Option On Former Sheep Farm On Hazelnut Hill Road

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Public Info Meeting On Land-Use Rules To Begin At 6 p.m. Oct. 29

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Past Year Saw Triumph and Challenge, GOSA President Says

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Text of President Priscilla Pratt's Annual Report

* * *  ^ back to headlines


KKC Presents Preliminary Report On Groton Land-Use Rules

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Wal-Mart Hearing To Resume October 8

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Aug. 15, 2005: Text of State Press Release on Wal-Mart Settlement

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Gina McCarthy today announced a $1.15 million settlement with Wal-Mart involving environmental violations at 22 stores related to stormwater and other water management issues.

The state sued Wal-Mart in 2001 after the company failed to comply with stormwater management requirements at numerous stores. The violations threatened to expose the environment to sediments, fertilizers, oil and other pollutants – products often stored outside the stores and carried by rain into nearby bodies of water. It also sold an improper sewer additive at several stores.

The state later amended the lawsuit after it discovered that – at numerous stores – Wal-Mart also operated without appropriate permits needed for photographic wastewater and vehicle maintenance activities, as well as discharged wastewater from several dumpsters and garden centers.

"Wal-Mart's environmental record here seems as low as its prices – proven violations at 22 stores in Connecticut," Blumenthal said. "Big as it is, Wal-Mart failed to get it right. Now they need to change their corporate culture – and correct their systems. Giant corporations are not above the law. We're holding Wal-Mart accountable for systemic, repeated violations across the state. Wal-Mart should use its corporate clout to set a high standard for sound environmental and employment conduct. At minimum, it must obey the law. This significant settlement should send a stark message to the industry: environmental disregard carries consequences."

"Today's announcement sends a strong message: It doesn't matter how big you are - you can't break the law," McCarthy said. "We want businesses of all sizes to come to our state and expand in our state. That is how we create jobs for people. But we expect all businesses – large or small – to obey laws and regulations designed to protect the environment, preserve natural resources and safeguard the health of our citizens. This agreement ensures that Wal-Mart's past violations of our laws will be corrected and that no future violations occur in the construction of new stores or the daily operations of the chain's many stores in our state."

Of the $1.15 million settlement, $600,000 satisfies a civil penalty to the Treasury; $500,000 will assist municipal compliance with stormwater regulations; and $50,000 will be used to protect the Connecticut River Watershed. Wal-Mart has also agreed to correct the improper discharges; submit plans to address stormwater management; hire a consultant to conduct seven bi-annual audits to ensure compliance and fix all violations; hire a stormwater consultant for all Wal-Mart construction sites in Connecticut for five years; cease using improper sewer additive; and obtain all proper permits.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Hawthorne Temporarily Withdraws Mystic Woods Site Plan Application

* * *  ^ back to headlines


KKC “Assessment Report” To Be On View By Mid-Month

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Land-Use Regulation Update On Sept. 3, 2008, Agenda Of Zoning Commission

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Konover Submits Third IWA application for Watershed Wal-Mart

- - - -

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Wal-Mart Talks With IWA

UPDATE--Konover said June 27, 2008, that it will appeal the IWA's denial June 11 of its application to change its original plan for a Wal-Mart Supercenter.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


IWA Denies Wal-Mart Application For Changes

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Court Sets Back Wal-Mart Plan For Watershed Development

Judge Joseph J. Purtill did not deal with the merits of the land-use commission's decision, as he came to the conclusion that Konover Development had failed to establish that it has an interest in the property, in a decision rendered Friday [May 30, 2008].

In the April 8 hearing, Town Attorney Michael Carey had questioned the four agreements that gave Konover the option to purchase the property on Gold Star Highway, to the east of Antonino Road.

Carey said at the hearing that an applicant has to have the title to or an interest in the property at the time it applies, or “they don't have standing to file the application.”

The Planning Commission's decision was rendered in February 2007.

Since then, two option agreements have expired, meaning Konover has failed to show it has a continuing interest in the property.

Two purchase agreements were signed March 28, 2007 and July 17, 2007 - after the Planning Commission decision. Although they remain in effect, they also fail to show that Konover had an interest in those parcels when the appeal began.

Carey had no comment Monday.

Konover attorney Diane Whitney said the ruling was disappointing and that her clients are considering whether to pursue other legal options.

Whitney had argued that the commission's denial of the application was not based on concrete evidence, and said commissioners simply didn't like it.

The Groton Open Space Association and attorney Marjorie Shansky, representing five interveners, have opposed the application.

Konover is still moving ahead with a new application for the 200,000-square-foot store on the same 37 acres. The Inland Wetlands Agency is now considering proposed changes to its wetland permits on the site.

Though the area is zoned for commercial development, commissioners who rejected the site plan were most concerned about its effect on the town's water resource protection district.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


IWA Continues Wal-Mart Deliberation To June 11

* * *  ^ back to headlines


IWA To Deliberate Wal-Mart May 28 After Earlier Lively Discussion

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Councilor Sheets Asks 1-Year P&Z Halt In Some Watershed Areas

* * *  ^ back to headlines


The Merritt Family Forest A Reality After 5-Year Delay

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Statement By Nelson Merritt On The Merritt Family Forest

* * *  ^ back to headlines


KKC Back In Two Months; Some Conservationists Disappointed

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Holds Fundraiser For Merritt Property

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Wal-Mart Site Plan Withdrawn; IWA Application Stays

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Wal-Mart IWA Hearing To Resume May 14; Planning Likely May 13

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Date of Option Signature An Issue In Wal-Mart Appeal

(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

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Deadline For Planning Decision On Wal-Mart Extended

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Wal-Mart Developer Tries To Censor Public Water Talks

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Groton Hires Midwest/West Firm To Help Rewrite Land-Use Regs

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Planning Commission Study Of Wal-Mart As Yet Not Scheduled

* * *  ^ back to headlines


IWA To Hear Wal-Mart Change Application April 9

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Appeals For Funds For Merritt Property Purchase

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.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


The Day Urges Public To Pitch In On Merritt Fund

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

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Mystic Woods Appeal Charges Bad OPDS Advice To Zoning Unit

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Director Fairgrieve Urges Action On Open Space Plan For Groton

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

* * *  ^ back to headlines


New Mystic Woods Buffer From Adjacent Property Lines Larger By 25 Feet

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Zoning Conditionally Approves Mystic Woods; Vote Split

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Zoning Unit Closes Three-Part Mystic Woods Hearing

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Zoning Approves MX Floating Zone: The Day

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.

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.

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.

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.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


What Is An “Open” Zoning Commission Meeting?

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Mystic Woods Termed Too Big and Harmful For Fort Hill

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Zoning Commission To Reconsider Floating Zone Vote

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Loses Appeal In Four Winds Case

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA, Neighbors Appeal IWA Approval of Mystic Woods

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA President Stresses Balance, Resource Protection, Quality of Life

Think Globally, Act Locally. This could well be GOSA's motto over the past year. By working to protect and enhance open space, and to protect natural resources in major development projects, GOSA has also put itself on the cutting edge of the global movement to address climate change. Whenever we increase carbon sequestering open space, and reduce the impact of major developments on natural resources, we add something of significance to the solution of the global warming problem. Groton is rapidly urbanizing. GOSA stands valiantly for balance, for protection of air, water, and land resources, and for quality of life for everyone.

About open space. We have continued the program of mowing the fields at Haley Farm. The Crowley family continues to do a wonderful job every year in keeping the fields open, utilizing their old trusty John Deere tractor-mower and doing trimming work by hand. They do this for us at a fraction of what the work is really worth. We pay them from the interest in our Haley Farm fund, plus yearly donations from members. We have an Annual Cleanup Day in the spring. Thanks to efforts of Sidney, we now have doggie waste bags provided to help in cleanup all year.

Our major project of acquiring the 75-acre Merritt property from the top of Fort Hill to Fishtown Road has been held up by a legal dispute between a developer, Ravenswood, and the Merritts. We await a decision from the Appellate Court, and hopefully a successful end to this troubling suit soon. GOSA is represented by the firm of Tyler, Cooper, and Alcorn of New Haven. They are giving us first-class representation at a much-reduced rate. For this we owe Attorneys Ben Solnit and Beth Leamon our unceasing thanks.

GOSA has been encouraging the Conservation Commission to lead in implementation of an active open space plan in Groton. The Commission hosted a talk last month, which GOSA had promoted, by Alicia Betty of the Trust for Public Land. The subject of methods available to towns to protect open space was explained in depth by this expert. We are encouraged that this extremely informative talk will lead to further presentations about and actual implementation of an active open space plan in Groton.

GOSA has intervened in several major development proposals in Groton. We have hired expert environmental consultants to present information at public hearings before Inland Wetlands, Zoning, and Planning Commissions. This is expensive, but worth it. Please continue to help us financially.

When an application for a Wal-Mart Supercenter was taken up by the Planning Commission, an engineer employed by GOSA gave expert testimony about the dangers to the nearby reservoir system. This information, as well as further testimony by GOSA and others, was available to the Commission for its deliberations. The Commission denied the Wal-Mart application, in spite of recommendations for approval by town staff. We commend the Commission for its strong action and statement in protection of our vital drinking water supply.

One of our major current concerns is the Mystic Woods proposal, a 211-unit "Active Adult Community" consisting of 69 townhouse-style residential buildings and a community center building with attendant roads, utilities, and parking areas proposed to occupy 104.84 acres of wooded tract on the top and upper slopes of Fort Hill running from Flanders Road to the bottom of Fort Hill at Fort Hill Brook. Because of the significant impact of this very large development on steep slopes, 11 wetlands, a Tier-One Vernal Pool, and the headwaters of a stream leading to Fort Hill Brook, with the added danger of flooding, GOSA intervened at the Inland Wetlands hearings. We engaged the services of a top environmental lawyer, Peter Cooper of New Haven, a top wetlands consultant, Penni Sharp, and a top engineer, Steve Trinkaus. Several concerned citizens also intervened and formed a separate organization, Friends of Fort Hill.

The main access road to this development would be on Flanders Road, with an exit "right turn only" onto Route One near the middle of Fort Hill. We were dismayed that the Inland Wetlands Agency granted the permit for this development, which we strongly believe is too intense for the site and very damaging to the wetlands and the vernal pool.

As well as being the main access road for the 211 units, the Flanders Road entrance would also serve as the haul road for up to seven years for transporting construction equipment, logging trucks and building materials to the site. The road would pass the vernal pool at a distance of less than 40 feet from the wetland edge, and would bisect the 10-acre watershed flowing to the vernal pool and interrupt water flow to the wetland. The consultant for the developer testified during the hearings that, as a result of the construction, the egg mass count in the vernal pool might "dip" from 300 to "no less than 25." In our opinion, this "dip" would represent a catastrophic decline of 90%, and would not only lead to a massive decline in the amphibian population, but also a decline in the physical quality of the water itself. As you know, vernal pools are considered a vital element in the ecology of an area, and warrant special protection by law.

In addition, the storm water runoff systems proposed have never been tested in this kind of site, and we are concerned that polluted runoff could damage Fort Hill Brook and ultimately Mumford Cove.

GOSA has taken the reluctant but crucial step of filing an appeal of the Inland Wetlands Agency decision with the Superior Court. We are represented by Peter Cooper, who has served as general counsel for the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, and another member of his firm, Frank Cochran, who is also an experienced environmental attorney.

The Groton Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Mystic Woods application for a Special Permit for this same 211-unit Active Senior Adult Community on Monday October 15 at the Town Hall Annex at 7 p.m. in Room 1. GOSA has again filed as an intervener. We strongly urge all interested people to attend. This is a huge development, with major, major impacts on the community.

The Zoning Commission last week denied a Multi Use Floating Zone in Nodes application. GOSA had appeared at the hearings to advocate for open space provisions and other changes in the proposal.

GOSA's appeals in the Four Winds case have not been successful. That's the Watrous property off Noank-Ledyard Road, slated for a major development. The DEP has recognized the unique natural assets of this property, and has put it on its priority list of properties for acquisition. But the future of this beautiful land is uncertain, as the developer has not wanted to sell to the DEP.

Think Globally, Act Locally. That's what GOSA, with your help, is trying to do. I have only touched on highlights of this year's activities. Please watch our website, www.gosaonline.org, for past history, upcoming events, and updates on any projects I have missed because of time constraints tonight. You will find more information about the Mystic Woods proposal there, too, or ask any board member.

Thanks for all your support this past year. And lets all remember, in this time of world- crisis- climate change with unimaginable potential impacts on the environment, to Think Globally, and Act Locally. We can help to make a difference.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


TPL Official Discusses Land Protection Means At Conservation Commission

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Zoning Commission Nixes Floating Zone Amendment

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Hawthorne Presents “Mystic Woods” To Zoning: NEW MATERIAL ADDED AT END 9-21-07

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Conservation Voters Rank Rep. Wright At 100%

* * *  ^ back to headlines


IWA Approves Mystic Woods with Conditions

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Zoning Commission Meeting Unveils Two Noteworthy Matters

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Appellate Panel Hears Arguments In Merritt Case

* * *  ^ back to headlines


IWA Continues Discussion of Mystic Woods to Sept. 12

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Appellate Arguments Set For Sept. 6 In Merritt/GOSA v Ravenswood

* * *  ^ back to headlines


IWA Hearings on Mystic Woods Closed

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Hearings On Floating Zone Continued To Sept. 5

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Councilor O’Beirne Flags Floating Zone Proposal

* * *  ^ back to headlines


IWA Continues Mystic Woods Hearing



* * *  ^ back to headlines


SCCOG Draft Plan Termed Weak On Conservation

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Zoning Unit Continues Floating Zone Hearing To Aug. 1

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Planning Endorses Floating Zone But Seeks Refinements

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Groton Floating Zone Applicant Reduces Scope Of Request

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Paving Paradise: from The Day.Com

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Schedule For Floating Zone Consideration Changed

You have been asked by the Zoning Commission to make a recommendation on a proposal for creation of a so-called Mixed-Use (MX) Floating Zone. The applicant is L&L Groton LLC, which is based in Old Lyme.

GOSA believes this proposed zoning amendment, if implemented as written, could change the character of Groton forever for the worse.

We believe it would contravene the land-use intent of the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development.

The amendment would encourage intense development of hundreds of acres of currently forested and unoccupied land north and south of I-95. Development could include construction of six-story buildings for apartments and neighborhood businesses.

GOSA believes the Old Lyme developer’s plan for Groton would lead to expensive demands on public services, heavier traffic, less money for public purposes, and a diminished quality of life for all residents of Groton.

All these results would work against attracting the kind of high-end institutional and business assets that Groton wants.

The amendment contains some interesting and positive ideas from the “New Urbanism,” and the applicant is to be complimented for bringing this new kind of thinking to Groton. The amendment would be constructive if limited to the “nodes” identified by the POCD. In those nodal areas, we in GOSA could only welcome such goals as compact, walkable development that emphasizes people over cars, design standards and the avoidance of strip malls. This would be particularly true in the downtown, which offers dramatic opportunities for the kind of infill development that the POCD urges (See Item 12, P. 100 of the POCD).

However, if the Old Lyme company has its way, the amendment also would apply to the Industrial Park zones, where the impact would be harmful and wasteful of potential.

The Industrial Park zones, which lie between Flanders Road and Route 117 both north and south of I-95, encompass nearly 1,200 acres, according to figures we received from the Office of Planning and Development Services. As of the POCD’s publication, more than 700 of these acres were vacant or underdeveloped.

The land is rugged and beautiful, marked by hill and valley, dense woods, wetlands, vernal pools, stone walls and Fort Hill Brook, which flows into Mumford Cove. From at least one hill, a hiker can glimpse the Fishers Island Sound. Many trails through the area testify to recreational use.

What does the POCD foresee for this land? Well, north of I-95, it says (P. 106) that “close to 500 acres of business-zoned land could be made available to a single user. While the topography is dramatic, the opportunity does exist to develop a campus-like environment.”

The zoning amendment before you would allow creation of a new “town” -- the word Atty. Bates used in an April 12 news story in The Day -- on any tract of 25 acres or more in the IP zones. How many 25-acre “towns” could be crammed into 700 acres if the land could be tamed by massive blasting? Or how large a “town” could be created by combining parcels?

This zoning amendment would allow a use far more environmentally objectionable than that foreseen by the POCD--and one that would be far less favorable financially to the town.

One of the central ideas of the New Urbanism is to promote compact development that saves other land. But the proposed amendment would simply allow one compact development to sit cheek to jowl with another. It lacks any detailed and convincing provisions to save space through compact design.

Please note that the Floating Zone application prescribes far less exacting standards for the non-nodal zones in the Industrial Park area than for nodal zones. The application says “the arrangement, scale, design, intensity and phasing of uses within non-nodal MX zones need not be consistent with the design themes applicable to nodal MX zones.” That is a big loophole.

The Floating Zone amendment is not a specific project but a description of a zone that could alight on any contiguous 3 acres in a node or any 25 contiguous acres in the IP district. If you want to see an actual application of the Floating Zone idea, have a look at the attached April 12 article from The Day. It describes a 33-acre “town” that would be built at the corner of Routes 117 and 184 by the applicant under the Floating Zone amendment. (This is a node, by the way.)

The apartments that would be built in the Industrial Park areas could cost the town a lot of money in services. POCD Booklet #20, entitled “Groton Tax Impact Analysis,” shows why. It estimates that for each tax dollar contributed by apartment use of land, $2.46 is paid out in services (P. 3). A major business or industrial user, on the other hand, could be expected to make a strong positive net contribution to the town’s finances.

It may be objected that the major users sought by Groton simply haven’t materialized. That could change, and we shouldn’t give up. A revitalized downtown and some affordable rail commuting options could allow the town to aim higher, environmentally and financially, than intense residential development of this valuable land. The heavy residential option, raising the specter of rows of six-story buildings arrayed north and south of I-95, seems shortsighted and defeatist.

GOSA, being concerned with open space, is especially distressed by this plan not only because it lacks convincing environmental protections but also because it’s being proposed at a time when official Groton is virtually inactive in open space protection. The Conservation Commission has a list of 19 properties that ought to be protected. However, a number of these either already have been assigned to other purposes or have been acquired by developers as the town has sat idle. GOSA recently suggested adding several properties in the IP zones to the list.

The POCD assigned a No. 1 priority to establishing, expanding and connecting greenbelts. It mentioned a Strategic Economic Development Plan but assigned no priority to it. Yet the 2006 Strategic Economic Development Plan is being used by the applicant to justify a major intensification of development. We think action to protect open space should precede any sweeping new development program because open space is the priority of the people of Groton, as expressed in the POCD, and because it has been neglected. Conservation and Development should remain in balance.

It costs some money to protect open space, although Groton is eligible for 65% state grants for that purpose. Once protected, such land costs the town next to nothing in services. It enhances the town’s quality of life. The most desirable towns and cities of the future will be those that hang on to enough of their natural resources to offer residents the opportunity for outdoor enjoyment, inspiration and relaxation.

Think how much Haley Farm State Park and Bluff Point State Park and Coastal Reserve add to the town of Groton. More needs to be done. At present, only 11% of Groton’s 20,325 acres are securely preserved (see POCD Booklet #11. P. 1), well below the 22% goal that the state envisions. Adding tax-negative apartments would be certain to diminish funds available for protecting properties that, once lost, are gone forever.

Groton’s splendid natural assets and their accompanying opportunities are ours to lose.

Summing up: this amendment would be positive for the town if applied only to the nodal zones. The downtown area, in particular, could benefit. However, the loose and far-reaching provisions for a Floating Zone in the hundreds of acres comprising the Industrial Park would be damaging and shortsighted. Therefore, we urge that the Planning Commission recommend firmly against passage of the amendment as written.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Susan Sutherland Statement On Mystic Woods

My name is Sue Sutherland and I live at 32 Neptune Drive in the Mumford Cove neighborhood of Groton. I represent a Mumford Cove group opposed to the Mystic Woods development, many of whom are here tonight. I am an intervener on behalf of the group, but as of noon today, the Town Planning and Development department had no documents of any kind from the Mystic Woods developer to distribute to me nor have I received any through the mail. I would ask that these hearings be postponed to a future date after we have received and had a reasonable amount of time to review each related document the applicant wishes to give us.

As we have said before, we are concerned about many wetlands issues, particularly the water runoff from Mystic Woods into Fort Hill Brook and then into Mumford Cove, a relatively pristine cove less than one mile downstream from the Mystic Woods site. Mumford Cove still enjoys eelgrass which harbors fish and other species in summer and winter, making a particularly good recreational spot for people from all over this region who enjoy its diverse wildlife, great water sports, excellent fishing and wonderful shellfish. While we are trying to do our part to reduce the amount of nitrogen and other fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, motor oil and salt run off from our neighborhood, this development would add significant pollutants to the already stressed Cove.

The next major wetlands issue is the potential destruction of vernal pools in Wetlands 11 (using the earlier map as furnished to the Wetlands committee). These pools have been classified as Tier 1 or top quality, as they have an unusual abundance and evidence of amphibian life. As the scientist Michael Klemens has documented in many studies, the proposed entrance and exit road in the narrow corridor from Flanders Road past Wetlands 11 to the development would destroy sufficient migrating wildlife into the vernal pools so that Wetlands 11 vernal pools would be irretrievably harmed. The entrance and exit has to be from Route 1 as with Flanders Road next to the pool, and traffic increasing due to increased development on that corridor, there can be no road next to Wetlands 11 without destroying much of the amphibian life of the pools.

As you know, vernal pools are not just about salamanders. Many species such as wood frogs require both the vernal pool, the only place where it breeds, and a much larger zone around the vernal pool for their habitat. Rare and endangered turtles use vernal pools as a spring feeding ground, continuing their journey far away from the pool. Not just habitat destruction but also the addition of “nursery” plants and intensive lighting also will have a severely negative effect on the wetlands area. It is amazing how many species depend on a large wooded area and like it to be dark at night.

As I said before, this property is arguably one of the most beautiful, wetlands intensive, archaeologically rich woodlands in the State, with a lovely brook and waterfalls. People have enjoyed the combination of ravine, brook, old stone dams, ancient cisterns and shell mounds for hundreds of years. It is also one of the last pristine habitats for endangered species in Groton, forming a necessary corridor with Haley Farm and Bluff Point.

Five years ago, the Plan of Conservation and Development listed “protect water quality and water resources” as the number one action item of specific tasks that can be scheduled, measured and visibly implemented. Included as a top priority was to “examine the amount of impervious surfaces allowed in all zones and areas.” The next top priority item was to “establish strict standards for impervious coverage in significant watersheds.” When this 105 acre zone was classified as “active senior housing,” this makes this an extremely urgent action item. What would have been a relatively small amount of impervious surface had a few single family houses been built, now becomes a massive spread of roofs, parking lots and roads in the watersheds and wetlands.

Other top priority rated items in the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development include “expand regulated areas to include a setback from wetlands and watercourses” and “establish non-disturbance areas around wetlands, watercourses, and coastal area.” Next major item was to “preserve open space.” A top priority was to “develop an action plan to establish, expand, and connect greenbelts” and trail systems and to acquire such open space. Please remember that the medium priority item to “adopt a definition of buildable land and a density regulation” follows after the above key planning tasks have been accomplished, which should have been done years ago so that we would be welcoming active senior housing, not fighting it being plopped in the wrong place.

It has been five years and our wetlands and open space continues to face death by a thousand cuts from development without planning. The Town Staff and the Inland Wetlands Agency are two key players who can define the Town game plan before development interests appear. It would help all parties to know what the rules are – to know where the open space, greenways and trails were planned to be and where the developers were welcome to come, and with exactly what type of development. While there is no doubt Town Staff is a very hard working group, it is discouraging the lack of consensus building from the top down from Staff to the community, including relevant volunteer Agencies and community groups across Groton. The citizens of Groton and Mumford Cove deserve better and are more than willing to work with any party on this most important task.

I ask that you deny this Mystic Woods application.

Thank you for your consideration.



* * *  ^ back to headlines


UPDATED MAY 11: IWA Hears Revised "Mystic Woods;" Continued To June 13

A development team for the proposed Mystic Woods at the corner of Fort Hill and Flanders roads presented a revised plan Wednesday to the Inland Wetlands Agency, saying it would have less impact on wetlands than an earlier version. Hawthorne Development Partners LLC wants to build 211 age-restricted condominium units on 105 acres, but must convince the agency it can do so without threatening groundwater in the Fort Hill Brook watershed.

The area is undeveloped and densely wooded and includes almost 15 acres of wetlands.

The group withdrew an application last year after information submitted to the agency on the last night of a public hearing was not forwarded for review and comment to the interveners. The attorney representing Hawthorne, Harry Heller, also said the developers believed they had not adequately addressed concerns about the design of water-quality basins.

Because of the wetlands and steep slopes, development is planned for a small plateau in the middle of the site, which would leave almost 58 percent of the site undisturbed, said George Logan, of REMA Ecological Services LLC.

Entrances to the site on Flanders and Fort Hill roads are next to wetlands.

Logan said the predicted indirect impact on the wetlands had been reduced by about 1.5 acres since the last application.

Robert Roseen, of the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, told the agency about a gravel wetland system now proposed for the site to better manage stormwater runoff.

“This is the best plan I've seen for a scale of this size,” Roseen said.

Hawthorne has an option to purchase the land from Glemacy Brothers LLC. Scott Cohen, a principal of Hawthorne, said the development group has financial backing from Lubert-Adler, a real estate private equity firm in Philadelphia.

The land is zoned for half-acre lots, but Hawthorne can develop the lot as “active senior” housing with a special permit from the Zoning Commission. It also will need Planning Commission approval.



* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Withdraws Proposed Zoning Amendments

As you know, GOSA has proposed amendments to the Groton Zoning Regulations. The amendments would implement the recommendation of the 2002 Groton Plan of Conservation and Development for a buildable land definition. (We have included copies of the POCD recommendation in your packet as Attachment No.l.)

The buildable land definition sets out criteria for determining how many units may be placed on a given tract of land.

It’s important to understand that our definition aims solely at preventing overcrowding of our still-unbuilt space in Groton. It is not a rule that tells you where you may build or not build. When our definition calls certain land “unbuildable,” the word means only that a developer may not count that land when computing the maximum number of units permitted on a given tract of land under zoning rules.

That is a little paradoxical, so we will repeat it. Calling steeply sloped land “unbuildable” does not mean by itself that the land may not be built on. If a landowner should want to build a house overhanging a cliff and support it from below with 40-foot lally columns, there is nothing in our definition to prevent him from doing that. If he wants to cluster houses on land, he certainly could do that. Our definition concerns density calculations only, not the location of buildings.

At present, without a buildable land definition, the maximum number of units that can be built on any tract is determined in large part by the total number of acres in a tract. That holds true regardless of the character of those acres. For example, the potential developers of Mystic Woods on Fort Hill applied last year to build 241 units of Active Senior Housing on a steeply sloped 105-acre tract containing 11 wetlands. The area drains into Fort Hill Brook, which runs into Mumford Cove.

Under existing zoning regulations, the developer was allowed to count each of those 105 acres in computing the number of units he could build. In that RU20 zone, multi-family dwellings require 15,000 square feet each. That meant that the developer actually could have asked for 305 units on the approximately 4,573,800 square feet contained in the tract. Instead, he asked for “only” four fifths of the total allowed number.

We should add that Chairman Hudecek anticipated problems like this oversized development when the Active Senior Housing amendment was passed in February 2005, with the chairman voting against passage.

Under our proposal, all acres that are wetlands or watercourses, or lie in floodplains, or are very steeply sloped would be discounted by 66% in computing the number of permitted units. Originally, we had proposed a 100% discount, but we reduced that percentage in a spirit of compromise after the Office of Planning and Development Services termed our plan too aggressive.

That 66% discount often would result in far fewer units than would be allowed under current rules. A specific study would be needed determine the exact number of units our definition would permit on the Mystic Woods tract. However, the number almost certainly would be significantly fewer than the 211 that are foreseen in a somewhat slimmed-down new proposal submitted by the developer. (The developer’s second plan was submitted after the first plan was withdrawn in the face of strong public opposition and studies that cited numerous plan deficiencies.)

Please note that our buildable land definition wouldn’t stop Active Senior Housing on Fort Hill. The definition would just reduce the number of units that could be built. Fewer units would soften the project’s impact on the landscape. The lower number would cut non-point source pollution of Fort Hill Brook and Mumford Cove during our increasingly frequent heavy rains. And it would ease the potential traffic impact on the existing quiet and pleasant residential neighborhood on Fort Hill.

Here is a related matter. As you know, the Zoning Commission is scheduled to begin consideration June 6 of a proposal for a floating zone in Groton, both in the nine nodes cited by the POCD and the big Industrial Park zones. The floating zone is supposed to define a neo-traditional “town” with mixed commercial and residential uses. The first landing of the zone is contemplated for the northwest corner of Route 117 and Route 184. (See enclosure No. 2.).

GOSA in principle endorses the idea of infill development in the existing nodes. A buildable land definition would not pose an immovable obstacle to elevated densities in certain areas where justified by considerations of all relevant factors.

We have made a standing offer to work with the OPDS to help integrate our proposal with existing Zoning Regulations. As you’ll note, the state Department of Environmental Protection in its April 26 letter to you is highly supportive of our original proposal but suggests cooperation between the OPDS and GOSA to overcome some potential administrative problems. The OPDS, however, is insisting on folding the buildable land definition into a much bigger rewrite of land use regulations. The OPDS estimates it could take another year to complete that, and we suspect that is optimistic.

In sum, GOSA believes, along with the writers of the Plan of Conservation and Development, that a buildable land definition would promote quality of life, sense of place, open space and community character in Groton. We urge with the Planning Commission that swift action be taken to adopt a buildable land definition. No further delays should be allowed in adoption of this long-overdue measure.



* * *  ^ back to headlines


Planning Endorses Buildable Land Concept, Rejects GOSA Proposal



* * *  ^ back to headlines


Planning Commission To Comment on GOSA Land Proposal April 24



* * *  ^ back to headlines


Mixed-Use "Town" Plan Near Route 117/184 Corner: The Day

In an area where development tends to be either subdivisions or commercial strips, a developer is proposing bringing the two together in certain areas of Groton. Local planning officials have endorsed the concept of such zoning in the town's Plan of Conservation and Development, but they will have to decide whether the recent proposal by L&L Groton, LLC is right for Groton.

L&L Groton, a division of READCO Management of Old Lyme, wants to develop property on about 33 acres that would include “workforce housing” and a compatible commercial use at the northwest corner of Routes 184 and 117 under the new zone, said attorney Timothy Bates, of Robinson & Cole.

The housing would be a mixture of apartments and townhouses priced at a level “for working people,” Bates said.

Because the zoning does not yet exist, Bates said L&L Groton does not have a plan that would specify the number of units and type of commercial development.

The idea is to create amenities within walking distance to homes to minimize the use of a car, Bates said. It would be pedestrian-oriented, rather than parking-oriented. It could also help reduce sprawl and preserve open space, he said.

“You're really creating a new town,” he said.

The new zone would be “floating,” meaning it would not actually appear on the town zoning map until a developer's application for the mixed-zone on a specific property, with a master plan for the project, is approved by the town.

“This gives the Zoning Commission control,” Bates said. “It would require a degree of detail not required for any other zone change.”

The zones would be allowed in one of the “neighborhood nodes” identified in the town's Plan of Conservation and Development, or in certain industrial zones named in the town's Strategic Economic Development Plan.

The nodes include the area around the Naval Submarine Base, the City of Groton, Poquonnock Bridge, downtown Groton, and the villages Mystic and Noank, which already have mixed uses.

The development area would have to be at least 25 acres and serviced by public water and sewer. Residences could include one-family, multi-family, townhouses, and apartments, and neighborhood commercial could be various types of retail and offices.

Director of Planning and Development Michael Murphy said mixed-use development could have both economic and quality of life benefits. The concept is one of the critical areas targeted in an upcoming revision of zoning regulations, he said, but it has to be done “in way that best protects the town.” Planning officials are reviewing the current proposal.

A public hearing on the concept will be held June 6, he said.



* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Director Sets Up Dog-Waste Sanitation System For Haley Farm



* * *  ^ back to headlines


New Version Of Mystic Woods Introduced To IWA

br>

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Superior Court Judge Studies Bonvie’s Proposed Appeal Drop

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Mystic Woods Again On IWA Agenda

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Environmental Review Report on Mystic Woods Is Released

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Hill Friends’ASH Paper Discussion Barred; GOSA Application Taken



* * *  ^ back to headlines

Groton Wal-Mart Developer Suing Town Commission

Konover Development is filing a lawsuit in New London Superior Court claiming the commission is asking the developer to do more than the regulation requires, according to its attorney, Diane W. Whitney of Hartford. She expected the lawsuit to be served at Town Hall and on six interveners in the application on Friday afternoon.

“There is no support in the record for the findings of fact on which the Planning Commission based the denial, and they have exceed their authority,” Whitney said. “They are requiring (from Konover) standards that exceed the standards in the regulation.”

The lawsuit had not been filed in the town clerk's office as of mid-afternoon Friday, and town planning officials could not be reached for comment.

The retail giant is attempting to relocate from its existing location on Route 184 to a 30-acre site in order to expand its offerings to include retail space, warehouse storage, a fast-food restaurant and a hardware store.

The Planning Commission deliberated the proposal at length before rejecting it 4-1. The panel listed nine reasons for the denial that related to inadequate storm-water management and the handling of hazardous materials.

Town planning staff had said the developer met all of the requirements of the water resource district. Whitney noted Friday that the project also received unanimous approval from the town's wetlands commission.

A group of residents had opposed the project, saying it would threaten the drinking water supply, overburden local roads and lead to increases in crime and pollution.

* * *  ^ back to headlines

GOSA Seeks WRPD Moratorium

 

Wal-Mart Plan Denied

MOTION: To deny a site plan for Wal-Mart Superstore (a.k.a. Proposed Retail Development) at Gold Star Highway and Antonino Road for the following reasons and such other reasons as are supported by the record.

Based on its review of the application, plans and other materials and information submitted by the applicant as well as the observation, knowledge and experience of the Commissioners and the evidence and testimony submitted by the intervening parties and the public, the Planning Commission finds:

  1. The application does not comply with the requirement of Zoning Regulation Section 6.12-5(C)(3) that following development all stormwater should be directed to the same wetland that received the stormwater prior to development.
  2. The application does not comply with the requirement of Zoning Regulation Section 6.12-5(B)(1) that floor surfaces in areas where hazardous materials are used, handled or stored shall be impermeable to stored material and have containment dikes, sumps, or berms surrounding them.
  3. The application does not comply with the requirement of Zoning Regulation 6.12-5(C) that stormwater management facilities be designed to manage site runoff to eliminate surface and groundwater pollution and control peak discharges and provide pollution treatment.
  4. The application fails to meet the requirements of Zoning Regulation Section 8.4-5(G) that all public utility systems (stormwater management systems) are suitably located, adequately designed and properly installed to protect the property from adverse water and land pollution and to preserve and enhance the environmental quality of the surrounding neighborhood, including the City of Groton public drinking water supply reservoir, and that of the Town.
  5. The application fails to meet the requirements of Zoning Regulation Section 8.4-5(I) that the location and size of the proposed use, building and structure and the nature and intensity of the proposed operation will be in general harmony with the climate of the surrounding neighborhood and will not be hazardous or otherwise detrimental to the orderly and appropriate development or use of adjacent land and buildings.
  6. The application does not comply with Zoning Regulation Section 6.12-5(D) because it does not specify the types of fire retardants to be used to extinguish fires at the site or to provide adequate measures to assure that they are captured at the site and not allowed to enter the stormwater system.
  7. The application does not meet the requirement of Zoning Regulation Section 8.4-5 that the approved uses shall not impair the public health, safety and welfare because it does not make adequate provision for stormwater management or to protect the watershed and the Groton reservoir from pollution.
  8. The uses and conduct proposed by the application are reasonably likely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing, or destroying the public trust in the water, including the City of Groton public drinking water supply reservoir, and there are reasonable and prudent alternatives consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety and welfare.
  9. The application does not comply with Zoning Regulation 8.4-5(H) that requires that “the development of the site will preserve the sensitive environmental land features such as...wetlands…”.

* * *  ^ back to headlines


Groton Wal-Mart Plan Draws Fire

* * *  ^ back to headlines


GOSA Formally Requests ASH Halt, Buildable Land Definition



* * *  ^ back to headlines


Conservation Commission Recommends Denial of Wal-Mart Application



* * *  ^ back to headlines


WITH UPDATE: Zoning Meeting Canceled With ASH Halt Call Pending



* * *  ^ back to headlines


Wal-Mart Runup: Annex Community Room 1 Site of Feb. 13 Airing



* * *  ^ back to headlines


IWA Seeks Legal Opinion In Four Winds Case