|
(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
GROTON -- The Office of Planning and Development Services has produced a report claiming that the GOSA management plan for The Merritt Family Forest violates “community goals and objectives.”
The June 9 report by Matthew J. Davis, Manager of Planning Services, was prepared against a background of complaints by Peter Roper, a Planning Commission member; Brian Kent, a private-sector trails planner for the town [and Merritt abutter]; and Alesia DiFederico, a member of the Connecticut Horse Council, Mr. Davis wrote.
The three have expressed opposition to GOSA’s decision not to allow dogs, horseback riding and bicycles on the 75-acre property. The policy is explained in this letter by Priscilla Pratt, who was president of GOSA until her death on June 15, 2009, and who led GOSA’s seven-year-long struggle to protect the property.
Planning Commission members decided at their meeting June 23 to visit the site, singly or in pairs (to avoid Sunlight Law violations), before making any decision about whether to urge the DEP to force GOSA to modify its management plan to allow construction of multiple use trails. The commission is to consider the matter at its next meeting, July 14.
Mr. Davis wrote that:
1. “The Town’s Plan anticipates growth and appropriate development on the site, which can take place while accommodating natural resources.”
2. “The prohibition GOSA seeks on use of the site would appear to be in direct conflict with adopted community goals and objectives, and would eliminate the community’s ability to implement relevant portions of the Town’s Trails Master Plan.”
3. “It would appear reasonable for the DEP to require that the current owners allow use of the trail system in accordance with those public plans and recreational trail objectives.”
GOSA has noted that the DEP has affirmed that GOSA’s management plan is in compliance with the easement GOSA provided to the state. It has observed further that Mr. Kent is an abutter to the land and that his wife, Deborah Finco Kent, is starting a stable on their abutting property featuring riding lessons, excursions, renting and leasing of horses, and stabling.
Mr. Davis’s memo was copied to Ms. DiFederico of the Horse Council, Town Manager Mark Oefinger, Recreation and Parks Director John Silsby, the DEP, and Mr. Kent, the trails consultant and abutter. GOSA was not copied. Nor was GOSA notified of the planned discussion of Mr. Davis’s memo at the June 23 meeting, though it learned late June 23 of the meeting topic and presented a statement on it at the meeting.
^ back to headlines
Eulogy for Priscilla Pratt
by Joan Smith
It was a sad day, but a beautiful day, the day Priscilla left us. We will miss her terribly. Yet we know she had a good life right up to the very end. She led a well-examined life, blessed by good friends and family, and she was committed to the welfare of animals and the environment. Love of Priscilla now keeps us going.
Priscilla led the GOSA cabal (as my husband calls it) in a quiet, thoughtful and dignified manner. Neighbors may have wondered what was going on in the Pratt-Wright Gallery, where we met, but we knew about GOSA’s efforts to protect the environment, sensitive lands, habitats and waters. Priscilla and GOSA helped to protect Haley Farm, Bluff Point, 57 new Haley Farm acres, and The Merritt Family Forest, more than 1,100 acres in all. Priscilla’s tenure as president covered GOSA’s incorporation as a nonprofit and GOSA’s twenty-two year program of mowing Haley Farm’s fields.
Because of Priscilla, we know we are not alone. Her legacy is the backbone and quiet confidence we need to follow our convictions, to deal with challenges and to speak clearly and effectively. She is within us and still corrects our spelling. She makes sure that we are careful in what we say and that we show restraint and respect for others. She sees that we do not back down in the face of intimidation, but that we can also accept correction and learn to do better. Anyone who mistook her small size and quiet manner for timidity, at their peril, learned otherwise. We can only emulate her sharp mind.
Love of nature brought us together. Once upon a time, Frank Williams invited me to a board meeting, where I met Priscilla, Charlie and the rest of the cabal. The topic of discussion was logging at the Mortimer Wright Preserve, and I immediately knew this was the right group for me. Haley Farm attracted me to the area, and here was the group that had saved it! I was hooked.
Priscilla, Edith Fairgrieve and I began spending full days, in the time before we had computers, typing statements, correcting spelling, and researching science -- speaking in what seemed to be a lonely voice for the environment. And then the community responded in spades. Engineers taught us how to read a site plan, land trustees gave us language, and biologists, educators and experts in birds, botany, amphibians, water, shellfish, saltwater marshes, nitrogen and turtles joined the fray. Even lawyers, many pro bono, lined up one behind the other, like a train sitting in the gallery, to teach us how to intervene, appeal and negotiate hard. Neighbors, friends and local businesses gave generously to our fundraising campaigns.
Everyone respected Priscilla, especially our adversaries. Those of us who knew her loved her best. Let us hope there is a little bit of Priscilla in each of us: she took time to know individuals; she mentored and encouraged us, and let each person develop and contribute his particular talent. She spoke kindly and clearly, and had an uncanny eye for detail and a firm grasp of complex issues. By example, she helped us all become better people, and she gave us hope for the future of our planet. What a great and inspirational woman she was!
[Priscilla Pratt’s obituary, which appeared June 20 in The Day, the Hartford Courant, and the Norwich Bulletin, is reprinted below this eulogy by Joan Smith, a GOSA director]
^ back to headlines
Text Of Obituary For Priscilla Pratt, GOSA President
GROTON -- The following obituary appeared June 20 in The Day, the Hartford Courant and the Norwich Bulletin:
Priscilla Redfield (Wright) Pratt, 84, of Noank, passed on peacefully at home on Monday, June 15, 2009, with her loving children beside her. For over 50 years she was the caring wife of Charles N. Pratt, who predeceased her in 2002.
The youngest of three children, Priscilla was born in Centerbrook, to Mary Catherine (Dickinson) Wright and Martin Walter Wright. Priscilla was a direct descendant of John Alden and Priscilla Mullins.
From Pratt High School in Essex, Priscilla went on to graduate from Miss Porter's School in Farmington. She received a bachelor of arts degree in English literature from Connecticut College in 1946.
After college, she studied sculpture in New York at the National Academy of Design and the Art Students League. While in New York she became a student of and forged friendships with the sculptors Gleb Derujinsky, Arthur Lee, and William Zorach. She excelled at portraiture and was most proud that one of her portraits received the Leland Howard Special Award from the Mystic Art Association in 1989. She was an artist member of the Connecticut Academy of Fine Arts and the Mystic Art Association.
After their marriage in 1951, Priscilla and Charlie moved to New York, where he worked as an architect, and she continued to study art. They left the city in 1957 to settle in Noank.
From her earliest years, Priscilla felt a kinship with animals and nature that later evolved into a tireless commitment to wildlife, land conservation, and the environment. She and Charlie were founding members of the Groton Open Space Association (GOSA), established in 1967 to protect the 264-acre Haley Farm in Noank from development. With the Connecticut Forest and Park Association, GOSA led a statewide fund drive that enabled the purchase of Haley Farm by the State of Connecticut and the establishment of Haley Farm State Park in 1970.
With Priscilla as president from the mid-1980s to the present, GOSA won numerous battles to conserve open space and preserve the environmental quality of the greater Groton area. Gracious and soft-spoken, but of unwavering ideals, she led through integrity, example, determination, and unflagging attention to detail. After 32 years of persistent effort spearheaded by Priscilla, 57 acres were added to Haley Farm State Park in 2002. In 2008, GOSA acquired the 75-acre Merritt Family Forest, which Priscilla wrote "now belongs to the children and adults of today and tomorrow, who will be able to enjoy forever its unspoiled natural treasures."
Keenly interested in the art of the Mystic-Noank area, Priscilla and Charlie opened the Pratt-Wright Gallery in 1984 to show works by area artists. Priscilla's own sculpture still graces the gallery. Her animal studies of opossums, frogs, and squirrels were highly popular. Priscilla lectured on the history of local art at the Florence Griswold Museum, the Lyman Allyn Art Museum, and the Mystic Art Association.
Priscilla's sensitive temperament also found expression in music and writing. For many years she was an organist at the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Mystic. Her poetry gave voice to her view of the spiritual link between man and nature.
A cause especially dear to Priscilla's heart was the humane treatment of animals. She was a volunteer representative for Friends of Animals and worked for reforms at the local dog pound. She was not afraid to speak out openly in defense of those creatures unable to speak for themselves, without concern for public opinion.
An early proponent of organic foods and health-conscious cooking, Priscilla believed in sustainable agriculture and supported family farms. In the summer she delighted in her weekly visits to the local farmer's markets. Priscilla was blessed with gifts and abilities beyond number, but always believed her highest calling was to be a faithful steward of the earth.
She is survived by her daughter, Catherine Pratt, of Cambridge, Mass., and her son, Timothy Pratt of Noank.
She was predeceased by her brothers, Martin W. Wright Jr., of Essex, and Mortimer D. Wright of Noank.
Interment will be at 1 p.m., Friday, June 26, at Riverview Cemetery in Essex. A memorial service will be held at 10:30 a.m., Saturday, June 27, at Noank Baptist Church.
The Dinoto Funeral Home, 17 Pearl St., Mystic, is assisting the family.
For information or to share a note of remembrance/condolence with her family, please visit www.dinotofuneral.com.
Tax-deductible gifts in Priscilla's memory may be made to Groton Open Space Association, Inc., PO Box 9187, Groton CT 06340-9187.
^ back to headlines
IWA Makes First Set Of Changes To Groton Wetlands Regulations (WITH UPDATE)
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency has made a series of amendments to the town Inland Wetlands and Watercourses regulations. The changes reflect significantly diminished state regulatory protection.
The amendments were adopted unanimously at the same IWA meeting June 10, 2009, at which a public hearing on the matter was held. Proposals for further local changes are in the wings.
The Office of Planning and Development Services (OPDS) told the Inland Wetlands Agency that the changes were necessary to align the town’s regulations with “legislative changes to the [state] Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act and other applicable state statutes.”
The IWA’s action was the first of wide-ranging planned rewrites of Groton’s land-use regulations under a program that began to gather speed March 21, 2008, when the town signed a contract with a Midwest land-use firm, Kendig Keast Collaborative, to provide consulting services in the rewrite process.
KKC had no announced connection with the first set of amendments.
The IWA plans to consider a second set of wetlands regulation changes -- thought to be more controversial than those dealt with June 10 -- at a date still to be announced.
The amendments made at the latest IWA meeting include deletion of a broad provision in the Groton regulations intended to allow the IWA to consider potential impacts of a proposed construction project on fish and wildlife. The amendments added a provision that the IWA may not deny a permit for activities outside but near wetlands and 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 the areas.
Also deleted was a reference to inland wetlands and watercourses as “an indispensable, irreplaceable, and fragile natural resource.”
(UPDATE) When asked why this section was deleted, an OPDS official said that as far as is known, "The language you ask about was never in the state statute. The wetland agency, as with all land use commissions, is required to follow the state statutes. If there is a discrepancy between their regulations and the statutes, the statutes govern. The Agency is not required by law to amend their regulations when the statutes change, but I believe it is in the public interest to have the regulations reflect current statutes."
The changes are expected to go formally onto the books Aug. 1, 2009.
The state Supreme Court in its Avalon Bay decision Oct. 14, 2003 sharply limited the power of state inland wetlands agencies to protect aquatic, plant and animal life, within wetlands and watercourses. Subsequent legislative action restored the ability of the agencies to consider such life inside wetlands and watercourses but maintained strict limits on protections near but not inside wetlands and watercourses. (See below.)
Edith Fairgrieve, a director of the Groton Open Space Association, told the commission at the hearing that wildlife can make water cleaner. The implication was that as protectors of water quality, the wildlife should be protected.
In another action June 10, the IWA approved a plan, presented by GOSA Director Marcia Young, for removing invasive plants from a meadow on The Merritt Family Forest near Fishtown Road. The work is to be financed by a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- - - -
Following the Supreme Court’s controversial Avalon Bay decision in 2003, the legislature amended the language of the Act Concerning Jurisdiction Of Municipal Inland Wetlands Commissions. The amendment’s language reflected a compromise reached between wetlands advocates and the construction industry. The amendment, approved June 3, 2004, said:
(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
GROTON -- GOSA offered suggestions at the June 9, 2009, Planning Commission meeting for modification of a draft rewrite of the Commission’s bylaws.
Rewrite of the bylaws, unchanged since 1972, is being undertaken at the same time that the Office of Planning and Development Services is overseeing the rewrite of land-use regulations, but it is not in itself a regulation rewrite, Planning Director Michael J. Murphy has explained. The bylaws deal with such matters as membership, alternate members, voting, and the general conduct of meetings. The Zoning Commission, unlike the Planning Commission, does not have bylaws.
The three areas in which GOSA made suggestions are: functions of alternates, public comments at hearings, and ex-officio membership.
The draft bylaws would impose restrictions on the role of alternates. The draft specifies that alternates who are not designated to sit during a meeting may not take part in any hearing or in deliberations once the hearing is closed. GOSA contended that alternates should be allowed to speak both during hearings and deliberations even if they are not voting, provided no state law or local ordinance forbids that.
Chairman James Sherrard said that while non-seated alternates currently are permitted to speak during hearings, they are barred from speaking in deliberations. He said the town attorney had advised some time ago that case law existed to prevent post-hearing comment by non-seated alternates.
GOSA will seek further information, including any possible updates, on the case law.
The draft would incorporate into the bylaws a set of public hearing guidelines that would let all public proponents of a proposed project speak before opponents have their say. GOSA said the comments of proponents and opponents should be alternated, along with those of members of the public who can’t be assigned to either camp. The object of the alternation would be to prevent opponents from being forced into the late tail end of long hearings that often begin with extremely lengthy presentations by lawyers, engineers and experts appearing for the developer.
Finally, the draft notes that the town manager and public works director are ex-officio members of the commission. GOSA agrees with this point, but wants it stated in the bylaws that ex-officio members may not vote. The non-voting nature of the membership is specified in Chapter 126, Section 8-19 of the Connecticut General Statutes on municipal planning commissions.
Mr. Murphy said the draft is still in preliminary form and said the OPDS would consider GOSA’s comments.
^ back to headlines
GOSA Argues Against Deletion of “Purposes” from Subdivision Regs
GROTON -- The Groton Open Space Association is urging the Planning Commission to resist deletion of the Purposes section of the Subdivision Regulations, as has been suggested by the Office of Planning and Development Services.
The following is a slightly edited version of a statement read by GOSA to the Planning Commission at its meeting April 28, 2009, in the Town Hall Annex:
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
GROTON -- A harsh letter of rejection sent by Planning Director Michael J. Murphy to an engineer who asked to present information to Groton land-use agencies on low-impact development came in for criticism at the April 28, 2009, Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Peter Roper called the letter’s tone “heavy-handed and paranoid” and said commissioners should be allowed access to information that could be of use in making decisions.
Mr. Murphy’s letter of April 1 was addressed to Steven Trinkaus, of Trinkaus Engineering LLC, Southbury. Mr. Trinkaus has appeared as a paid consultant for GOSA in land-use hearings concerning the proposed Mystic Woods active senior housing development on Fort Hill and for interveners opposing a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter on Route 184.
GOSA currently is appealing the Zoning Commission’s approval of Mystic Woods to the Superior Court. The developer that had planned to build the Wal-Mart facility has dropped out of the project.
Mr. Murphy said Mr. Trinkaus appeared “to be seeking some special status and unique opportunity to influence the decision of these commissions... It is unclear if you are seeking that unique opportunity as a means of developing new clients (i.e. Town land use agencies) or as a means of furthering the objectives of existing clients who have been active in Town land use matters.”
Mr. Trinkaus’s approach to the Groton Planning Commission on low-impact development was independent of GOSA.
The planning director said Mr. Trinkaus’s efforts “raise serious issues, including questions of legal propriety and professional ethics.” He said that Groton “land use commissions do not directly retain professional consultants, nor do they manage consulting contracts. These matters are administered by the Town’s professional planning staff under my direction...”
Mr. Murphy’s apparent implication of sole authority in the matter of consultants was based, he said, on the “Town Charter and its governmental framework.” However, Town Ordinance 194 gives commissions the right to order the hiring of consultants if they feel a land-use application is “complex.” The wording of the ordinance appears to confer this right whether or not town staff agrees that an application is complex.
With regard to the educational appearance before commissions of specialists with business interests, it should be noted that on January 3, 2007, two attorneys from the firm of Robinson & Cole appeared before the Zoning Commission to present information on mixed-use zoning. The attorneys, Timothy Bates and Robert Sitkowski, said they represented clients contemplating mixed-use developments in Groton.
On Nov. 7, 2007, the Zoning Commission, reversing its earlier rejection, approved a regulation amendment to allow creation of mixed-used zones in four areas of town. The reversal came after Mr. Bates threatened to appeal the rejection, which had occurred Oct. 3, 2007. Grounds for an appeal would have been the assertion that an alternate member who cast an opposing vote had been improperly designated to vote when another alternate member showed up late for the Oct. 3 meeting.
At the April 28 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Roper said he felt that Mr. Trinkaus should be allowed to provide “generic information” on low-impact development, and he expressed worry that Mr. Murphy’s harsh rejection of Mr. Trinkaus could discourage educational information flows from others.
Matthew Davis, planning manager, said the continuing litigation over Mystic Woods makes it “inappropriate” for Mr. Trinkaus to appear at this time. Mr. Davis said Mr. Murphy was unable to attend the April 28 meeting because he was attending a conference.
James Sherrard, Planning Commission chairman, said, “If we feel we need more of a tutorial on something, I wouldn’t hesitate to ask.”
^ back to headlines
Omar Allvord, GOSA Director, Dies At 86
GROTON -- Omar Allvord, a GOSA director with a distinguished environmental record, died April 20, 2009 in Groton at the age of 86.
Mr. Allvord, who was a former GOSA treasurer as well as a current member of the board, was active in the drive to create the Bluff Point Coastal Reserve in 1974. He served as co-chairman of the Bluff Point Advisory Council. He also took part in GOSA’s 32-year campaign that culminated in addition of 57 acres to the Haley Farm State Park in 2002.
The efforts at Bluff Point and Haley Farm both made highly significant contributions to the quality of life of residents of Groton and beyond.
A WWII Navy veteran who saw duty on aircraft carriers in the North Atlantic, Mr. Allvord worked after the war at Electric Boat. Following his retirement in 1985, he and his son operated NEID Printing in Groton.
He was a former member of the Groton Town Council, the Groton Representative Town Meeting and the Groton Beach and Park Commission. In May 2006, he won the Patriot Award from the Friends of Fort Griswold, an organization of which he was a charter member and former president.
Mr. Allvord is survived by his son, Glen F. Allvord of Groton. Mr. Allvord’s wife, Marjorie, had died in 2000.
Mr. Allvord’s picture appears in the GOSA website’s Four Pioneers section: link
A Mass of Christian Burial is to be held at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, April 24, at Sacred Heart Church in Groton. Donations in his memory may be made to Fairview/Odd Fellows Home of Connecticut, 235 Lestertown Road, Groton, where Mr. Allvord died.
^ back to headlines
GOSA Explains Merritt Family Forest Protections
GROTON -- GOSA has received some communications from abutters to The Merritt Family Forest and from other Groton residents about GOSA’s decision not to allow horses, bicycles and dogs in order to protect the land.
In a recent letter to two abutters who asked for reconsideration of the policy on dogs, GOSA President Priscilla Pratt explained GOSA’s position on dogs, horses and bikes. The following is a slightly edited copy of the letter, with the recipients’ names omitted:
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
GROTON -- The Zoning and Planning Commissions have been left with much complex material to digest following a March 4, 2009, workshop presentation by Kendig Keast Collaborative, the Midwest firm that the town has hired to help rewrite its land use regulations.
Outlines of KKC’s approach had been made public previously. However, the early-March presentation, by KKC principal Mac Birch, brought the concept down to ground level in Groton. Mr. Birch applied KKC’s “resource protection and site capacity” method of calculating allowable development to four actual properties in Groton. The properties -- not at present known to be targets of development plans -- were chosen for illustrative purposes.
The public was allowed to attend the joint Planning-Zoning Commission workshop in the Town Hall Annex but could not take part in the discussion.
KKC has said that one of its goals is to eliminate disputes in planning by providing a quantified basis for determining the number of units that may be built on a given tract of land. Details of the calculations presented March 4 are on view at the town’s website. They show how that goal of no-strife development would be realized if KKC’s plan is adopted in land-use rule amendments.
In general terms, KKC formulas determine the number of permitted units on a given tract this way:
A buildable area is determined arithmetically on a spreadsheet. It is total acreage of a tract in acres minus “protected acres.” So-called protected acres are those that host water bodies, wetlands, woodlands, steep slopes, and moderate slopes that are located in sewer avoidance areas. The degree of protection afforded these geographic features varies from 10% of woodland acreage outside RU districts to 120% for bodies of water in the Water Resource Protection District.
Buildable area is multiplied by a density factor to determine the number of permitted lots. Neglecting some details, a density factor is the “other side of the fraction,” in Mr. Birch’s words. For example, 1/2-acre zoning equates to a density factor of 2/1, or 2 units per acre.
Of great interest to GOSA in particular was Mr. Birch’s discussion of a 64.1-acre tract on Hazelnut Hill owned by Groton Lenders LLC. The land, known as the Sheep Farm, has been optioned for purchase by the Groton Open Space Association. Mr. Birch’s spreadsheet-based calculation came up with 79 permitted units on the rugged tract that slopes down to Fort Hill Brook. (The formula calculation: 64.01 total acres minus 21.72 protected acres = 42.29 acres, times a density factor of 1.89 = 79 lots.)
Before the land was optioned to GOSA, it had been scheduled for a development of approximately 34 units. Thus, the KKC formula would sanction a development of about 230% of the density proposed by a developer.
Both Planning Manager Matthew Davis and Planning Director Michael Murphy played down the increased density as a factor in evaluating environmental impact.
Mr. Davis said, “We need to separate out the density bugaboo. It’s about design.” Mr. Murphy indicated that a 79-lot development on the sheep farm would have had a different design from what the developer proposed. “You can do more environmental protection with a different form of housing,” he said.
Mr. Davis said the Sheep Farm could present a chance for “flexible and innovative design
in an area that is close to the Pequot Health Center and I-95... It is an opportunity for smart growth and smart design.” He added that the figure of 79 lots had been arrived at by applying a zero level of protection to moderate slopes, which occupy 8.57 acres of the area according to information presented by KKC. He said a higher level of protection would have resulted in a significantly lower number of units, but he gave no figures. He indicated the ultimate protection level for moderate slopes outside of no-sewer areas is still to be determined.
Mr. Birch said, “It’s questionable to put open space where there are utilities and infrastructure because it calls into question the viability of the utilities.”
The other properties analyzed by Mr. Birch included the 197-acre Whittle Farm, which would qualify for 90 lots; the 57-acre Wolfebrook West, 67 lots; and the 201-acre Giordano property, 82 lots.
Mr. Birch mentioned that spreadsheets based on the KKC system can be posted by communities on the internet, meaning “developers can plug in numbers and get the same result as staff.”
Also of interest to conservationists was the general sharp shrinkage of protection factors since KKC’s report in September 2008. For example, the “conceptual resource protection standards” listed on P. 16 of the KKC report distributed then would have given 90% protection to woodlands in RU districts such as the zone in which the Sheep Farm is located, vs 20% in the March 4 report. Moderate slopes of 15% to 25% would have been 85% protected, vs 0% outside sewer avoidance areas. The September document would have afforded protection to riparian and wetland buffers of 90%. These are not mentioned in the March 4 report. (A minor shift on the other side of the ledger: the September report had 95% protection for steep slopes, while the March 4 report stipulated 100%).
^ back to headlines
Strong Support Shown For Wright Bill To Protect Municipal Open Space
GROTON -- Citizens made strong statements of support March 3, 2009, for State Rep. Elissa Wright’s bill to help ensure permanent protection of municipal open-space, conservation and recreation lands bought with open space financing approved by voters at referendum.
Some speakers at the Town Council meeting, attended by about 40 persons, expressed incredulity that council members could contemplate any use for open space lands other than what voters specified. One petitioner said that referendum results on a bond issue create a “contract” between the government and the voters that can’t be legally changed by the council.
The demonstration of support for the proposed legislation followed a Town Council Committee of the Whole session Feb. 24, 2009, at which Ms. Wright came in for criticism by some council members and staff for supposedly allowing the council to be taken by surprise by her bill and for introducing a measure that they felt could bind the hands of future councils.
When it was pointed out to them, councilors quickly conceded that a copy of the bill had been included in their packet of information several weeks earlier.
Ms. Wright has explained that the intent of her bill is to ensure that open space, conservation and recreation lands purchased exclusively with municipal bond money as appropriated specifically for those purposes by town voters at referendum should remain devoted to the uses specified in the referendum. Her bill would require that deeds to such municipal lands -- or statements recorded with the deeds – should reflect the intent of the voters and should set forth the open space, conservation and recreation restrictions on uses of these lands, as authorized by referendum voters.
Council members appeared split on the bill itself. Councilor Mick O’Beirne said he has tended to favor “flexibility” in the use of funds. Councilor Heather Bond, who had led the criticism of Ms. Wright at the Feb. 24 meeting, said the state should not mandate the use of municipal open space lands acquired exclusively with local funds. Ms Bond has said the bill would tie the town’s hands on future uses of the land. “We can’t see into the future what might happen. It’s not all black and white.” Ms. Bond, a Republican who was defeated by Ms. Wright in 2006 for the office of state representative, said her stand on the bill was “not a personal attack on Elissa,” as she said some emails to her have suggested.
Ms. Wright has noted that under current state law, when open space, park and recreation land is taken for a highway or other purposes, there is a requirement that comparable replacement open space or park land be provided. Under this principle, if some urgent need to use dedicated open space land for some other purpose should arise in the future, the use could be changed if other comparable open space land were provided in substitution. What is clear is that the original dedicated purpose of municipal open space land acquired under a referendum vote cannot be extinguished, and certainly not at the whim of future legislative bodies, she has said.
While serving as a town councilor in 2005, Ms. Wright introduced a measure that would have recorded formal notice on the land records of the purposes of Groton’s 1988 open space referendum in which Groton voters overwhelmingly passed an $8 million bond ordinance to conserve important open space, conservation and recreation land throughout the town. The deeds to five of the six parcels purchased are silent as to the referendum vote and its effect. The state required a dedication agreement that limited uses to “conservation or recreation” on one property that was purchased with additional funding from a state grant. After approving Ms. Wright’s resolution in Committee of the Whole in 2005, the council ultimately passed a truncated substitute version, which is noted on the land records.
Councilor Paulann Sheets endorsed the intent of Rep. Wright’s bill. Ms. Sheets recalled that the 1988 open space bond issue authorization by Groton voters was clearly intended for open space land. She said that an early proposal to include “other municipal purposes” -- in addition to open space, conservation and recreation -- as a goal of the bond issue had been withdrawn.
Several councilors appeared undecided March 3 on Rep. Wright’s bill. Mayor Harry Watson said toward the conclusion of the discussions, “We haven’t said we’re against the bill.”
It was expected that the next Town Council Committee of the Whole meeting at 6 p.m. March 10 would take up the matter again.
During the March 3 council meeting and a special Committee of the Whole meeting that immediately preceded it, Ms. Wright noted that contrary to an assertion at the Feb. 24 meeting, her bill did not mention or allude to Groton. She said her bill is designed to deal with an issue -- the honoring of citizens’ votes -- that is of statewide concern.
Discussing the issue of communication between Hartford and Groton, State Sen. Andrew Maynard -- also present with Rep. Ted Moukawsher -- said that it is difficult for legislators to brief constituencies on every bill they sponsor or co-sponsor. “We have a month’s window to introduce bills. Things go pretty fast. Maybe we can improve the process. There’s a huge volume [of bills] going through.”
Councilor Sheets said the Town Council received copies of Ms. Wright’s bill in timely fashion, and she added that state legislative information is public. “If there’s any fault, I don’t think it lies with our state representatives.” Ms. Wright noted that she has a legislative website where it is possible to track the progress of her bills.
In the citizens’ petition portion of the meeting, former Councilor Ed Eckelmeyer said in a statement read by his wife that he finds “it unbelievable that some town councilors...take the position that they are not limited” by the referendum vote. He said it would be a “breach of trust” not to honor the voters’ will.
Beth Tillman, of Mystic, said she was on the board of the Mystic Community Center when the center conveyed a sizeable tract [39.5 acres] to the town for “deeded open space.” The property along River Road in Mystic was purchased with open space bond referendum proceeds. She said that if she had known then that “20 years later” no deed notice would exist, she would have felt the board had “abrogated our fiduciary responsibility.” She added that the referendum result created a “contract” that the Town Council is not permitted to change. Any attempt to alter it could result in suits for “tortious [contract] interference,” she said. “I don’t know what other purposes the town may have in mind.”
Lynn Marshall, of Noank, said, “When I vote for open space, I expect the land to be used for that. If it’s not, I’d want to know why.”
Edith Fairgrieve, of Mystic, noted that the 1988 open space referendum for $8 million was approved by a three-to-one margin on Nov. 8 of that year. She expressed regret that the town allowed the authorization to expire before the town had spent the final $1.8 million of the $8 million. She said, “Historically, the Groton Town Council has not demonstrated by attitude or action any interest in forwarding the preservation of Groton’s natural landscape, which adds so much to the character of the town and to the quality of life for residents.” She said it is of prime importance to honor the 1988 vote.
Sandy Van Zandt, of Noank, said, “I think it’s good that the hands of town officials be tied. This is a trust bestowed by the taxpayers.” He said Rep. Wright’s bill would create a mandate but it would be a mandate that “costs nothing” in that it would involve only a notice in the deeds to open space lands.
Molly McKay, of Stonington, representing the Sierra Club of Connecticut, said the group supports the bill. She said she personally has always admired Groton’s open space, a major community asset. She recalled that growing up in Bristol, she had trouble finding “any place to go that wasn’t someone’s backyard.” She said children finally found a quasi-public recreational space beyond the end of “a dead-end street.”
Joan Smith, a director of the Groton Open Space Association presenting GOSA’s position, noted that when the group acquired The Merritt Family Forest last year with aid from the state, it was required to sign a conservation easement that is recorded with the deed. GOSA was “grateful” to sign “in order to ensure legally that the land would always remain true to the open space purposes for which it was purchased,” she said, adding that municipal land bought for open space purposes should have the same protection.
Paul Bates, of Noank, speaking for the bill, said that loss of confidence in government “doing what it says it will do” is a major reason for voter apathy. “I think we need to concentrate on being accurate. We can turn it around,” he said.
Former Councilor Richard Dixon, of Old Mystic, who played a major role in the 1988 bond issue, said that if anyone tries to change the use of the lands acquired, “Shame on you.”
Sidney Van Zandt, of Noank, said that proper notice on deeds was essential so that future generations are certain to know the purpose for which the land was acquired.
Genevieve Cerf, of Groton Long Point, criticized the “disrespectful” tone of the Feb. 24 meeting toward Ms. Wright.
John Sutherland, of Mumford Cove, noted that the state has a “public bill tracking” system that members of the public can use to get email alerts concerning bills of interest to them.
^ back to headlines
Blogger Wirzbicki Endorses Wright Bill, Laments A Reason For Opposition
GROTON -- Former Groton Town Councilor John Wirzbicki has endorsed Rep. Elissa Wright's bill to protect municipal lands purchased with open space bond money and has criticized the idea that the town should be free to "defraud" citizens by acquiring land for one purpose and then using it for another without securing approval.
Atty. Wirzbicki made known his view in an article that was published March 1, 2009, on his website, CT Blue. (CT Blue link)
Following is the text of the article:
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
GROTON -- The following article by staff writer Katie Warchut was published March 1, 2009, in The Day (please see related item in Forthcoming Events--March 3):
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
GROTON--GOSA will hold a “Celebrate the Glory of Groton” benefit Feb. 26, 2009, to raise money for protection of natural resources in Groton, Long Island Sound, and the region.
The event, scheduled for 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at The Fisherman, 937 Groton Long Point Road, will feature a buffet dinner and dessert, cash bar, and piano by Kent Hewitt, as well as a silent auction.
Cost of tickets to the affair is $50 per person, of which $30 will be tax-deductible as a contribution to a non-profit organization.
Organizers said, “Proceeds from this event will help us protect natural resources in Groton, Long Island Sound, and the region. Our entire community benefits from the quiet beauty of our natural surroundings and from clean water in our streams, rivers, reservoirs, and estuaries.”
Any questions about the event should directed to 860-572-5715.
er ^ back to headlines
Planning Asked To Tighten Water Protection In Rule Rewrite
GROTON -- Members of the Town of Groton Planning Commission should do all they can to make sure that the currently progressing rewrite of the town’s land-use regulations provides added protection to the water supply, watersheds and estuaries, Sidney F. Van Zandt said at the commission meeting Jan. 27, 2009.
Ms. Van Zandt, a director of the Groton Open Space Association and member of the Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (DWQMP) committee, made her appeal in a public communication.
The Planning Commission is scheduled to meet in late February or early March with the Zoning Commission, members of the town’s Office of Planning and Development Services (OPDS), and Kendig Keast Collaborative (KKC), the consulting firm that has a contract to rewrite the regulations.
Ms. Van Zandt urged the Planning Commission to ask questions and press for specific answers on water supply protection. This issue has taken on urgency because of Wal-Mart’s plan, apparently abandoned last month, to build a super center near the Groton Utilities drinking water reservoir. The project had the backing of the OPDS, staffed by town employes, but had been rejected in an earlier form by the Planning Commission, a citizens’ group that passes on building applications.
She noted that the DWQMP committee had not issued a final report and she cautioned against premature comment on the report, which she said has undergone many changes from the draft that came out last September. This was an apparent reference to a comment by OPDS Director Michael J. Murphy at a Zoning Commission meeting Jan. 7, 2009. On that occasion, he advised a Zoning Commission member to familiarize herself with the report “so that you’ll know what’s inside as opposed to the perception that the sky is falling.”
Among Ms. Van Zandt’s other recommendations were that:
--developers be required to reveal all planned phases of a development, rather than being allowed to parcel them out piecemeal to commissions, an issue that arose with the Wal-Mart application.
--the OPDS be required to do a background check on every developer proposing a large project “so that we do not have the problems that the towns to the north have had with a Mr. [Joseph] Gentile,” whose megadevelopment plans for Preston fell through following discovery of incomplete background disclosure.
--current regulations allowing up to 70% impervious surfaces for parking lots be improved because they do “nothing but damage our watershed.”
--substantial fines be imposed on developers who begin work before their applications are approved.
Ms. Van Zandt also noted the environmental and economic importance to the community of Eccleston Brook, among other inland waterways leading to salt water estuaries. She said she has learned that in the 1800s water from the brook was pumped from a point off Haley Farm Lane to the Noank Shipyard. At present, she said, the health of the brook is important to shellfish and other marine species that are vital to the fishing industry.
“We need to safeguard our lands and water not only for the enjoyment of those who live here now but also so that we preserve a foundation for our economic future,” she said.
^ back to headlines
CT Blue Questions OPDS Chief's Stance On Wal-Mart
GROTON -- CT Blue, a Groton-based website published by former Groton Town Councilor John Wirzbicki, is running a commentary that questions whether it has been appropriate for Planning and Development Director Michael J. Murphy to advocate for a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184.
The article, written by Atty. Wirzbicki and dated Jan. 14, 2009, appears below. (CT Blue link)
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
Groton - The following is the text of an article by reporter Katie Warchut published in The Day Jan. 14, 2009:
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
Groton -- The future of the Wal-Mart Supercenter proposed for Route 184, which has faced numerous obstacles from town land-use agencies, is in question, The Day said Jan. 13, 2009.
The Day continued, in an article by Katie Warchut:
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.
The article elaborated on news Jan. 10 of the court filings by Konover on Jan. 8.
^ back to headlines
KONOVER OUT AS INTEREST HOLDER IN PROPERTY SLATED FOR WAL-MART SUPER CENTER; PROJECT STATUS UNCLEAR
GROTON -- Konover Acquisitions LLC and Konover Development Corp. said in court papers dated January 8, 2009, that they no longer have any interest in property on Route 184 that they have been slated to develop as a Wal-Mart Super Center, it was learned Jan. 10, 2009.
The companies disclosed their apparent dropout in filings with the New London Superior Court. The filings, signed by Diane W. Whitney, attorney for Konover, withdrew Konover from two legal actions surrounding the project. Ms. Whitney wrote, “Konover no longer has any interest in the real property involved in this matter and therefore has no standing...” to remain involved in the actions.
The overall status of the Wal-Mart project was not immediately clear following Konover's move. Definitive word would have to come from the project's backers.
The project has drawn heavy opposition because of the proximity of the Route 184 site to the Groton Utilities Reservoir system.
The Groton Open Space Association was not a party to the legal actions cited, which involved Groton’s Inland Wetlands Agency, although it had intervened officially in Inland Wetlands Agency hearings. The IWA, in a split decision Nov. 12, 2008, had approved a revision of a previous plan to build the Super Center.
Opponents of the project were represented by Atty. Marjorie Shansky, of New Haven. Atty. Whitney is associated with the Hartford firm of Pullman & Comley LLC.
^ back to headlines
KKC To Hold Feb. Meeting With Zoning, Maybe Jointly With Planning
GROTON -- A representative of Kendig Keast Collaborative, the consulting firm hired to rewrite Groton’s land-use rules, is expected to meet in February with the Zoning Commission, possibly in a joint session with the Planning Commission, to discuss KKC’s proposals for protecting natural resources, Groton planners said Jan. 7, 2009.
The working session is expected to take place, at a date to be determined, in late February, Michael J. Murphy, director of Groton’s Office of Planning and Development Services, said at the regular commission meeting Jan. 7. After the latest meeting, he said that he is considering making the KKC session a joint one with the Planning Commission, though he had not yet discussed that with Planning.
Mac Birch, the KKC principal who is managing the Groton project, would use the session in part to explain KKC’s “resource protection factors,” which Planning Manager Matthew Davis told the Zoning Commission meeting are a “fundamental part” of KKC’s approach to planning. He said he and Mr. Murphy believe that the resource protection concept has not yet been fleshed out with concrete Groton case studies and that these are needed to make sure that the ideas and applications involved are well understood. At present, KKC written materials dealing with resource protection, open space and clustering factors show only conceptual numbers, not the actual numbers that would be applied to Groton.
Mr. Murphy said that the February meeting would be open to public attendance but not to public participation.
Under Groton’s Zoning Regulations, the Zoning Commission would have to pass any Zoning amendment by a supermajority if the Planning Commission recommended against the amendment.
In other developments at the Jan. 7 meeting, the OPDS appeared to turn back several suggestions by Zoning Commission members:
--Chairman Stephen Hudecek asked OPDS officials how implementation of eventual KKC recommendations might affect the town’s buildout analysis--the projection of population of a fully “developed” town. Mr. Murphy said that “the buildout issue is not part of regulation construction--” the object of the KKC exercise. Mr. Davis said the concept of buildout analysis is “not useful in planning.” Mr. Hudecek said buildout figures were relevant, among other things, to the issue of traffic congestion, which he said is becoming a problem. Commission Member Robert O’Neill opined that it isn’t possible to predict population growth in the town--short of total government management. Following the meeting, one commission member suggested that a “worst- case scenario,” such as is common in engineering, could and should be worked out by the OPDS. Mr. Birch of KKC has said that Groton is rapidly approaching full buildout.
--Commission Member Mariellen French suggested that the area around the Groton reservoir should be rezoned to protect water resources of the town and region. Mr. Murphy said that protection of water required only strict environmental controls within the current zoning structure, rather than changed zoning. Ms. French noted that she had attended a Ledyard meeting of the Drinking Water Quality Management Program and had found Ledyard citizens reluctant to regulate growth around their part of the reservoir system, given Groton’s heavy planned growth around its part. Mr. Murphy said that didn’t represent the view of Ledyard’s leadership, and he said Groton needed to protect its commercial and industrial future. He recommended that Ms. French familiarize herself with the Drinking Water Quality Management Program report “so that you’ll know what’s inside as opposed to the perception that the sky is falling.”
--Commission Alternate Member Susan Sutherland asked that the new Zoning Regulations replace the current definition of Open Space--which defines it as “A space, not occupied by a building or other roofed structure, on the same lot as the principal building.” She noted that the Connecticut state statutes define Open Space in terms of wildlife and other natural resources. Mr. Murphy said the Zoning Commission definition is a technical term, not to be confused with the state’s broad concept.
Ms. Sutherland replied that KKC frequently has used the term Open Space and that a definition therefore is called for. Mr. Murphy contended that “subdivision regulations are where you’d have an Open Space definition.” Ms. Sutherland also asked for an updated map of Open Space showing greenbelts and natural resources. Mr. Davis said, “I’m not certain how you’d use a map of state-acquired open space in this [KKC] process.” Ms. Sutherland said she would bring a current map to the next meeting to show to the OPDS officials.
^ back to headlines
Land Use Rewrite A Topic On Jan. 7, 2009, Zoning Agenda
GROTON -- Kendig Keast Collaborative’s rewrite, currently underway, of the Town of Groton’s land-use regulations appears as a topic on the agenda of the Jan. 7, 2009, Zoning Commission meeting.
The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. at the Town Hall Annex. The KKC project, officially referred to as an “update,” appears under the “old business” section of the agenda.
The zoning regulations are expected to be the most heavily affected by the rewrite, though subdivision and inland wetlands regulations also are targeted for change.
^ back to headlines
Some OPDS Replies To GOSA Questions On Land-Use Rule Rewrite
GROTON -- The Office of Planning and Development Services has provided this month answers to questions posed by GOSA following the Oct. 29, 2008, meeting at which Kendig Keast Collaborative presented its assessment of Groton’s land-use rules and gave a limited preview of the rule rewrite it has been commissioned to carry out.
The OPDS position as shown by some of the responses is that, among other things:
--Town officials are not ready at present to explain in detail how KKC’s system of assigning numerical values to resource protection and open space would apply to Groton. In addition, it will be up to commissions to weigh the relative merits of the “quantitative” approach to decision-making favored by KKC and a more “discretionary” system.
--The rewrite may be presented to commissions piecemeal rather than as a package. No further strictly public meetings on the rewrite are scheduled. Commissions will be briefed as the work of KKC and the OPDS proceeds. The normal [late-stage] public hearings that precede adoption of regulation amendments will take place, and proposed rewrite language will be on display -- ahead of the hearings -- at the town hall annex.
--Developer-hired specialists, rather than independent specialists, will map resources to be protected on development tracts.
--In asking the town to heed the POCD’s call for additional acquisition of permanently protected open space, the Groton Open Space Association is failing to interpret the document “holistically” and is pushing its own “specific interest...independent of the community consensus reflected in the Town’s only official POCD.” See below for GOSA’s response.
The following is a condensed version of some of the questions and replies. The replies are based on emails and a letter from the OPDS dated between Dec.5 and Dec. 15, 2008:
Q: Lane Kendig said the Office of Planning and Development Services was working on examples of how KKC’s open space ratios, resource protection factors and cluster housing densities would apply to land in Groton. When will these be ready and how will they be presented to the public? Are the figures shown in KKC documents final or only conceptual at this point?
A. “While there seems to be some general consensus that the methodology offered is acceptable, work remains to develop not just ratios/factors that support and promote [Plan of Conservation and Development] and [Strategic Economic Development Plan] objectives, but how and where those might be applied. I [Planning Manager Matthew Davis] believe OPDS spent a considerable amount of time and effort explaining in public on numerous occasions what the purpose of the assessment was. I did not think it was necessary to explain this again.”
Q: Does the OPDS plan any further public meetings on the KKC material?
A: As we’ve stated, the assessment, community meetings, stakeholder sessions and other public outreach were all “extra” efforts, in addition to the required public hearings which will occur regarding any proposed final text and/or map amendments. Depending upon budget, KKC may or may not be able to participate in one or more of the formal hearings. It is likely that certain elements may move forward earlier and/or concurrently. The Inland Wetlands Agency may move forward in January with at least discussions of language, with hearings and adoption possibly February/March of 2009. OPDS is working on a draft stormwater document that will be made available to the public when in final form. Staff is also beginning to develop draft text amendments for the subdivision regulations and various parts of the zoning regulation (i.e. simplifying the use table etc.), “with a focus on those that are not contingent upon the concurrent development and adoption of those elements which are at present (by necessity) more conceptual and inter-related by nature.”
Q: OPDS Director Michael J. Murphy and Mr. Kendig appeared adamant that experts who would assess land features (covered by resource protection factors) would be those hired by developers, rather than independent experts. Is this position set in stone?
A. “In terms of ‘experts’ hired to review basic resource plans, I believe that was answered by Mr. Kendig on 10/29.”
Q. Do you foresee a diminished role for commissions as more quantitative decision-making takes over. At what point does predictability of results exclude human judgment?
A. “As for the relationship between and respective values of, quantitative or discretionary methods, that will be up to the various boards to decide. There are benefits and drawbacks to both.”
Q. KKC is inaccurate in portraying the town as having abundant and growing amounts of permanently protected open space. Any comment?
A. “...these issues are presented and a public consensus is reflected in the formally adopted Town POCD of 2002. You and any other specific interest are free to have your own opinion, independent of the community consensus reflected in the Town’s only official POCD.”
Editor’s note: When GOSA pointed out that the Town of Groton POCD on Pages 38-40 advocated more public acquisition of open space, the OPDS replied that “when professional Planners look at a POCD, they do so holistically, understanding that the various component parts can only legitimately exist as integrated and mutually supporting ‘aspirations’ within a much broader civic structure... You are not a professional Planner, but a representative of a special interest group that is focused on one very narrow aspect of the overall situation.” GOSA replied that Pages 38-40 were written by a professional planning firm, Planimetrics of Avon, CT, well qualified to understand the broad situation.
In a Dec. 15 letter, Mr. Murphy said that drafts of various proposals by KKC will be presented to the affected commissions “before public review of final language in a hearing process designed to give all parties the opportunity to review, comment, understand and influence them. All proposed regulation language will be available at this office for review, as is the case with all projects and applications.” Mr. Davis previously had written that these documents would be “subject to applicable copying fees.” It was not immediately clear whether the documents would be posted on the town website so that users could make their own copies.
^ back to headlines
Text Of GOSA Feedback On KKC Report
GROTON -- The following is a slightly edited version of GOSA’s comments on Kendig Keast Collaborative’s evaluation of Groton’s land use regulations. It was submitted to the Office of Planning and Development Services in November for study by KKC along with other citizen feedback, which is to be evaluated as KKC prepares its rewrite of the rules. A shortened version of the comments was presented at KKC's informational meeting Oct. 29, 2008.
The land-use regulation assessment report prepared by Kendig Keast Collaborative covers many areas interestingly and thought-provokingly. This contribution is limited to feedback on Open Space.
There are two basic kinds of Open Space. One kind -- the one KKC focuses on -- is preserved and protected by conservation easement within the boundaries of a development.
The other kind, which is given short shrift in the report, is Open Space that is permanently preserved in its undeveloped state by government or land trust.
We deal first with the first kind -- Open Space that’s included within a development, and our remarks are questions rather than statements.
Question 1: How will the concepts of resource protection levels and differentiated Open Space ratios work out in practice? These ideas are new to Groton and have been only partially explained by KKC. The KKC material presented is written simply and clearly, and it functions as a good introduction to these concepts. However, the real complexities lie in their application. The public and the land-use boards would benefit from more detailed information about how these quantified tools would work in our real world. More concrete examples would help. How about showing these concepts in action on 100 acres of forested land, half of it steeply sloped or consisting of wetlands, the kind we have here in Groton? Apply it to different kinds of zones, and spell it out step by step.
As KKC is aware, the town’s 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development urged the formulation and application of a buildable land concept and a density regulation. It would be a big aid to understanding if KKC could compare and contrast the POCD approach with its own.
A related thought: the search for numbers-based decision-making on land-use bodies runs the risk of depriving land-use boards of their discretion. Unlike computers, human beings have common sense, and they must be given latitude to use it. We must not sacrifice human judgment in order to improve “certainty of outcome” for applicants who want to develop land. It is, for example, common sense to question whether the town should allow construction of a Wal-Mart Super Center near a major drinking water reservoir, despite attempts to restrict the discussion to technicalities. It is common sense to question whether a 240-unit condo development fits in with a Fort Hill neighborhood of single-family houses on ample lots.
The zoning power of communities was not created for the convenience of developers but for the good of the community as a whole. Cranking out land-use decisions by computer, an idea that came up in KKC’s session with the Zoning Commission, would seem to eliminate thought and personal responsibility from the process.
Question 2: Will the resource protection levels and differentiated Open Space concepts hold up to challenge in Connecticut courts? If, as KKC says, calling certain land unbuildable amounts to a taking, why isn’t it a taking to declare forest lands in certain zones to be 90% unbuildable? What is to prevent a landowner from cutting down his forests to avoid this restriction?
Question 3. Who appoints and pays the people who conduct specific site surveys to determine resource protection levels? Obviously, if this task were left to direct agents of owners and developers, conflicts of interest would be built into the process. If we are to have site surveys, then the experts who carry out the surveys should be paid by the town, even if the money ultimately comes from those who want to develop the land. The experts should be answerable to the land-use commissions.
Question 4. You suggest that Open Space provisions should be less strict in MX floating zones than elsewhere. Are you aware that the MX zone originally was proposed for some 1,200 acres in the business park? This proposal ultimately was withdrawn, but it can be expected to return. The business park contains much of Groton’s most beautiful landscape. While we could understand reducing open space requirements in heavily developed existing MX nodes, this idea should not be extended to MX nodes yet to be designated.
Question 5. Who would hold easements on Open Space within the cluster developments that KKC foresees? Our suggestion would be that these easements should be placed in the hands of land trusts. The town, despite all good intentions, is subject to unforeseeable political pressures and therefore isn’t the safest place for easements. Homeowners’ associations similarly could be tempted to give up easements in favor of further development.
Question 6. Can KKC build into its proposals consideration of the need for contiguity of Open Space and the desirability of protecting wildlife? The OPDS made an interesting suggestion on P. 19 for how Mystic Weigh’s Open Space could have been better joined with other Open Space to the north. The principle behind this suggestion -- avoiding fragmentation of Open Space -- is worthy of study for inclusion in planning code.
Question 7. How will KKC’s proposals, if implemented, change the final buildout projections for Groton? How many people can live here if your plan is carried out vs how many can live here if we keep on going the way we are?
Now we’d like to comment on the other kind of Open Space -- the kind that is permanently protected by government and land trusts. The quality of the KKC report takes a steep dive when it moves to this area.
The report says (P. 10) that “Groton has an abundance of permanent open space under a variety of public and quasi-public ownership arrangements.” It depends on what you mean by abundance. The Town of Groton 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development found that only 11% of Groton’s land was securely and permanently protected. That is well below the 21% recommended by the state. The statistic on protected open space comes from POCD Work Booklet No. 11. It’s easy to remember: 11% -- Work Booklet 11.
KKC says that the town and citizens have continued to acquire additional protected land since the POCD was adopted. Well, the town may have picked up some disconnected patches of land in various subdivisions. But that’s it, as far as we know.
The state purchased 57 acres to add on to the Haley Farm State Park, a transaction that GOSA had worked for years to facilitate. And recently the Groton Open Space Association purchased The Merritt Family Forest, a 75-acre tract on Route 1. GOSA is justly proud of these additions, but they are statistically insignificant. KKC is not correct in painting a picture of abundant and increasing open space that is permanently protected.
Rather, what’s happened since the POCD was published is that more land has been plowed under for development while the amount of permanently protected Open Space has shown no significant increase. Net result is less actual Open Space and no statistically important increase in protected space.
Disappointingly, the report makes no mention of the Conservation Commission’s lengthy list of properties worthy of protection. This list has languished for years, though the POCD designated the Conservation Commission “as the appropriate entity to develop an action plan for Open Space preservation.” The commission has delivered the plan, but the OPDS has not delivered the action. Why is this situation allowed to continue?
The KKC recommendations for protecting Open Space within development tracts are thoughtful and worthy of serious, though critical, consideration. However, the recommendations should not be seen as a substitute for action on the Conservation Commission’s formal plan for protecting the best of the Groton’s remaining natural areas. Sure, it costs money to save land, but so do many other worthy functions of government, and the Town of Groton funds them generously.
Action now -- long delayed though it is -- can provide current and future residents with an exceptionally favorable quality of life, even as other communities trade their natural heritage for “tar and cement.”
Finally, we would like to urge that KKC meet again with the public on several occasions in coming months before formulating a final set of proposals. If that takes an increase in the budget for this project, it would be money well spent.
A brief addendum: Recommendation #25 of the KKC report contains this sentence: "Adopt provisions to allow the administrative review and approval of minor activities within upland review areas."
The questions: who declares an activity to be minor? Does "administrative review and approval" mean that the OPDS would be allowed to approve anything minor--independent of the Inland Wetlands Agency?
This would seem to be a controversial recommendation in light of the
Wal-Mart/reservoir case if it means what it could be interpreted to mean.
^ back to headlines
Wal-Mart Wins Split IWA OK For Super Store Near Reservoir
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency voted 4-1 on Nov. 12, 2008, to approve a revision of a previously approved plan to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 near the Groton Utilities drinking water reservoir.
Voting for approval were agency members David Scott, chairman; Eunice Sutphen, secretary; Barbara Williams; and Robert L. Ashworth.
Alternate member Mary Ellen Furlong voted against the proposed revision. She voted in the absence of member Barbara Block.
The IWA had originally approved the project, to which it had assigned a “minor” potential impact status, in 2006. The agency turned down a first application for revision on June 11, 2008. The revision approved Nov. 12 was the second application for a revision.
The Planning Commission denied in February of 2007 an earlier version of the plan. Konover
Acquisitions LLC, the would-be Wal-Mart developer, lost an appeal of that decision to the Superior Court in May 2008.
The IWA motion to approve said that Konover’s proposed stormwater management revisions would result in better quality of water discharge than the management plan previously approved in 2006.
Ms. Furlong, who dissented, said that the Material Safety Data Sheet for the material to be used on Wal-Mart’s seven-acre roof said the material was carcinogenic. She also noted that Groton Utilities, which is responsible for the nearby drinking water reservoir, had requested no decision be made prior to GU’s signing with Konover of a memorandum of understanding on protection of the reservoir. No signing had as yet taken place, she said.
She also said extra caution should be exercised by the IWA in view of the sensitivity and importance of the drinking water supply and considering Wal-Mart’s blemished environmental record in Connecticut. On Aug. 15, 2005, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Gina McCarthy announced a $1.15 million settlement with Wal-Mart “involving environmental violations at 22 stores related to stormwater and other water management issues.”
^ back to headlines
KKC Holds Last Public Land-Use Info Meeting; Questions Remain
GROTON -- With many questions remaining unanswered about its project, the Midwest firm hired by the town to help rewrite the town’s land-use rules has concluded its meetings with the public in Groton.
Following the Oct. 29, 2008, meeting -- the second and last of its kind -- GOSA e-mailed questions arising from the presentation to the Office of Planning and Development Services on Nov. 3. GOSA asked for a response, if any, by Nov. 6. The OPDS did not respond to the questions, or to a follow-up voice mail that was left when no reply was forthcoming.
Lane Kendig of Kendig Keast Collaborative, the land-use consulting firm, told a public audience of about 50 on Oct. 29 that KKC would have some further contact with Groton land-use commissions while formulating suggested regulation changes. He did not give specifics. He added that no further public information meetings are scheduled.
Last May, KKC kicked off the rewrite process with a series of meetings--one each with the general public and several groups of stakeholders. On Sept. 23 and Sept. 24, it met with land-use boards.
The meeting Oct. 29 was held to present to the public KKC’s mid-project regulation assessment report, which was released in written form in September and is available on the town website and at the library. The meeting was televised on GMTV and video was available on the town website.
The final KKC recommendations, to be worked out in close consultation with the OPDS, would need approval by land-use bodies, chiefly the Zoning Commission, to become effective. The suggested code amendments currently are scheduled for disclosure in June.
Town Councilor and former Mayor Mick O’Beirne, citing the far-reaching nature of the prospective regulation changes, suggested at the Oct. 29 meeting that KKC’s final recommendations should be subject of a town referendum. Mr. Kendig replied, “Be careful what you wish for... A referendum is an absolutely lousy land-use tool.” He said referenda can have and have had unpredictable and undesirable results.
Mr. O’Beirne said prospective zoning recommendations could lead to “sweeping changes” that would affect all town residents. He questioned whether the Zoning Commission, which is appointed rather than elected, should have “sole power” to decide. Michael J. Murphy, OPDS director, said referenda are not part of the system for implementing zoning changes.
GOSA suggested that further public meetings should be held, even if that required increasing the budget for the project.
The OPDS said at the Oct. 29 meeting that it would put into the record any written statement on the KKC report that was submitted by Nov. 14. 2008.
Mr. Kendig declined to predict the extent to which Groton’s natural resources would be protected under the regulation rewrite. In response to a question from GOSA President Priscilla Pratt, Mr. Kendig said that the matter would need study. A “conceptual” table in KKC’s assessment report shows slopes of more than 25% being 95% protected in rural zones and woodlands in RU zones enjoying 90% protection.
He said protection levels for rocky outcroppings, steep slopes, forest cover, flood plains and riparian resources all would need further consideration. Earlier in the meeting, he had triggered concern when he said that the 90% protection level for woodlands found in the assessment report was based on the Midwest, rather than heavily forested areas of New England.
The exchange created the impression that any and all protection levels are indefinite at this point, though values had been assigned to them in the written report.
In response to a GOSA request for local examples of how KKC’s quantified “resource protection standards” and “residential cluster standards” would apply, Mr. Kendig said the OPDS was working on this. The OPDS did not elaborate at the Oct. 29 meeting. Nor did it respond to GOSA’s e-mailed question on this matter.
Under KKC’s system, land proposed for development would undergo an expert assessment to determine its natural resources--including water bodies, floodways, floodplains, wetlands, riparian and wetland buffers, woodlands, steep slopes and wellhead protection areas. The land then would be assigned numerical Open Space and Resource protection factors. Mr. Kendig said the process would help eliminate subjectivity in land-use decisions.
“We are trying to get away from a situation where anyone can challenge anything,” he said. One of the declared aims of the regulation rewrite is to achieve “certainty of outcome thatapplicants will have when formulating their development plans.”
In this connection, GOSA cautioned against mechanizing the approval process to the point that the common sense, judgment and individual responsibility of commission members are nullified.
GOSA recommended that if the plan were to be adopted, the natural resource assessments should be conducted by experts paid by town commissions, rather than developers, even though the bill ultimately might be financed by the developer. This process would function in the same way that the town employs independent experts in complex land-use cases.
Mr. Kendig said he was confident that developers’ experts, working with the town’s competent planning staff, would accurately determine the physical attributes of land. Mr. Murphy backed up Mr. Kendig saying there was no reason to question experts and that “resources are quantifiable.”
GOSA said that assessments compiled by developer-paid experts were subject to conflicts of interest that could destroy public faith in the fairness of the process.
KKC stressed in its presentation and report that permitting more flexible design for new housing, including higher densities, would encourage the preservation of open space and avoid “cookie cutter” subdivisions. They said the formal public protection of open space was not the subject of their report, but declared that Groton already has abundant and growing amounts of publicly and permanently protected open space.
GOSA told the meeting that in fact only 11% of Groton’s land enjoys formal protection and that numerically significant amounts of new open space are not being acquired. It warned that protection of open space within the boundaries of developments, while desirable, is not a substitute for town action on the Conservation Commission’s long-ignored list of some 20 properties that ought to enjoy formal protection.
One little-noticed feature of KKC’s Land Use Regulation Assessment is this recommendation on the final page:
“Adopt provisions to allow the administrative review and approval of minor activities within upland review areas.” In its post-meeting e-mail to
the OPDS, GOSA asked for an explanation and noted that this recommendation could
prove controversial in light of the “minor” status that was assigned by the Inland
Wetlands Agency to the proposed Wal-Mart super store near the Groton drinking water
reservoir. Like the other e-mailed questions, this one went unanswered by the Office of
Planning and Development Services.
Sidney Van Zandt, a GOSA director, objected to a KKC recommendation for cluster housing in the Sewer Avoidance Area north of I-95.
She said heavy development in this area, already taking place, would create non-point pollution that would “severely damage our most valuable resource and [that of] the many towns around us that receive our water.”
^ back to headlines
GOSA Submits Questions On Land-Use Report
GROTON -- GOSA submitted the questions below to the Office of Planning and Development Services on Nov. 3 with a request for answers, if any, by Nov. 6.
GOSA followed up with a telephoned voice mail. This, too, drew no response. [But see article on Dec. 29, 2008]
The questions arose from a meeting Oct. 29 at which Kendig Keast Collaborative presented an assessment of Groton’s land-use regulations. The meeting is subject of a related website story (directly above).
These are the questions:
--KKC indicated that the Resource Protection Factors shown in its assessment report aren't the ones that will be used in Groton. For example, KKC said the forestry protection figure applied only in the Midwest. The steep slope figures shown aren't necessarily operative here. Can one correctly conclude that none of the figures in KKC’s examples on Open Space, Resource Protection and Cluster Housing is anything but a placeholder for the real figures? When will we have some concrete figures that are applicable locally?
--Does the OPDS plan any further public meetings on this (i.e. minus KKC)? If so, when?
--Mr. Murphy [OPDS director] and Mr. Kendig [of KKC] appeared adamant that the experts who would assess land features would be those hired by developers, with checks possible by the OPDS. Is this position set in stone or is there room for independent experts hired at the expense of the developers?
--Do you foresee a diminished role for commissions as more quantitative decision-making takes over? At what point does predictability of results exclude human judgment?
--KKC appears inaccurate in portraying the town as having abundant and growing amounts of permanently protected open space. Does the OPDS care to comment?
--Recommendation #25 contains this sentence: "Adopt provisions to allow the administrative review and approval of minor activities within upland review areas." The questions: who declares an activity to be minor? Does "administrative review and approval" mean that the OPDS would be allowed to approve anything minor--independent of the Inland Wetlands Agency? This would seem to be a controversial recommendation in light of the Wal-Mart/reservoir case if it means what it could be interpreted to mean.
^ back to headlines
GOSA Buys Option On Former Sheep Farm On Hazelnut Hill Road
GROTON -- The Groton Open Space Association announced Oct. 24, 2008, that it has purchased an exclusive option to acquire a 65-acre property on Hazelnut Hill Road targeted for development as a residential subdivision. The option agreement with Groton Lenders, LLC, of Woodbury, CT, foresees a sale to GOSA in the fourth quarter of 2009.
GOSA anticipates that approximately two-thirds of the $858,500 purchase price will be financed by a state grant and that the balance (about $300,000) will come from private donations by individuals and philanthropic institutions. A fund-raising drive will begin immediately. GOSA indicated that donations should have attractive tax consequences to donors because it is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization.
“Raising the money is a challenge that must be and will be met,” said Priscilla W. Pratt, GOSA’s president. “We have a one-time chance to save a unique and beautiful tract of land. We hope our supporters will be as generous as ever in our continuing effort to preserve Groton’s wonderful natural heritage.”
The planned GOSA purchase will ensure that the land will be preserved in perpetuity as public open space. The property, earlier a sheep farm, slopes southward from Hazelnut Hill Road, down to and including Fort Hill Brook. It is covered by many meadows, exceptional trees and woods, and it adjoins other forested acreage.
At the southern end of the property, there is a ten-foot waterfall, the highest in Groton, where Fort Hill Brook cascades over one of the many ledges on the old farm. Fort Hill Brook meanders down to Mumford Cove, a pristine recreational area with fishing and large shellfish beds.
GOSA has focused on the Hazelnut Hill property for several years.The farm first was proposed for an age-restricted condominium development and later for a 33-house residential subdivision. GOSA cooperated with developer Otto Paparazzo to help create a plan that would preserve the beauty of the tract even after buildout. The group led by Mr. Paparazzo, Groton Highpoint, LLC, later sold the land to Groton Lenders. Ground never was broken for the development.
^ back to headlines
Public Info Meeting On Land-Use Rules To Begin At 6 p.m. Oct. 29
GROTON -- The Office of Planning and Development Services has scheduled a 6 p.m. start for the public information meeting on Kendig Keast Collaborative’s assessment report on Groton land-use regulations.
The Oct. 29, 2008, meeting will be held at the Town Hall Annex in Community Room 1.
In response to a question about timing, Planning Manager Matthew Davis said, “The 6:00 pm start time is designed to permit public input to begin no later than approximately 7:00 pm (following the consultant's presentation), which will leave at least a full 2-3 hours for public input, while still completing the meeting by 9:00 or 10:00 pm.”
The Oct. 29 meeting will be shown on Groton Municipal Television, as well as later on the town website, said Michael J. Murphy, director of the OPDS.
^ back to headlines
Past Year Saw Triumph and Challenge, GOSA President Says
GROTON -- President Priscilla Pratt told the annual meeting Oct. 16 that 2008 has been a year that mixed the triumph of The Merritt Family Forest acquisition with the challenge of coping with “relentless development pressures” on the Town of Groton.
In her annual report to members gathered at the Latham-Chester Store, Ms. Pratt reviewed the Merritt struggle, as well as the ongoing GOSA efforts to:
--persuade the town to implement the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development recommendations for a plan to acquire open space.
--mitigate the impacts of the proposed Mystic Woods Active Adult housing project on Fort Hill.
--oppose plans for construction of a Wal-Mart Super Center near the public drinking water supply.
--follow up on agreements reached with the developer of the Great Brook housing project to protect the water supply.
--provide useful input to Kendig Keast Collaborative, a Mid-west firm hired by the town to update the town’s land-use rules.
The full text of Ms. Pratt’s remarks appears immmediately below this article:
The meeting re-elected Ms. Pratt as president, Genevieve Cerf as treasurer, and Lorraine Santangelo as secretary. Marcia Young was re-elected to a three-year term as a director.
GOSA Director Sidney Van Zandt was honored for her work as chair of the Merritt Family Forest Fund-Raising Committee. The committee not only raised the $350,000 GOSA needed to complement a $650,000 state grant toward the $1 million Merritt purchase but has also brought in $25,000 toward a planned $60,000 endowment fund to finance maintenance of the land.
Ms. Van Zandt thanked donors and volunteers. She called special attention to a gift from the Flat Hammock Press and the Tradewinds Gallery in Mystic--a map from the 1800s of the area now known as The Merritt Family Forest. A copy of the map will be awarded to each person who contributes at least $1,000 to the Merritt fund drive.
Also receiving thanks from Ms. Van Zandt were:
--Elaine Mills, an artist who organized sales of the work of artists at the Latham-Chester store for the benefit of GOSA. Though two planned paintouts at Haley Farm were canceled by rain, sales of the paintings, mostly of the farm, were brisk -- both on the evening of the second planned paintout Oct. 5 and on the night of the annual meeting. As of the end the annual meeting evening, sales totaled $4,805, of which 50% went to GOSA. (The beautiful invitation to the Oct. 5 paintout is displayed on the home page of the GOSA website. Click on the picture to enlarge, then scroll up slightly for a full view.)
--Peter Lewis, who built a large announcement board for the Haley Farm as an Eagle Scout project. The board required nearly 140 hours of work by Peter and others and involved contributions from Johnson’s Hardware worth $100 and Home Depot worth $75.
Guest speaker at the annual meeting was Jim Costello of Prides Corner Farms, in Lebanon, CT. Mr. Costello made a presentation on “green” roofs. Proponents of green roofs cite as advantages of this form of roof cover: urban “heat island” mitigation, noise reduction, fire prevention, creation of habitat and control of runoff that reduces the combined sewer outflows.
^ back to headlines
Text of President Priscilla Pratt's Annual Report
GROTON -- This has been a year of triumph and challenge. Triumph because GOSA became thebecame the owner of The Merritt Family Forest. Challenge because the relentless development pressures facing Groton demand active advocacy to preserve and protect valuable open space and natural resources.
Triumph
When GOSA learned in 2002 that the 75 acre Merritt property, for which a developer had permits for a 48 lot subdivision, might come back on the market, GOSA took a deep breath and decided to apply for a state grant to buy the property. In the spring of 2003, the state Department of Environmental Protection awarded GOSA $650,000 toward the purchase price of $1 million.
Five long years of legal battle ensued when a builder disputed GOSA's contract. The case was finally settled by the sState Appellate Court, which unanimously upheld a previous Superior Court jury verdictdecision in favor of Merritt and GOSA. A deed was signed in May, 2008, and recorded promptly in the Groton Land Records. GOSA gave a conservation easement to the State of Connecticut DEP, and the property is now protected forever for conservation and passive recreation purposes.
GOSA raised the balance of the purchase price through private contributions and is now accepting donations for a maintenance fund to care for the property.
Environmental Advocacy
· GOSA has continually urged, without success, that the town to implement recommendations in the 2002 Groton Plan of Conservation and Development for a town- wide open space acquisition planacquisition plan.
· GOSA intervened in the land use hearings on the proposed Mystic Woods Active Adult housing project offor 200 plus units. The project would sit on 1054.84 acres of a wooded tract extending from Fort Hill Brook, up Fort Hill, to a proposed boulevard entrance at Flanders Road, dangerously close to a Tier 1 vernal pool,andpool, and with ansome exit roughly half way up Fort Hill Rroad. We obtained the services of an engineer, a wetlands scientist, and one of the the top environmental lawyers in the state, Peter Cooper of New Haven, to represent us at the many hearings on the plan and its multiple revisions. We are currently appealing in Superior Court the Inland Wetlands Agency and Zoning Commission permits. We are concerned about the density of the project, the adverse impacts on the wetlands and vernal pool, and concerns about the heavy hand role of staff in the Zzoning Ccommission deliberations. If anyone is interested to read our complaints as expressed in Atty. Cooper's brilliant briefs, we would be glad to share them with you.
· GOSA has also intervened in hearings before the Planning Commission and the Inland Wetlands Agency concerning an application for a Wal-Mart Super Center off Route 184 in a Watershed Resource Protection District. The large big box store would be located, within 500 feet of Hempstead Brook, which feeds directly into the Groton Utilities terminal reservoir system. Approximately 9 acres of impervious surface are proposed, including a 718- space paved parking lot. Several neighbors are represented byhave hired a top environmental lawyer to represent them, and GOSA has spoken at the hearings on its own. The Planning Commission denied athe permit in 2007, but WalmartWal-Mart is coming back with revised applications. Here again, our concern is with protection of Groton's drinking water supply from run off pollution of such a large facility with so manyapproximately 9 acres of impervious surface.
· You remember that in 2005 GOSA signed a land- mark agreement with the Downes-Paterson, the owner of property off Route 184 directly adjacent to Great Brook. The brook Great Brook is the main conduit between the Ledyard reservoirs andreservoirs and the three Groton reservoirs. GOSA was instrumental in reducing the density of the project from 104 to 64 and then to 51 lots.Thelots. The agreement that was worked out provided for a series of tests of Great Brook water, backed up by an environmental bond posted by the developer, to ascertain the effectiveness of the storm water control systems. The testing would determine whether the large segments of open space and the general environmental design of the project and other measures would keep pollution from entering Great Brook and thence into the reservoir system.. GOSA's environmental consultant has been working this year with the new owner and builder in a cooperative way to implement the terms of the testing and protection of the waters of Great Brook-- and ultimately your and my drinking water and mine.
· One more item of vital importance. As you know, GOSA has been advocating implementation of the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development recommendation for a Buildable Land definition in the town land-use regulations for several years without success. Now the town has hired Kendig Keast Collaborative, a Mmid-west firm, to rewrite Groton's land use regulations. The public meetings are few and far between. An important public meeting with Kendig Keast will be held on October 29 at the Town Hall Annex with a presentation of the firm's preliminary findings and the opportunity for the public to comment. The text of Kendig Keast's preliminary report is available on the Groton Town Website and at the Groton Library. A link to the town site can be found on our own www.gosaonline.org. Please follow this up, and attend this crucial meeting on the 29th. The proposals are far reaching and will affect Groton's future in a profound way. We must all make our opinions heard while there is still time to do so.
--What the Kendig Keast consultants recommend and what is ultimately adopted by the commissions will affect the future of Groton and the quality of life of all of us. It is vital that development regulations obtain adequate protection for open space and natural resources within developing areas and density regulations and buildable land definitions as recommended in the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development. The control of decision makingdecision-making permit processes should remain with our volunteer commissions.
--Although roughly half of Groton is still open land, woods, meadows, vistas and ridge lines, only 11 percent is securely protected by the state, a land trust, GOSA, or the town. The town could utilize the state Open Space and Watershed Grant program, which entitles Groton to apply for up to 65% state funding for open space acquisition.GOSA continues to advocate the implementation of an active open space acquisition program as recommended in the Plan of Conservation and Development.
The work of helping to Keep Groton Green is on-going. It is extremely challenging challenging..Our successes are due to volunteer courage and resolve, and especially to the support of members and friends who always come through when we need you most.
With your help, together we can turn our present and future challenges into more and more triumphs. Your GOSA board meets once a month. We welcome comments and suggestions for our activities, and members are always welcome to attend our board meetings. Watch our website where the date and timeof each meeting is announced.
Sidney Van Zandt, who is chair of the Merritt Family Forest Fund Raising Committee, and now will say a few words of thanks to so many who worked so hard and contributed so much to the Merritt Fund. She will also tell you about the fabulous Haley Farm paintings on exhibit here, and provide some news about Haley Farm and a very special Eagle Scout.
^ back to headlines
KKC Presents Preliminary Report On Groton Land-Use Rules
GROTON -- Kendig Keast Collaborative has released its long-awaited preliminary report on how to improve Groton’s land-use regulations and has explained its findings to the Planning, Zoning and Inland Wetlands boards, who listened with interest but raised questions.
The Midwest-based consultant’s report proposes, among other things, conceptual answers to long-disputed questions about the definition of buildable land and how buildable land acreage should relate to the number of dwelling units permitted on a given tract of land. The 29-page report is available on the town website (link); this GOSA report concentrates on highlights that pertain to open space. Interwoven with ideas about buildable land are proposals for more flexible zoning to promote space-saving cluster housing.
Mac Birch, the Kendig Keast principal who presented the findings to the land-use boards Sept. 23 and Sept. 24, 2008, told Zoning Commission member Richard Haviland that the question of buildable land is “probably 80% of why I’m here.” He said that agreed-upon standards addressing buildable land and other questions dealt with in the report would let developers proceed with certainty when formulating projects while assuring conservationists that critical open space and unique natural resources would be preserved.
“Money currently spent for lawyers would be better spent on architects and land acquisition,” his report says.
Zoning, Planning and Wetlands members were asked to submit written feedback, which can be dealt with Oct. 29, when the findings will be formally presented to the public at the Town Hall Annex. Following the meeting, the feedback is to be digested and work started on writing detailed changes to regulations. The current target for completion is June 2009. Kendig Keast had kicked off the project in May with a visit that included discussions with the public, conservationists, developers and other stakeholders.
Initial reaction by the commissions to the report released this month included both broad considerations as well as hyper-particular observations. Stephen Hudecek, Zoning Commission chairman, cited the difficulty of using the high-level KKC report to visualize its long-term impacts on the town. Eunice Sutphen, a member of the Inland Wetlands Agency, expressed fears that an overly prescriptive set of Inland Wetlands regulations could remove desirable qualities of judgment from the agency’s approval/disapproval process. At the other end of the spectrum, one Planning Commission member objected to the idea of planting trees near sidewalks because “hurricanes could topple them.” He complained that trees on West Mystic Avenue are “buckling sidewalks.”
While the report speaks frequently of preserving open space, it says little about formal acquisition of tracts of open land such as those on the Conservation Commission’s list. That document, perennially ignored by the Office of Planning and Development Services, contains names of approximately 20 properties that are considered worthy of preservation. Instead, the KKC report encourages builders to maximize open space on their development sites by making use of density bonuses. It proposes to protect the space thus saved by placing it under conservation easements held by the town, land trusts or a homeowners association.
It remarks that “Groton has an abundance of permanent open space...” That assertion is disputable at best. The 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development (Work Booklet No. 11) says that only 11% of the town’s area is securely protected, well below the 21% that has been held up as a worthy statewide goal.
The key KKC idea for saving development-site open space is clustered residential units. A chart on residential clusters (P. 18 of the report) illustrates the open-space salvaging mechanism. The chart shows a conventional subdivision of half-acre (20,000 square foot) lots on 40 acres. With a normal 10% open space setaside (4 acres), a conventional subdivision would offer its developer an opportunity to build 60 units (“the yield.”). Changed regulations proposed by KKC would allow a “conservation” cluster, among other forms largely new to Groton. This would feature 65% open space (26 acres) and building lots of 5,000 square feet (one eighth acre), with a developer’s yield of 68 units.
The KKC proposals would not require housing clusters but in theory would give builders an incentive to choose them to increase yields. At a minimum, clustering would not penalize builders for setting aside open space by reducing their yields, as current regulations do. Mr. Birch said that clustering allows for development while not only preserving some open space but also creating “the impression of open space.”
He said of development and open space, “You want to have it all.”
Groton is “approaching practical full buildout in terms of existing zoning,” Mr. Birch said. “Land that’s left is hard to develop. We don’t want to screw it up.”
Mr. Birch said The Ledges near I-95 is an example of a project built without due regard to physical constraints of its rugged site. He said the development puts “two gallons in a one-gallon pail.”
Besides clustering, another key concept relating to open space is “resource protection.” Under this concept, a land parcel under consideration for development would undergo a “specific site resource survey” to determine the “development capacity” of the site for various types of development (see Pages 16 and 17).
Resources such as water bodies, floodways and floodplains, and wetlands would be assigned a resource protection level of 1 (=100%) and would be completely protected. Woodlands would be 90% protected in rural (RU) districts, 60% in single-family (RS) and industrial park (IP) districts and 20% in all other districts. Steep slopes having a grade of more than 25% would be 95% protected in RU, 85% in RS and IP, and 55% in other districts. Steep slopes of 15% to 25% would be protected 85%, 60% and 20%, respectively.
He said the numerical resource protection factors would allow developers to get a precise idea in advance of what they are permitted to build.
It wasn’t immediately clear how the resource-protection level concept would interact with a KKC proposal for reducing the number of zoning districts.
Matthew Davis, planning manager, endorsed greater flexibility in building housing. He noted that Mystic and Noank are among the “most cherished” parts of Groton, but “if we continue to build conventional subdivisions, we can lose this character.”
^ back to headlines
Wal-Mart Hearing To Resume October 8
By Joan Smith, GOSA Board Member
GROTON -- Citing “volumes of materials to digest,” Chairman David Scott of the Town of Groton Inland Wetlands Agency has continued a hearing on the new application of Konover Acquisitions LLC to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 near the Groton Utilities drinking water reservoir.
At the opening hearing Sept. 10, Konover attorney Diane Whitney described the new application as “minor changes to a previous application [that was], with your approval, also deemed minor.” She reported 437 people were notified of the hearing. She asked that all technical data from all previous applications be incorporated into the record.
The Sept. 10 hearing was continued to Oct. 8.
The new application represents Konover’s second attempt to get IWA approval for changes to the 2006 plan that the IWA had approved. The Planning Commission last year rejected the 2006 plan. And the IWA rejected Konover’s first application for changes in a June 11, 2008 decision.
Guy Hesketh, Konover engineer, presented a site plan showing different colors for each of the five receiving wetlands and their corresponding drainage areas, contrasting that map with the previously approved plan. He said that in-ground treatment and a large water-quality basin would remove more that the state-mandated 80% of total suspended solids (TSS). He referred to the original maintenance plans in the 2006 application when asked for details about inspection and maintenance procedures. Mr. Hesketh said treatment mechanisms would be checked annually through inspection ports and added that “sewer guys, who have equipment” would flush and clean the in-ground systems.
Robert Sonnicson, an engineer appearing for Konover, described roof run-off as clean, but said it will receive a high level of treatment through underground galleries. David Mitchell, an environmental consultant, said that the only concern for thermal impacts would be any cold water fishery and that “we do not have a sensitive fishery.” He described the “extraordinary care given” to the treatment train and stated 88% or more of TSS would be removed.
Agency Member Mary Ellen Furlong cited a recent memo by a town engineer which stated that storm water discharge from Basin 4 would increase by 300% from pre-construction levels. Ms. Whitney quickly rejoined that Basin 4 was not part of the application. Ms. Furlong responded that the memo was dated Aug. 25, 2008, and had been included in a packet prepared by the Office of Planning and Development Services for agency members ahead of the Sept. 10 meeting. Ms Furlong complained that the fragmented quality of the application created “problems with seeing the whole thing.”
Agency Member Eunice Sutphen asked why the application was for Drainage Areas 1, 3 and 5, but Areas 4, 6 and 7 have been changed dramatically. Ms. Whitney responded that Areas 4, 6 and 7 had been previously approved, and now show less flow.
Deborah Jones, the town’s environmental planner, introduced several letters of intervention, and “no comment” memos from the Conservation Commission and the Planning Commission. She said that a memo from Groton Utilities (GU), a City of Groton entity that uses the nearby reservoir system to supply water to many communities in southeastern Connecticut, was similar to the one from 2006.
GOSA Board Member Joan Smith, read a statement from GOSA, and challenged Mr. Mitchell’s dismissal of thermal impacts. She said that because no environmental assessment had been performed on the area proposed for the super center, there is no basis for his dismissal of the idea of a sensitive cold water fishery. An environmental assessment is further needed to study a hydraulically isolated, potential vernal pool that is at risk of receiving storm water discharge, she said.
Sidney Van Zandt, another GOSA board member, resubmitted a memo from Dr. James Kremer, a University of Connecticut professor, expressing concern that receiving waters could reach a “tipping point” in their ability to absorb nutrients. Ms. Van Zandt resubmitted photographs showing the proposed Wal-Mart driveway’s proximity to Hempstead Brook and the brook’s direct connection to the Groton reservoir.
Marjorie Shansky, attorney for several interveners opposing the project, citing town regulations, described the project as “major,” rather than minor, as the IWA has categorized it. She asked, “When is a major activity minor?” And she requested the “missing ecological report.” She later read into the record a letter from Zell Steever, a water quality expert and Groton resident. Mr. Steever said in part that the project “as presently designed will not adequately remove total suspended solids or the dissolved organic and inorganic substances and compounds or other pollutants, wastes or materials in the storm water stream coming from the construction and operations of a Wal-Mart Super Center with extensive parking areas and driveways.”
Steve Trinkaus, an engineer for the interveners, reported many engineering problems with the proposed storm water treatment systems. He challenged assumptions concerning infiltration, water attenuation and cleaning efficacy of the infiltration systems. He pointed out discrepancies with standards of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
Mr. Trinkaus demonstrated short-circuited flows in the basins, and showed that the basins do not have the length or depth required to promote slow attenuation and plant uptake of nutrients. He said “you cannot make a leap of faith” that the basins will work. Further, he said it is a “stretch” to claim that bacteria exist in the stone surrounding the infiltration systems, as in a septic system. Only 30% TSS will be removed from flows to the state storm water system along Route 184, and very hot water will run from the roofs, parking lot and basins to receiving wetlands, he said.
Mr. Trinkaus asserted that a permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would be required for the underground galleries: without pretreatment, they would be considered injection sites, subject to federal approval. Further, he said, erosion would occur at the top of the steep slope next to the retaining wall. The fire pond, he said, would not receive firefighting chemicals from the front of the store. He supported the Town engineer’s figure of a 300% increase from Basin 4 that Ms. Furlong had cited.
Robert DeSantos, a water quality expert for a group of interveners, said the proposed site is 80 feet above the reservoir and noted that and water runs downhill. Resuspension of solids will be a problem after filters clog, he said. He noted that the life of a septic tank, for example, is only 30 years.
Michael Brown, who lives near the proposed building site, noted that the state of Connecticut settled with Wal-Mart in 2005 for $1.15 million in connection with environmental violations at many of its stores in the state. Mr. Brown quoted from a press release issued Aug. 15, 2005 by Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal:
“Wal-Mart’s environmental record here seems as low as its prices--proven violations at 22 stores in Connecticut. Big as it is, Wal-Mart failed to get it right... We’re holding Wal-Mart accountable for systemic, repeated violations across the state.” The full text of the press release follows this article.
At the end of the meeting, revised plans were distributed to the IWA members. Ms. Jones, the environmental planner, said that plans had been submitted the day before, on Sept. 9.
^ back to headlines
Aug. 15, 2005: Text of State Press Release on Wal-Mart Settlement
HARTFORD -- Following is the full text of a press release issued Aug. 15, 2005, slightly more than three years ago, by Atty. Gen. Richael Blumenthal and Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Gina McCarthy:
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
GROTON -- Hawthorne Development Partners LLC temporarily withdrew on Sept. 9, 2008, its site plan application to the Planning Commission for “Mystic Woods,” a proposed 196-unit [CORRECTED FROM 201] Active Senior Housing project on Fort Hill overlooking Groton.
The Woburn, MA, company said through its attorney that it would resubmit an application for site plan approval as soon as it has had a chance to address staff comments by the Groton Office of Planning and Development Services (OPDS).
The comments were contained in a 5 ½-page memo dated July 22, 2008. The memo addressed more than 35 points. Among points that remain to be addressed, it was understood, was Point 23:
“Many of the buildings are shown located 36’-37’ from other buildings which just meets the minimum 35’ between residential building requirements. In addition, many of the buildings are shown at the minimum 20’ setback from the edge of paving and 100’ or 75’ from PL [property line]. This does not leave any room for movement in the placement of the buildings on the site and may cause significant problems during construction.”
The site plan application had been submitted in June, 2008, and the developer had agreed to an extension of Planning Commission action on the application to Nov. 1, 2008. With the withdrawal, that extension date no longer is relevant.
The plan for the project includes 196 units in approximately 70 buildings on 47 clear-cut acres of a 105-acre tract on Fort Hill. The project won approval of a split Inland Wetlands Agency decision Sept. 12, 2007. The Zoning Commission approved Mystic Woods by a 3-2 vote Dec. 5, 2007. GOSA has appealed both approvals.
In its Zoning Commission appeal, GOSA charged that the OPDS staff assumed “an impermissible advocacy role on behalf of the applicant.”
Notice of Hawthorne’s temporary withdrawal came in a letter to the OPDS from Uncasville Atty. Harry B. Heller. Mr. Heller’s letter didn’t estimate when Hawthorne would be back, but he asked that the OPDS retain copies of 12 sets of documents it filed in support of its site plan application because the documents will become part of the new application.
Hawthorne’s original plan for the land, submitted in 2006 and withdrawn later in the year, had called for 241 units.
^ back to headlines
KKC “Assessment Report” To Be On View By Mid-Month
GROTON -- The target date for delivery of the first report by Kendig Keast Collaborative, the firm hired by the Office of Planning and Development Services to update Groton’s land use regulations, is Sept. 10, Matthew Davis, manager of Planning Services, told the Zoning Commission Sept. 3, 2008.
Mr. Davis added that the “assessment report,” of which he has seen a draft, should be available for public inspection on the town website and at the library by mid-month.
Mr. Davis’s remarks at the Zoning Commission meeting complemented his Aug. 26 announcement of the overall schedule for the project and were intended as an interim report to the commission, he said. A similar interim report is scheduled for the Sept. 9 meeting of the Planning Commission.
Zoning Commission Chairman Stephen Hudecek had asked in an August e-mail for information on KKC’s progress. And Commissioner Susan Sutherland went on record at the Sept 3 meeting with worries that commissions were being excluded from the
report-writing process.
The Aug. 26 announcement said that “internal Commission/Agency work sessions” are to be held with the KKC consultants Sept. 23 (Planning) and Sept. 24 (Inland Wetlands and Zoning). It said the public is welcome to attend these sessions but won’t be permitted to participate. A session for the public and interest groups is to be held Oct. 29.
The assessment report is designed to provide the town with results of stakeholder meetings in the project’s first phase in May, evaluate the strengths and weakness of the town’s existing regulations, and make general recommendations. The final phase of KKC’s work would be to suggest specific changes in the texts of regulations. The land use commissions would then decide whether to amend the regulations in line with the suggestions. Amendments would require public hearings, and some would need referrals to other bodies, such as the Department of Health and other towns. While the OPDS is cautious about predicting the timing for the completion of the text revision, a tentative timeframe of June 2009 currently is the working assumption.
Mr. Davis said the Zoning Commission rewrite would be the most complicated piece of the update, involving such matters as a revision of the open space subdivision and possible changes to the regulations’ definitions section and land use table, among other things. Consolidation of districts also could be recommended, he said. The KKC role in Inland Wetland Agency regulations would be secondary, with the OPDS taking the primary responsibility in that area, as well as in a stormwater ordinance and in an architectural design manual, the Aug. 26 announcement said.
Commissioner Sutherland entered into the record Sept. 3 a memo expressing concern that the assessment report was written without specific input from commission members. She added that “we now know that the Commissioners will not have input until the review stage, and, the extent of that input is not clearly defined. The clear implication, to my mind, is that the Commissioners have nothing of value to contribute and should not collaborate on major issues such as water sources and open space, or major new zoning concepts like mixed use zoning, which touch all of our regulations and commissions and would logically be part of the initial planning.”
Mr. Davis said he planned to review Ms. Sutherland’s statement with the OPDS director, Michael J. Murphy, and prepare an answer.
In response to questions from GOSA, Mr. Davis later provided additional information in an e-mail on the planned course of the regulation update process. These were among his points:
--The Oct. 29 public meeting will be a platform for the public comment, but efforts will be made to eliminate what he termed redundant and irrelevant comment so that all participants will be allowed to speak within the available time. He said that some participants in the initial public meeting in May had discussed matters that he regarded as peripheral--overall policy matters, criticisms of the tax system and “academic discussions of Portland’s growth management.”
--“The project the community is undertaking with KKC involves how to implement specific goals and objectives of adopted policy documents (like the 2002 POCD). It is NOT an effort to modify, re-interpret or change those adopted policies.”
--“The project work program has been specifically and purposely designed to try to avoid, or at least resolve, potential conflicts and/or to provide clear direction at the earliest possible stage in the process, so the Town can be as efficient as possible with the limited funds available. This is what the ‘assessment’ stage is fundamentally about. Most towns do not do this, and suffer for it. Most towns simply take an incremental ‘piecemeal’ approach, focusing on a very limited part of one particular regulation, with very little consideration of how that relates to the greater whole. They then (absent any assessment phase) spend weeks and months arguing with various constituents about the draft text, until (usually) everyone throws up their hands in disgust and aborts the effort altogether.”
--(In response to a question about the timing and nature of the completion of the process): “As required by State law, at some point in the third phase of the process, each agency having subject matter jurisdiction...will... formally propose changes to their regulations, make statutory and other referrals, hold one or more hearings, and take some action on that specific proposal. Due to the limited budget [$96,000 has been allotted], some of the drafting will be done by OPDS, and some will be done by KKC, but...it is virtually impossible at this point in the process to establish anything more than a general timeframe for the three basic project components.”
^ back to headlines
Land-Use Regulation Update On Sept. 3, 2008, Agenda Of Zoning Commission
GROTON -- Discussion of the pending update of Groton land-use regulations appears on the Zoning Commission agenda for the Sept. 3, 2008, meeting.
The project began in May, 2008, with a short fact-gathering visit by the midwest firm that has been hired by the Office of Planning and Development Services to update the rules. The agenda’s “new business” portion lists the project.
According to an OPDS announcement Aug. 26, 2008, the Zoning Commission was due to consider the “assessment report” of Kendig Keast Collaborative of Sturgeon Bay, WI, and Chicago, at a special Sept. 24 meeting. The announcement didn't mention a Sept. 3 discussion.
The project is scheduled for adoption by the town in June 2009.
^ back to headlines
Konover Submits Third IWA application for Watershed Wal-Mart
By Joan Smith, GOSA Board Member
GROTON -- Konover presented a third application for a Route 184 Wal-Mart Super Center to the Town of Groton Inland Wetlands Agency on July 23, 2008. The store would be located near the Groton Utilities drinking water reservoir.
The first Konover application to the IWA was approved in 2006, but a second, revised, application was denied by the IWA June 11, 2008. Konover has appealed the denial to the New London Superior Court. Separately, Konover’s application to the Planning Commission for the same project was denied in February 2007, and the denial was upheld by the New London Superior Court May 30, 2008.
The IWA, led by Chairman David Scott, classified the new application as “minor,” but scheduled a public hearing on September 10, 2008, because of public interest. GOSA had submitted a petition with more than the 25 signatures needed to require a public hearing. The hearing is to be conducted in Room 1 at the Town Hall Annex.
The new Konover site plan consists of five pages, and the narrative focuses on changes to the originally approved plan, concerning activity within the regulated area and stormwater discharge designs. The plan no longer shows a subdivision for “restaurant pads,” part of the original IWA application.
Diane Whitney, attorney for the developer, said the application is in the name of Konover Acquisitions, LLC as the result of a reorganization. Konover Development Corp. has been listed as applicant on earlier paperwork submitted for the project.
- - - -
Editor’s note: Records in the CONCORD system of the Secretary of the State indicate that Konover Acquisitions LLC was registered Sept. 4, 2001 as KRX LLC, and that it changed to its current name April 4, 2007. Both companies give as their business address 135 South Road, Farmington.
^ back to headlines
Wal-Mart Talks With IWA
By Joan Smith, GOSA Board Member
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.
GROTON -- Konover Development Corp. representatives appeared before the Town of Groton Inland Wetlands Agency June 25, 2008, to discuss issues involving its denied request to change its application to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter on Route 184 in the watershed of the Groton Utilities drinking water reservoir system.
The IWA denied the application for changes June 11, 2008. The original plan had received IWA approval in 2006.
Konover attorney Diane Whitney asked for a jurisdictional ruling to determine which activities require new permitting and to seek guidance as to what standards the IWA will want met to protect water quality.
Ms. Whitney said that there has been “some confusion on what had changed” after the IWA denied a second application, which sought permission for changes to the first approved plan. She asserted further that Deb Jones, the town's environmental planner, had "said what we applied for is all that needed approval.”
The Konover attorney contended that the town hasn't any objective standards, and that “we have met...[Department of Environmental Protection] standards.” Michelle Carson, an engineer and principal of Konover, presented the original, approved plan, superimposed by an acetate copy of the second, denied plan.
The IWA and Konover representatives then conducted a detailed discussion of the proposed changes and which of them should require permitting. Ms. Whitney’s questions were:
1. What do you think needs permitting?
2. What water quality standards will you expect to be met? She said Konover had used DEP standards as a proxy for town standards. She claimed that the DEP says roof water is clean.
Chairman David Scott summarized his remarks by saying “any time discharging of water is involved, whether in a wetland or not, we are involved.” He said further that “what was permitted 10 to 15 years ago is different. We have not recently had such a large project."
When asked to choose one design change over another, he said, this was not an “either-or” discussion and “we are not playing that game.”
Agency member Mary Ellen Furlong said the IWA will look at whether the project meets the DEP and town standards of 80% removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) from stormwater discharge. Further, the IWA would want assurance that the water being discharged is getting cleaned as it should. The first plan featured infiltration of roofwater, and she questioned whether the replacement units in bedrock were getting the same cleansing quality.
Ms. Jones stated that the original permit is good for 5 years from the approval date. She then focused on the first approval and addressed proposed changes to each permitted activity.
The IWA and the applicant discussed possible design changes, such as a green roof; expanding the size, shape and design of the drainage basin; plants, check dams, water quality swales, pervious paving, an enhanced treatment train; and changes to the pond and discharge areas.
Ms. Furlong pointed out the sensitivity of the site -- close to the Groton Utilities drinking water reservoir -- and suggested that the applicant look at the alternative of renovating the existing Wal-Mart site.
Marjorie Shansky, attorney for interveners in the previous application, and representing Zell Steever, of Noank, as an intervener in the current proceedings, submitted a letter and expressed incredulity that the discussion was taking place in the absence of a new application, and was occurring while Konover could still appeal the previous denial. “You have armed the applicant for an appeal during the appeal period,” she said.
She cited regulations requiring a detailed application before discussion, and said that the regulated activity is an open question until a specific plan is submitted. She raised concerns about minutes and whether this discussion would generate a letter by the IWA. She summarized by saying, “This may be evidence that the building is too big.”
Mr. Steever, a water quality expert, said that the only reason in the regulations for a “pre-application” meeting is to decide whether an application involves “major” or “minor” activity. Where is the application, he asked. If the Agency schedules other such discussion, “I request proper notice to all parties... I am flabbergasted by the proceeding. We have entered into a discussion which appears to be...segmented. The applicant’s response is coming to you after...[the hearing was closed], not subject to judicial review.”
He urged the IWA to get back to process: have the applicant provide a plan. He said Wal-Mart is a well financed national organization, which has done green projects across the country. Wal-Mart does not need preliminary guidance, as might a homeowner who does not know about wetlands, he said.
He recommended that the IWA have Konover come in with a single application.
^ back to headlines
IWA Denies Wal-Mart Application For Changes
By Joan Smith, GOSA Board Member
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency unanimously denied June 11, 2008, an application by Konover Development Corp. to make changes in a previously approved plan to build a Wal-Mart Super Center in the watershed of the Groton Utilities drinking water reservoir.
Konover had characterized its application as being for minor changes to a plan with minor potential impact. Many members of the panel had made it clear they felt this description did not fit the application.
Voting against the project were Eunice Sutphen, who was acting as chairman in the absence of Chairman David Scott, Barbara Block, Robert Ashworth and Mary Ellen Furlong.
In explaining its decision, the agency said it found “that there will be very limited infiltration, if any, of stormwater due to the soil conditions on the site and that there will be inadequate pollutant removal prior to the discharge of the stormwater to the wetlands as a result.”
During the discussion that preceded the vote, Ms. Furlong said that this is a large and complex project, and it is better to deny it and have Konover come back with a full and better plan. She said the applicant should have submitted a full list of the changes proposed in the application. Konover's narrative did refer to proposed changes in a stone wall, but these were insigificant, she said. What are important are changes in water flows caused by the proposed plan alterations, Ms. Furlong said.
Mr. Ashcroft said, "The infiltrators in the first plan were changed in the second. The discharge to the wetlands has changed the whole system ... We did not see all this change when the application was presented to us. I would have to deny the current application...there is no longer infiltration, just a holding device--no guarantee that it will improve the water."
Barbara Block asked if the proposed changes would make the original plan better.
Deborah Jones, the town's environmental planner, advised the panel that "changes under your jurisdiction require your approval," and that the panel could look at impacts beyond the "traditional" regulated area.
The decision doesn’t affect the IWA’s previous approval of Konover’s original plan. However, the original plan has been denied by the Planning Commission, and the denial has been upheld by the New London Superior Court.
^ back to headlines
Court Sets Back Wal-Mart Plan For Watershed Development
Groton - A Superior Court judge has dismissed an appeal of the Groton Planning Commission's denial of a Wal-Mart Supercenter on Route 184 last year, The Day reported.
In an article by Katie Warchut, the newspaper said June 3:
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
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency on May 28, 2008, deliberated on the application of Konover Development Corp. to make changes in its previously approved plan for building a Wal-Mart Super Center in the watershed of the Groton Utilities drinking water reservoir. The discussion was continued to the next IWA meeting on June 11.
Hearings on the application had ended May 14, with a contentious session highlighted by a presentation by Zell Steever, a Noank resident and former state water official.
IWA member Eunice Sutphen led the board May 28 through a discussion of all Mr. Steever’s main points. The board appeared to feel that the changes proposed by Konover were not minor, as the company had characterized them. Ms. Sutphen raised the question of whether the proposed changes were so extensive as to require a new application, rather than a request for alterations.
The Planning Commission has denied Konover’s application, and the company is appealing the denial to the New London Superior Court. The IWA has approved the same application.
David Scott, IWA chairman, noted that if Konover’s appeal were upheld in the courts, then the company most likely would withdraw its request for changes in the original IWA application. That is because the proposed changes appear to be at least in part a response to Planning Commission objections. Mr. Scott said that if the IWA denied the request for changes and Wal-Mart won its appeal, then the town would be stuck with the original plan, which he finds inferior to the plan with proposed changes.
Another option, he said, would be to approve the changes with conditions designed to reduce contaminants leaving the site.
The session was adjourned, and Deb Jones, the town’s environmental planner, was asked to suggest language at the next meeting for a condition requiring increased treatment of effluent from the site.
^ back to headlines
IWA To Deliberate Wal-Mart May 28 After Earlier Lively Discussion
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency plans to deliberate at its next meeting May 28 on Konover Development Corp.’s application for changes in its plan, approved by the IWA in 2006, to build a Wal-Mart Super Center in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir.
Hearings on the application were closed May 14 after a contentious session that often brought Konover attorney Diane Whitney to her feet objecting and had IWA Chairman David Scott cautioning opponents of the project to limit their comments to a narrow area. The discussion eventually broke through boundaries to embrace a wide range of comment, including a detailed critique by E. Zell Steever of Noank, a former Director of Water and Related Resources in the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
Ms. Whitney had contended in an April 30 letter to Mr. Scott that the application under consideration was a minor alteration to a project that the IWA had decided long ago would have only minor potential impacts on wetlands.
Opponents of the project argued, on the other hand, that the proposed alteration would have major impacts and that the IWA never should have classified the project as minor in the first place. Joan Smith, a GOSA director, urged the IWA to look at all the voluminous material submitted by Konover in connection with its proposed change, in effect asking for another look at the whole project.
Ms. Whitney said Konover had submitted “everything so you can see how this little piece fits in. We ask you to limit your discussion to the change.” She said the change was limited to directing “clean” stormwater from the roof of the proposed Wal-Mart to a pond in neighboring Gold Star Office Park and replacing a planned masonry wall with a natural stone wall closer to the pond.
In the end, the efforts of Ms. Whitney and Chairman Scott to limit the discussion broke down, a process accelerated when Marjorie Shansky, attorney for neighbors of the project, told Mr. Scott that other material needed to be introduced into the record in case of possible court review of the IWA’s ultimate decision.
Before the hearing ended, GOSA director Sidney Van Zandt -- over the protests of Ms. Whitney and Mr. Scott -- had asked the board to examine the causes of a pond failure at a Wal-Mart in Virginia. Robert S. De Santo, PhD, of the Institute of Environmental Stewardship LLC, of Waterford, presented a detailed analysis concluding that stormwater runoff from the site would be “carried into the watershed” of the Groton Utilities reservoir and would “negatively impact the quality and ecology of these waters and their sediments.”
Mr. Steever, who has extensive experience in environmental positions with town, state and federal governments, told the IWA that the Wal-Mart development, as proposed, “will likely pollute our source waters and, in turn, adversely impact our drinking water in the Town of Groton and the surrounding towns and communities.” Mr. Steever came down hard on Ms. Whitney’s characterization of the changes proposed in the IWA application as minor.
He said, “The applicant has reconfigured the size and location of total suspended solid mechanical separators; the number, size and location of underground storm water storage reservoirs; created new points of discharges to offsite areas and existing storm water ponds; added a fire pond; made smaller the original storm water management pond at the north end of the site; and submitted new and revised reports on storm water calculations and water quality. This application before you tonight is clearly more than just about ‘proposed drainage changes, work in upland review area, and reconstruction of an old stone wall.’” The quotation referred to Ms. Whitney’s description.
Mr. Steever cited “procedural issues” that complicate evaluation of the project. He noted that Konover had recently withdrawn a new plan that was submitted to the Planning Commission after the first plan was denied last year. The withdrawal apparently was made in response to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and the Office of Planning and Development Services. He said the project was becoming “segmented” and asked that Konover submit to the town “a single complete application and not an ongoing and ever changing proposal.”
Other points made in Mr. Steever’s nine-page analysis:
--The applicant has not shown how it would deal with the total suspended solids that are not captured by its proposed hydrodynamic separators, which typically deal with only 20% to 30% of TSS, rather than the often claimed 80%. Nor, he said, do the applicant’s plans discuss removal of dissolved -- as opposed to suspended -- organic and inorganic substances in storm water.
--“No protocols are presented regarding snow removal or use of chemicals and sand to melt snow and ice at the site,” which will draw thousands of vehicles.
--“Finally, it is the potential pollution of Groton Utilities source waters and the future quality of Groton’s drinking water that is and...[remains] the major issue of this proposed Wal-Mart Super Center. This location is too close to our source of drinking water supply, as proposed in this application.”
^ back to headlines
Councilor Sheets Asks 1-Year P&Z Halt In Some Watershed Areas
GROTON -- Town Councilor Paulann Sheets has proposed a one-year moratorium on planning and zoning applications that would affect watershed land in the Water Resource Protection District and the watersheds of estuaries, embayments and coves.
Ms. Sheets made the proposal at the Town Council meeting May 13, 2008. The matter was referred to the council’s Committee of the Whole. She said later she hopes that the moratorium will come up for discussion at the Committee of the Whole special meeting May 29.
The councilor’s idea that the Council, “as steward of the Town’s natural resources,” should ask the commissions to impose the halt on “most” applications in the watershed areas designated.
She said a moratorium on applications would give the planning and zoning commissions time to participate in the just-launched project to rewrite the town’s land-use regulations. Ms. Sheets said the measure should be imposed immediately to prevent a rush of applications coming in to beat the deadline.
A midwest-based firm of municipal consultants, Kendig Keast Collaborative, has been hired by the Office of Planning and Development Services to recast the regulations. KKC made a short information-gathering visit to Groton May 6-May 9 and said it plans to have a rewrite ready for consideration within a year.
Ms. Sheets said significant development pressure on the watershed of the public water supply and coastal waters has shown the need for improved regulations. She said the planning and zoning commissions have an important role to play in the rewrite, and they won’t time for that unless the flow of applications is suspended.
She said the state Supreme Court has upheld the right of a commission to impose a moratorium during a revision of regulations. In addition, she said that North Stonington imposed in December a nine-month moratorium on all but minor planning and zoning applications. “According to a member of the North Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission,” she said, “it is hard to imagine doing their revision without the moratorium. Although one developer has filed a lawsuit, it does not directly challenge the moratorium on the merits and is likely to be dropped.”
Ms. Sheets said, “The protection of the public drinking water supply is a critical element of the police power which Groton is empowered to exercise; and the the protection of the shellfish economy dependent upon clean estuaries is likewise an important duty of the Town and the Commissions, justifying the moratorium.”
A developer currently is proposing to build a Wal-Mart Super Center in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir and has sued the town over the Planning Commission’s refusal to approve the application.
^ back to headlines
The Merritt Family Forest A Reality After 5-Year Delay
GROTON -- The Groton Open Space Association on May 16, 2008, bought a 75-acre wooded tract from F.L. Merritt, Inc. for $1 million following a nearly five-year court battle with a developer who had sought the land for a 48-house residential subdivision.
The property, which runs along Route 1 between the top of Fort Hill and Fishtown Road, henceforth will be known as The Merritt Family Forest. Since 1868, it had belonged to the Merritt family.
Paperwork transferring ownership was signed by Nelson A. Merritt, president of F.L. Merritt, and by Priscilla W. Pratt, president of GOSA, at the Pratt-Wright Gallery in Noank.
Ms. Pratt said:
“GOSA is extremely grateful this day to be able to add this beautiful land to the preserved open space of Groton. Deepest appreciation goes to the Merritt family who patiently endured five years of a developer's fruitless litigation; to the Department of Environmental Protection who believed so steadfastly in the rightness of the acquisition; to the lawyers who worked so tirelessly in our behalf; and to the public who have encouraged us both morally and financially throughout the years. The triumph of this achievement belongs to them as well as to GOSA, and it belongs especially to the children and adults of today and tomorrow, who will be able to enjoy forever the unspoiled natural treasures of The Merritt Family Forest.”
Mr. Merritt said, “It is wonderful that GOSA, with the assistance of the State of Connecticut, has found the way to preserve this forest primeval for all future generations and for all time.”
State Rep. Elissa Wright (D-Groton), who attended the signing, expressed deep appreciation to the Merritts for ensuring the preservation and protection of the land. She added: “As the Merritt family has done for generations, our generation needs to start to think in 20 to 100 year time spans -- that exceed our own life spans and beyond our current terms of office -- to conserve ecosystems, protect the land, and preserve habitat and biodiversity for our grandchildren, great grandchildren, and beyond.”
GOSA, the new owner, has given a conservation easement to the State of Connecticut providing that the land shall be kept in its natural, scenic and open condition in perpetuity. Public access is granted for hiking, jogging and for other
non-motorized passive recreational uses that will be listed in GOSA’s management plan, currently being created.
Of the total purchase price, $650,000 was supplied by the Department of Environmental Protection’s Open Space and Watershed Land Acquisition Grant Program. The remainder was raised by GOSA through contributions from individuals and from institutions. GOSA still must raise funds to pay off an unsecured bridge loan, recoup acquisition expenses, and build up an endowment for insurance and other future outlays. Final goal of a GOSA fund-raising campaign chaired by GOSA Director Sidney
Van Zandt is $1,080,000.
The Merritt Property, rich in wildlife and plant variety, functions as a green bridge between protected lands on its eastern and western sides, and it is itself an impressive piece of rugged woodland. It is crossed by Eccleston Brook and a tributary, Cowslip Brook, which converge and flow into Palmer Cove and Fisher’s Island Sound. To the west are the Bluff Point and Haley Farm state parks (more than 1,000 acres together) and the Mortimer Wright Preserve (88 acres owned by the town). To the east of the Merritt property lie the town-owned Pequot Woods (140 acres) and Beebe Pond Park (95 acres), as well as some 75 acres protected by private conservation easements.
GOSA had signed a purchase agreement with F.L. Merritt April 14, 2003. The next day, Ravenswood Construction LLC, a Cheshire developer, filed notice of an impending suit to force Merritt to sell to Ravenswood, based on a claim of a valid prior contract. In June, the developer filed an additional suit, this time against GOSA and nine individuals, claiming interference with its contract and abuse of the legal process. Ravenswood withdrew the suit in July, as the state attorney general prepared to back GOSA.
On May 18, 2005, a New London Superior Court jury found in favor Merritt and co-defendant GOSA, determining that the developer did not have a valid contract to buy the land from Merritt. Ravenswood appealed to the Appellate Court. The jury verdict was upheld by the Appellate Court on Dec. 12, 2007.
The issue finally was settled in January 2008, when Ravenswood decided not to seek a state Supreme Court review of the Appellate Court’s ruling.
Atty. William Kroll, of Salem, represented F.L. Merritt in the New London Superior Court jury trial, with William Hescock, of North Stonington representing GOSA. Paulann H. Sheets of Groton was attorney for GOSA during Ravenswood's short-lived suit against GOSA and the nine individuals.
Lead attorney for the defendants in the appellate proceedings was Elizabeth Leamon, then of the New Haven firm of Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, with Ben Solnit, a Tyler-Cooper partner, contributing to the brief. (Atty. Leamon now is associated with Murtha Cullina LLP in Guilford.) Gerald A. Cory of New London appeared for F.L. Merritt.
^ back to headlines
Statement By Nelson Merritt On The Merritt Family Forest
GROTON -- Nelson A. Merritt, president of F.L. Merritt Inc., made this statement at the signing May 16, 2008, of paperwork that created The Merritt Family Forest:
Our grandfather, Francis E. Merritt, who was born in Ledyard in 1835, bought the Fort Hill Farm in 1868. The son, Francis L. Merritt, was born shortly after the family moved in that year. Our grandmother, Abbie Crouch Merritt, and our mother, Althea Montgomery Merritt, loved the farm, especially the forest with its numerous deer and other animals.
While the land was generally used for grazing young cattle in its open spaces, other uses came up now and then. There were orignally two or three houses there during colonial times, probably for tenant farmers. One of them was located above the inner brook and along the original road that ran from what is now Flanders Road through the woods to the farmhouse on the top of Fort Hill. Also along that road are the remains of an old grist mill. During the Civil War, ribs for wooden warships built at the Noank Shipyard came from the great limbs of oak trees and paneling for the cabins from red cedars that grew in abundance. During World War II a pasture lot of ten acres or so along Fishtown Road was plowed and turned into victory gardens for a score or more of Noank residents.
The farm and the Merritt generations were a part of Noank. Francis L. Merritt and his four sisters went to the old one room school on the top of Brook Street hill before he met our mother Althea Montgomery. Their seven children went to the two story school on Main Street.
It is wonderful that GOSA, with the assistance of the State of Connecticut, has found the way to preserve this forest primeval for all future generations and for all time.
^ back to headlines
KKC Back In Two Months; Some Conservationists Disappointed
GROTON -- Kendig Keast Collaborative, a Midwest-based municipal planning consultant hired by Groton to update the town’s land-use regulations, is expected to publish some preliminary observations in a couple of months after a short recent fact-gathering trip May 6-May 9, 2008.
The visit, which began on the evening of May 6 and was to end at noon May 9, disappointed many conservationists, who had hoped to hear KKC plans for saving open space and for density limitations linked to a buildable land definition. Instead, KKC told them that saving open space through acquisition is “up to the taxpayers” and outside KKC’s current assignment. KKC said that density limits can ultimately work against the environment. Conservationists did hear a lot about ways of conserving open space within subdivisions through clustered development.
The regulation-update process had a public kickoff May 7 with a dinner-time meeting at the Town Hall Annex at which KKC colleagues presented an outline of their program and solicited public feedback. Lane Kendig, president, and Mac Birch, principal and manager for the Groton project, said KKC planned to have proposals ready for approval within a year. The town’s Office of Planning and Development Services, host of the affair, made water and cookies available to those attending.
KKC’s main office is in Chicago, while Mr. Kendig works out of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. The town has said that the consultants will concentrate on updating the zoning and subdivision regulations but also will evaluate inland wetlands regulations, prepare a design manual and help develop new stormwater ordinances.
More than 30 persons attended the May 7 meeting, which began at 6 p.m. In addition, KKC held separate meetings with “stakeholders” in the updating process--including realtors, conservationists, large property owners and those interested in commercial development. Attendance at the stakeholders’ meetings was by invitation only, and a GOSA director, Joan Smith, who attended one meeting without being asked, was told by the Office of Planning and Development not to attend any further meetings without an invitation.
Mr. Birch said the rewrite would be “more than a code-drafting exercise” in that it would help to reflect in land use regulations the goals of the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development and the Strategic Economic Development Plan.
Asked about one goal of the POCD--preserving more open space in the town of Groton-- Mr. Kendig said, “That is up to the taxpayers.” Michael J. Murphy, head of the town’s Office of Planning and Development Services, sitting in the audience, nodded in agreement. Mr. Murphy later told the meeting that green belts, brought up at the meeting by Noank resident Zell Steever, were outside the scope of KKC’s assignment.
Mr. Kendig said not many towns have the financial means to acquire large amounts of open space. A member of the audience told him that Groton qualifies for 65% reimbursement of the cost of acquiring property under the state’s Open Space and Watershed Acquisition program but that the town had not tried to take advantage of this.
Mr. Kendig replied that he had “no problem with that. Both of these [land protection through sensitive development and through land acquisition] are viable techniques.” He added that his firm has helped create plans for communities to protect open space through acquisition, but he made clear this was not part of the current Groton program with KKC.
Among Mr. Kendig’s other points:
--It is a “myth” that density and commercial development are inherently bad for community character and the environment while residential development on big lots is good. Properly designed dense developments can look more “rural” than residential development on large lots, he said. Commercial development can enhance community character and promote downtown business through sign control, design standards and architectural review. He said that downtown Groton contains some of the same bad “autourban” characteristics that are found on "60% of Route 1 from Maine to Florida."
--Clustering allows developers to use land efficiently and thus promotes environmental protection. “Developers are willing to protect the land if they don’t have to pay for everything” by losing lots, he said.
--Proper density should be achieved through a “site capacity calculation” that sets a “protection level” for various tracts of land. He did not explain these concepts in any detail May 7 or compare and contrast them with buildable land definitions and density limits based on eliminating or discounting unbuildable land from density calculations. He said that site capacity regulations will require preservation of open space and allow no “wiggle” about it. After the May 8 meeting, he told a questioner that he wants to eliminate land-use board discretion through tightly worded regulation.
--“If Wal-Mart [currently seeking to build a super center in the watershed of Groton’s drinking water reservoir] wants to be here, they’ll cave, but you’ll have to stick it out.” It was unclear whether he was referring to the Groton situation or to a dispute involving Wal-Mart in Sturgeon Bay, WI, or to both.
--While implying that dealing with global warming consequences is not part of KKC’s assignment in Groton, he personally foresees a rise of 2 meters in water levels by the year 2100, with further rises after that. This will force “triage” on coastal communities, which will have to decide what to save at great cost and what to let go.
The Groton Open Space Association turned in to KKC a memo calling for: more open space protection; a buildable land definition with density limits that could be modified for high-density nodes; careful examination of proposals for floating zones; separation of the planning and development functions of Groton town government to allow for independent thinking about planning; and better protection of the town’s drinking water supply.
^ back to headlines
GOSA Holds Fundraiser For Merritt Property
By Sidney F. Van Zandt, GOSA Board Member
GROTON -- A fundraising dinner to “Save The Merritt Family Forest” was held by the Groton Open Space Association (GOSA) on April 24, 2008, at the Fisherman Restaurant at 937 Groton Long Point Road on the shores of Palmer’s Cove in Noank, CT.
The forest is the Keystone of our Groton Greenbelt. It joins large open space parcels to the west with those in the east. It is a haven for ground-dwelling and aquatic wildlife and for birds that survive only in woodlands. This fund drive is being conducted by the Groton Open Space Association 41 years after GOSA’s first fund drive in 1967 to Save the Haley Farm from duplex development. Through GOSA’s efforts, the farm became a state park in 1970.
The speakers at the Merritt fundraiser were Gina McCarthy, commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, and Sidney F. Van Zandt, one of the founders and the first president of GOSA, who now is a GOSA director and the Merritt Fund chairman. Approximately 150 persons attended the dinner.
The fund drive follows a recently ended five-year court battle against a developer’s efforts to put a housing project on the 75-acre Merritt parcel. The DEP awarded GOSA a $650,000 grant on April 8, 2003. GOSA signed an agreement April 14, 2003, to buy the property. The court struggle began the next day and didn’t end until the developer bowed out in January, 2008, after its appeal was turned down in the Connecticut Appellate Court in Hartford.
To complete the $1 million purchase and pay associated costs, as well as to create a fund to maintain the property, GOSA needs a total of $1,080,000. That figure includes the state grant and a $90,000 deposit already paid to F.L. Merritt Inc.
Commissioner McCarthy emphasized in her talk the importance of contiguous open spaces, as well as the need to fully implement her “No child left inside” program. Ms. Van Zandt gave a short history of the efforts of GOSA to preserve open space in Groton, including Haley Farm, Bluff Point and now The Merritt Family Forest.
GOSA wishes to thank the benefit committee, headed by Lis Raisbeck of Noank, and John Williams, owner of the Fisherman Restaurant, for providing help in this very successful fundraiser.
^ back to headlines
Wal-Mart Site Plan Withdrawn; IWA Application Stays
HARTFORD -- Konover Development Corp. is withdrawing its site plan for a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 in the Town of Groton and will file a new application after it responds to comments and questions from the Office of Planning and Development Services, Diane W. Whitney, an attorney representing Konover, said April 24, 2008.
However, Ms. Whitney said, “We will go forward with the wetlands application for this property which is currently under consideration as presently scheduled.” Ms. Whitney works in the Hartford office of Pullman & Comley, LLC.
Ms. Whitney notified the OPDS of Konover’s intentions in a letter to Matthew Davis, town planning manager, which was copied to Marjorie Shansky, attorney for neighborhood interveners opposing the project, and to GOSA, also intervening against the project. The 37-acre tract involved is in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system.
The Planning Commission, which last year turned down a Konover previous application for a Wal-Mart Super Center on the same site, had been expected to consider the new site plan at a meeting May 13. The commission was operating under a deadline of June 21 for a final decision. Konover is appealing the Planning Commission’s 2007 denial of its application to the New London Superior Court, even as it has filed the new plan--and now withdrawn it.
Ms. Whitney said, “It is apparent that more time will be required to respond to the comments and questions from members of the Town’s staff than is possible given the statutory time constraints for dealing with applications such as this, so rather than rush to respond to the comments, Konover has decided to withdraw the application, prepare full responses, and file a new application at a later date.”
She said the new site plan application might be changed from the just-withdrawn plan and suggested that expert review be suspended until new plans are filed.
The Inland Wetlands Agency, which in 2006 approved an application for the project, is scheduled to consider planned modifications to the project at a meeting May 14.
^ back to headlines
Wal-Mart IWA Hearing To Resume May 14; Planning Likely May 13
By Joan Smith, GOSA Director
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency is scheduled to continue its hearings May 14, 2008, on Konover Development Corp.’s request for changes in a previously approved plan to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system.
Much controversy at the last meeting April 9, 2008, centered on the question of whether Konover’s request for what it called a small change could provide an opportunity for opponents to reopen hearings on the project as a whole.
The IWA approved the project April 26, 2006, after determining it was a “minor activity,” meaning one with minimal potential impacts on the town’s inland wetlands and watercourses. The Planning Commission, on the other hand, turned down the application early in the morning of Feb. 16, 2007, after a marathon meeting. The developer has appealed the Planning Commission decision and has filed a whole new application. The new application is expected to be heard by the Planning Commission May 13, 2008, though the agenda for that date has not yet been set.
Konover’s attorney, Diane Whitney, called the change that is now before the IWA a “very minor part of a minor activity.” Opponents at the hearing contended that the project never should have been classified as minor, that the information on which the IWA based its approval was flawed and that the original application ought to be reheard.
IWA Chairman David Scott argued that the hearing should consider only the changes proposed, which include reconfiguration of a stone wall between the proposed 37-acre Konover/Wal-Mart site and an adjacent office park, as well as a change in drainage of storm water. Mr. Scott said sentiment against Wal-Mart as a corporation appeared to play a part in opposition to the project and added that such feelings were irrelevant to the proceedings.
Marjorie Shansky, representing one intervener and filing intervention notices for two others, expressed “a certain degree of incredulity” at attempts to limit scope of IWA discussions. She said she has driven the perimeter of the reservoir and observed the fence that protects it from certain visible threats. She told the IWA:
“We are looking to you to protect it from the invisible threats.”
Steven Trinkaus, an engineer representing the interveners, told the IWA that the project’s planned storm water processors -- hydrodynamic separators -- do not remove 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) in water, as claimed, but average only 30% removal. The devices tend to become less efficient in cold weather, which increases the viscosity of water and reduces the centrifugal force of water swirling through the system.
Mr. Trinkaus added that water running off the roof is not planned to be treated, even though it can contain acids and particulates.
Elizabeth Raisbeck, of Noank, pointed out that Section 10.10a of the Inland Wetland Regulations allows the IWA to revoke a permit if it was granted on the basis of inaccurate information.
Mary Ellen Furlong, an alternate member of the IWA, said she believed the IWA had in fact acted on the mistaken information that swirl separators remove 80% of TSS and said she would not have voted for the project if she had known then what she knows now about swirl separators. She reminded Ms. Whitney that under terms of the IWA permit, storm water runoff would be tested following construction. If the water were found to be below standards set by Groton Utilities, then expensive remedial work would be required.
Ms. Furlong also noted testimony by Robert DeSantos, another consultant to the interveners, that the change being proposed would send an additional 365,000 gallons of water per year -- well over 1,000 gallons a day -- into a retention pond in the adjacent office park. She asked if this water -- and far greater flows on rainy days -- would then flow north under Route 184 and into Hempstead Brook, which flows into the reservoir and was informed this was the case.
Ms. Whitney told the IWA that Konover had offered to make changes in view of questions about the efficacy of swirl separators but had been told by the town that this was not necessary.
Joan Smith, a director of the Groton Open Space Association, raised the question of whether the applicant had authority to apply for a permit in the first place. She noted that a Konover option on one tract of land involved in the project was signed March 28, 2007, nearly a year after the permit was granted. Deb Jones, of the Town of Groton Office of Planning and Development Services, responded that the document involved was a new option with a new owner.
In continuing the session, Mr. Scott said that he would confer with the town attorney on this point and also would also look into a discrepancy between addresses of the project on the original application and the application for the changes.
Zell Steever, of Noank, who has a background as a wetlands ecologist and state water expert, told the IWA that the Wal-Mart application never was minor but rather was major. He urged that an independent expert be hired to determine the precise post-construction flow of water from the site with respect to wetlands, the Hempstead Brook and the Groton Utilities reservoir, which receives water from Hempstead Brook. He said the law allows the IWA to suspend hearings until it gets full information.
^ back to headlines
Date of Option Signature An Issue In Wal-Mart Appeal
By Joan Smith, GOSA Director
NEW LONDON -- The Town of Groton argued in Superior Court April 8, 2008, that a Konover Development Corp. legal challenge to the Groton Planning Commission’s refusal to approve a Wal-Mart Super Center off Route 184 is undermined by defective documentation.
Town Attorney Michael Carey told the court that Konover’s option on one parcel of land involved in the project is dated March 28, 2007, well after the Feb. 16, 2007, commission denial of the application.
The land involved is referred to as the Shetucket Plumbing parcel. Shetucket Plumbing is located on Route 184 in he area of the planned project. Mr. Carey said that in addition to the tardy signature, there were no witnesses to the signing. He said that Konover, without a title to or interest in the land, had no right to file an application to build on it. Therefore, he argued, Konover’s whole appeal is undermined.
Diane Whitney, attorney for Konover, could not immediately explain the late signing but got Judge Joseph Purtill’s permission for a two-week period in which to research the question and respond. She said that Konover would not have filed the application without consent of all owners of property involved.
The Wal-Mart project has proved highly controversial, in large part because the so-called super center would be built in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system and would, in the view of opponents, imperil the drinking water supply. Wal-Mart would cover approximately 40% of the approximately 38-acre development site. Other businesses would fill in the site later.
Ms. Whitney contended that the commission acted arbitrarily in denying the application. The commission was just saying “‘We don’t like this application. It isn’t good enough,’” she said. The denial was not based on concrete evidence, she argued.
Mr. Carey said the town based its decision in part on expert testimony, not challenged by Konover, that the proposed stormwater management system would not remove 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, as claimed. He added that the commissioners were not satisfied with the applicant’s answers to questions about containment of hazardous materials and runoff in the event of fire.
Ms. Whitney called the hazardous materials issue a “form of ambush.” She claimed that Konover had no idea of what the commission expected of it.
Marjorie Shansky, attorney for neighbors who are intervening in the process, said, “This is an era of consequences. The public drinking water supply is perhaps the most fundamental resource a municipality has.” Ms. Shansky said the commission has the authority to approve, disapprove or modify a plan and may decide upon the credibility of witnesses.
Judge Purtill was expected to decide on the appeal within 120 days.
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart has submitted a second, slightly modified application to the Planning Commission. The commission has until June 21, 2008, to decide on the new plan, but no date has been set for a meeting on it. The Inland Wetlands Agency, which approved the project in 2006, will hold a hearing April 9, 2008, on modifications of the original proposal.
(This account incorporates some material from a story in The Day April 9, 2008, by Katie Warchut)
^ back to headlines
Public Meeting Planned On Land-Use Rule Rewrite For Groton
GROTON -- A public meeting is scheduled for May 7, 2008, on plans to rewrite land-use regulations in Groton, Planning Manager Matthew Davis said April 7, 2008.
Mr. Davis said the meeting, co-sponsored by the Planning and Zoning commissions, will be held in the evening, with the time to be determined, at the Town Hall Annex. He said the meeting may be televised on the local access cable station, but no final confirmation exists on that.
He said the primary purpose of the meeting will be to provide an overview of what is involved in the rewrite process. The town signed a contract March 21, 2008, with Kendig Keast, a consulting firm, for assistance in the project. The initial meeting is expected to involve a presentation by Kendig Keast and “may” allow for some public input.
Mr. Davis said that the consultants, while in Groton, will conduct “stakeholder interviews.” Stakeholders are expected to be contacted shortly so interviews can be scheduled.
Kendig Keast’s website lists offices in Sturgeon Bay, WI; Chicago; Sugar Land, TX; and Centennial, CO.
^ back to headlines
Deadline For Planning Decision On Wal-Mart Extended
GROTON -- Konover Development Corp., the company that wants to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system, has agreed to an extension of the deadline for a Planning Commission decision on its new application for the facility.
Diane Whitney, attorney for Konover, has sent a letter to the commission granting a new date for final decision of June 21, 2008. Previously, the deadline had been April 17, 2008.
At the same time Konover is submitting a new application to the Planning Commission for the super center, it is appealing an early 2007 decision by the commission to deny its first application. The Superior Court at New London is due to hear arguments in the Planning Commission appeal on April 8, 2008.
The Inland Wetlands Agency approved the project in 2006, but will hear on April 9, 2008, Konover’s application to modify certain aspects of the approved plan.
Under Connecticut law, the Planning Commission must act upon a developer’s applications within 65 days of receiving it unless the developer agrees to an extension.
^ back to headlines
Wal-Mart Developer Tries To Censor Public Water Talks
GROTON -- The lawyer for a company that wants to develop a Wal-Mart Super Center in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system tried to prevent discussion of the project at a public meeting on drinking water quality March 31, 2008, in the Town Hall Annex.
Diane Whitney, attorney for Konover Development Corp., immediately interrupted Jim Furlong, a Mystic resident, at the meeting when he named the proposed Wal-Mart project on Route 184 as a potential threat that could attract further development to the watershed.
Ms. Whitney said that some members of the Inland Wetlands Agency were attending the meeting and asserted the project therefore should not be discussed. The agency, which previously approved the project, is scheduled to hear -- at its meeting April 9, 2008 -- some proposed changes in the Wal-Mart plan. Her implication presumably was that the members could be influenced by any discussion at the drinking water quality meeting.
The session was called to disseminate and gather information for the Drinking Water Quality Management Plan for Groton, Ledyard, Preston, Norwich, Montville, Waterford and North Stonington. It was conducted by representatives of Milone & MacBroom, Inc., of Cheshire, CT, the plan consultant. Approximately 25 persons attended the meeting, and provided wide-ranging input on shellfish, treatment costs, pervious hard surfaces and other matters.
After Ms. Whitney broke in, Mr. Furlong told the attorney that he hoped “Wal-Mart will let me speak.” He said that “censorship, here, in a public meeting, is not allowed.” He said members of the Inland Wetlands Agency would make up their own minds about the project.
Ms. Whitney did not pursue her objection further. Jeanine Armstrong Bonin, public engineer, who was moderating the discussion, asked Mr. Furlong to avoid discussion of specific projects. He finished his thought and moved on to his general points. The points were that commercial zoning along Route 184 is a source of potential damage to water quality and that the town itself has not proven an adequate guardian of water quality. He pointed out that the Groton Open Space Association had been forced to step in several years ago to limit the danger posed to Great Brook, main conduit between the upper and lower reservoirs, by the Great Brook subdivision. He urged the consultants to come up with a water protection plan with the “teeth” that currently are missing. The town’s Office of Planning and Development Services has distanced itself from the water-protection measures for residents that GOSA negotiated with the Great Brook developer.
(Mr. Furlong, a member of GOSA, is writer of this report.)
Among other public comments:
Joan Smith, of Groton, a director of the Groton Open Space Association, said that the time is opportune in Groton for new environmental initiatives to protect drinking water because the town has just hired consultants to help rewrite zoning regulations. In addition, she said that towns that set aside watershed land ought to receive payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT), as do towns that host state parks.
Syma Ebbin PhD, of the City of Groton, said Groton should avoid the need for extensive treatment of water by limiting sources of pollution. She noted that if heavy treatment should become required, the quality of untreated water flowing over the Groton Utilities dam into the Poquonnock River and Long Island Sound by implication would be bad. She said that New York City avoided having to make vast expenditures for new treatment facilities by implementing environmental protections in the Catskills around its reservoirs there.
Ed Murphy, chairman of the Town of Groton Shellfish Commission, said shellfish are entirely absent from western Connecticut. “Let’s not let that...happen here,” he said.
Sue Sutherland, a member of the Town of Groton Zoning Commission, speaking for herself, urged examination of potential impacts of full buildouts on water supplies. She took note of projections that southeast Connecticut’s need for water will exceed supply by 2010.
Rusty Warner, of Noank, a environmental consultant to architects, developers and homeowners, said “win-win” solutions to water problems are possible, but he urged the consultants to come up with enforceable measures that won’t be scrapped when budgets get tight.
Paul Bates, a director of the Noank Water Department, said the department wants to avoid the need for more treatment and would support efforts to acquire land to protect the watershed.
Sidney Van Zandt, of Noank, a member of the advisory board to the Drinking Water Quality Management Plan¸ urged that only low impact development be allowed in areas that function as watersheds for drinking water. She held up Jordan Cove in Waterford as an example for other towns to emulate, saying the development has no stormwater runoff.
Sandy Van Zandt, of Noank, urged the consultants to look into pervious pavements such as those under study at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center. He noted that pervious asphalt allows water to infiltrate straight down into the ground.
The Drinking Water Quality Management Plan consultants expect to hold meetings on a draft plan in October and publish a final version in November. The effort is funded by a state legislative act.
Further information on the plan is available at this Groton Utilities web address.
^ back to headlines
Groton Hires Midwest/West Firm To Help Rewrite Land-Use Regs
GROTON -- The Town of Groton Office of Planning and Development Services (OPDS) said March 26, 2008, that it has hired Kendig Keast Collaborative, a municipal planning group, to help rewrite the town’s land use regulations.
Matthew Davis, planning manager, said in response to a query that Groton had signed a contract with the firm March 21, 2008.
Michael J. Murphy, director of the OPDS, had said in July 2005 that he anticipated a comprehensive review of zoning regulations would take place in 2006. In May 2007, he cited the still-forthcoming review -- to be conducted with the help of outside consultants -- as one reason he opposed an application by the Groton Open Space Association for a buildable land definition, to be inserted into the zoning regulations.
Mr. Murphy said during a hearing on the application that he wasn’t prepared to work with GOSA on a zoning rule change prior to the review. GOSA’s application was turned down. However, Mr. Murphy later backed a successful floating zone amendment independent of the review process.
Kendig Keast’s website lists offices in Sturgeon Bay, WI; Sugar Land, TX, Chicago, and Centennial, CO.
Earlier this year, Mr. Davis offered the following in response to a GOSA query as to the identity of the project leader for Kendig Keast:
"...please be advised that we anticipate the scope of services/work program will include many opportunities for structured engagement by a
diverse group of interests, including interviews at an early stage in
the process. However, for budgetary and other practical reasons,
members of the public, individuals or those representing interest groups
will not be permitted to have direct contact with the consultant,
outside of the approved, adopted work program. This will not only allow
the Town to control costs and be efficient, but will also protect the
overall integrity of the process and in so doing, will enhance the
legitimacy of any eventual outcome."
^ back to headlines
Planning Commission Study Of Wal-Mart As Yet Not Scheduled
GROTON -- No schedule has been set for Planning Commission consideration of a developer’s new application to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184, Matthew Davis, town planning manager, said March 13, 2008.
Mr. Davis previously had noted that the application by Konover Development Corp., which would develop the Route 184 tract for Wal-Mart, was presented to the Planning Commission Feb. 12. The commission has 65 days from that date -- or until April 17 -- to act, assuming no extension of the decision period.
The Planning Commission has regular meetings on March 25 and April 8 between now and the deadline. A special meeting is a possibility.
An earlier Konover application for a Super Wal-Mart on the site -- which is in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system -- had been denied by the Planning Commission at its Feb. 15, 2007, meeting. Konover has appealed that decision to the New London Superior Court.
Wal-Mart would cover approximately 40% of the 38-acre site. Additional businesses ultimately would be placed on the site, but no application currently exists for these.
The Inland Wetlands Agency approved the project April 26, 2006. The new plan involves some changes that are subject to IWA approval, and an IWA hearing on these is set for April 9. Opponents are urging that the IWA review the entire project.
Mr. Davis has noted that statutes provide for automatic extensions of the Planning Commission’s deadline if the IWA hasn’t acted when the Planning Commission deadline is reached.
Wal-Mart currently has a Super Center in Waterford and a non-“Super” shopping facility in Groton on Route 184 near Route 12.
The New York Times reported March 12, 2008, that Wal-Mart has shelved plans to build a store in Monsey, NY, in Rockland County, following intense opposition by residents, who cited quality of life considerations, as well as economic issues raised by Wal-Mart’s giant size.
Opponent Christopher P. St. Lawrence, town supervisor of Ramapo, NY--which includes Monsey--said, “We’re very pro-business here, but it has to be the right business.”
^ back to headlines
IWA To Hear Wal-Mart Change Application April 9
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency has set April 9, 2008, for a public hearing on a developer’s request to modify its wetlands permit to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system.
The IWA had approved the project April 26, 2006, before the developer publicly confirmed speculation that its client for the project was Wal-Mart. The same project later was denied by the Planning Commission--at 2:20 a.m. February 16, 2007.
The application for the modification was introduced to the IWA at its meeting Feb. 13, 2008.
The town planning staff and Diane Whitney, attorney for Konover Development Corp., which would build the project on behalf of Wal-Mart, told the IWA that it could not legally reconsider the whole project but would need to confine itself to ruling on the small changes proposed.
F.A. Hesketh & Associates Inc., of Granby, engineers for the developer, said the changes would involve routing less runoff water to the Hempstead Brook area. The brook runs into the Groton Utilties reservoir system. In addition, the developer would build a natural stone wall between the proposed Wal-Mart parking lot and the adjacent Gold Star Office Park. Previously, composite stone wall had been contemplated.
The Groton Open Space Association argued that the IWA has “a duty to review the entire plan, including previously approved materials. A narrow focus on the proposed changes alone, without consideration of the entire context, ignores the potential for contamination of the water resources.”
Opponents of the Wal-Mart project presented a petition demanding a public hearing on the application to ensure the matter would get a thorough airing, and the April hearing was set.
The Wal-Mart complex would cover approximately 40% of the 38-acre site. Konover’s plans include additional businesses on other parts of the site, but no application has been submitted for them as yet. IWA alternate member Mary Ellen Furlong said that if the additional businesses should require tie-ins to the proposed
Wal-Mart storm water disposal system, then the plans for the whole site would have to be reviewed.
GOSA’s main concern with the project stems from a desire to protect the town’s water supply. Residents in the area worry about heavy traffic, noise and light pollution and esthetic deterioration. Wal-Mart’s anti-union policies concern others.
Karl Acimovic, a Groton Utilities engineer, had told the commission at its previous hearing that the proposed development “is situated in the southwesterly portion of our watershed and is in close proximity to the Hempstead Brook (within 500 feet), which feeds directly into our terminal reservoir system. By overland flow and stream from the southwest corner of the parcel, it is also within 1,000 feet of Poquonnock Reservoir and within 600 feet of wetlands surrounding the reservoir.”
Separately, Konover has submitted a new application to the Planning Commission for the project.
^ back to headlines
GOSA Appeals For Funds For Merritt Property Purchase
GROTON -- The Groton Open Space Association needs to raise an additional $200,000 for its purchase of the Merritt Property and is seeking public contributions.
Following is the text of a public appeal by Sidney F. Van Zandt, Chairman The Merritt Family Forest Fund Raising Committee:
GOOD NEWS! The five years of legal battles are over. The Merritt Family Forest can now be saved, and we need your help to do it!
Enclosed [see below] is a copy of the New London Day editorial of January 17, 2008, on the good news that GOSA has finally won our legal contest to save the Merritt property--after nearly five long years of continuous and costly effort. We are working with the Department of Environmental Protection now to arrange release of the $650,000 grant that the DEP has held in reserve for us for all these years. This should occur shortly. We now need to raise the balance of the $1 million purchase price.
Stretching along the south side of Route 1 between the summit of Fort Hill and Fishtown Road, the tract is the keystone of Groton’s eastern greenbelt. The greenbelt begins on the west with Bluff Point and the Haley Farm, both state parks that GOSA was instrumental in saving. Together, they total more than 1,000 acres, and they link up with the Mort Wright Preserve, which through the Merritt property in turn is connected to other publicly and privately protected green spaces to the east. These include Pequot Woods, the former Christmas tree farm on Route 1, and -- near Cutler Middle School -- Beebe Pond Park and Avalonia Land Trust tracts...
The Merritt Family Forest is not only strategically located but is also ecologically rich. It contains stands of trees not logged for more than 130 years, vernal pools, two pristine streams that converge to run into Palmer's Cove, and diverse wildlife habitat. This description of the environmental treasures of this 75-acre property is taken from an op-ed piece that appeared in The Day June 5, 2005, after GOSA's first victory, in Superior Court, in the legal drama to save this land. In spite of the optimistic op-ed headline, the legal battle continued until December 2007, when the Appellate Court ruled decisively in GOSA's favor. The op-ed gives the story of GOSA’s endeavor first to ease the impact of a proposed housing development, and its later discovery with disbelief that it might save the property...
Roughly half of Groton is still open land, but only 11 percent of the town is preserved open space, and development pressures threaten to quickly fill land that is not protected. GOSA feels that it is vitally important to save this valuable piece of property. We note that a proposed development of great density for the north side of Fort Hill has been making the rounds of the Inland Wetlands Agency and the Zoning Commission for over a year and a half. It would essentially clear cut much of those woodlands on that hillside.
Back in April 2003, GOSA signed a contract to buy the Merritt property for $1,000,000, with the aid of the $650,000 state grant. GOSA gave F.L. Merritt, Inc., a deposit of $90,000 at the time. Since then, we have raised more funds and estimate we have a need for an additional $200,000 for the purchase.
We now turn to you to take a stand. Once open space is gone, it is gone! Please join us in this crucial fight to save this jewel by making your most generous contribution to GOSA with the hope of passing on a living legacy for the generations that follow.
Help us in our final push to save this Keystone of the Greenbelt, The Merritt Family Forest.
[Please click "To Make A Merritt Property Contribution" high on this page for a guide to giving. GOSA is a charitable non-profit corporation, and contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by the law.]
^ back to headlines
The Day Urges Public To Pitch In On Merritt Fund
NEW LONDON -- The Day urged in an editorial Jan. 17, 2008, that supporters of open space contribute to a GOSA fund to help acquire the 75-acre Merritt Property atop Fort Hill.
Following is the editorial:
The 75-acre Merritt property in Groton is a densely wooded tract with rolling hills, a pond and moss-covered stone walls that serve as vestiges of its agrarian roots.The land, like so much other open space in the region, is adjacent to an extensive residential development — and until last week it appeared it would undergo the same, all-too-familiar transformation from forest to housing.
But after five years of litigation, the Groton Open Space Association (GOSA) finally was able to declare victory when a developer that wanted to build 48 single-family homes bowed to a state Appellate Court ruling and decided to give up its claim to buy the property atop Fort Hill just west of Fishtown Road.
“We won!” Sidney F. Van Zandt, director of the open-space organization, trumpeted earlier this week.
But the fight to save the land — which serves as a key link in a greenbelt that runs through Bluff Point Coastal Reserve, Haley Farm State Park, the Mortimer D. Wright Preserve, Avalonia Land Trust property and Beebe Pond Park — is far from over.
Now GOSA, a private, nonprofit, grassroots organization that for more than 30 years has helped preserve such significant open spaces as the Haley Farm and Bluff Point, must raise money to help buy the property, which would become known as The Merritt Family Forest.
Landowner F.L. Merritt Inc. has agreed to sell it for $1 million. GOSA, which already has made a down payment and also secured a $650,000 state grant to apply toward the purchase, has launched a campaign to raise the final $175,000.
We urge all who value open space and recognize the significance of this parcel to pitch in. More information on how to donate is available on the group's Web site, gosaonline.org.
“We turn to the citizens of southeastern Connecticut to help us save another piece of green space,” Mrs. Van Zandt said. “Once it is gone, it is gone. We will never have a chance again.”
^ back to headlines
GOSA, Merritt Win Final Legal Battle In Contract Dispute
HARTFORD -- The Groton Open Space Association and F.L. Merritt Inc. have won the final legal battle in their nearly five-year struggle to allow GOSA to purchase the 75-acre Merritt property on Fort Hill and preserve it as public open space, it was verified Jan. 9, 2008.
Lawyers for the Cheshire developer Ravenswood Construction LLC said the company hasn’t filed and didn’t intend to file an appeal of a crucial Appellate Court decision last month. That decision upheld a New London Superior Court jury dismissal in May 2005 of Ravenswood’s claim to have a contract to buy the land--a contract that Ravenswood contended pre-dated GOSA’s contract.
Ravenswood had 20 days to appeal following formal publication of the Appellate Court ruling Dec. 18. The developer could have applied to the Supreme Court for a review of the Appellate Court decision. The high court normally takes one to three months to decide on such applications. A review, if one had been granted, could have required more than a year to be completed.
GOSA signed a contract April 14, 2003, to buy the property from Merritt. The next day, Ravenswood asserted its claim of a prior contract, filed suit and placed a legal hold on the land. That began the lengthy legal battle through the Superior Court and then the Appellate Court that now has ended.
The struggle included a SLAPP suit filed by Ravenswood and Mystic Estates Partners of New London against GOSA and nine individuals accusing them of contractual interference and abuse of the legal process. The suit against GOSA -- SLAPP stands for “Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation” -- was dropped hastily in July, 2003. At the time, Groton Atty. Paulann H. Sheets, acting for GOSA, noted that state Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal and the Connecticut Fund for the Environment had been about to announce their intention to support GOSA in court when the suit was withdrawn.
Shortly before signing the contract, GOSA had won a $650,000 grant from the state Department of Environmental Protection toward the $1 million purchase price. The closing is to take place upon payment of the grant, which had been held up only by the legal block placed on the land by Ravenswood. The Merritt property stretches along the south side of Route 1 between the summit of Fort Hill and Fishtown Road.
GOSA President Priscilla Pratt said GOSA would move quickly to close. The property, to be preserved for passive recreation, will be known as The Merritt Family Forest.
Lead lawyer for the defendants was Elizabeth Leamon, of the New Haven firm of Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn. Other defense attorneys were Gerald A. Cory of New London and, on the brief, Ben A. Solnit, a partner at Tyler-Cooper.
Attorney William Kroll of Salem represented F.L. Merritt during the jury trial. Lawyer for GOSA was William Hescock of North Stonington.
Representing the plaintiff Ravenswood were Paul M. Geraghty and Michael S. Bonnano of New London and James M. Miele of Cheshire.
^ back to headlines
Mystic Woods Appeal Charges Bad OPDS Advice To Zoning Unit
GROTON -- The Groton Open Space Association has appealed the Zoning Commission’s approval of the Mystic Woods over-55 housing project, contending that the town’s planning staff gave bad advice to the commission, impermissibly advocated for the applicant developer, and usurped the commission’s role.
The appeal to the New London Superior Court, dated Dec. 20, 2007, seeks to overturn the Zoning Commission’s split 3-2 approval Dec. 5 of the Mystic Woods development. GOSA has been joined in the appeal by several owners of abutting property. The project’s approximately 70 buildings containing 201 units would sit on 47 clear-cut acres of a 105-acre tract on Fort Hill.
Atty. Peter B. Cooper, of the New Haven firm of Cooper, Whitney, Cochran & Francois, represents GOSA in the Zoning Commission action.
This is the second appeal against a land-use commission approval of the project. The Inland Wetlands Agency’s split Sept. 12, 2007, approval of Mystic Woods also is subject of a Superior Court appeal by GOSA and Fort Hill neighbors.
The Zoning Commission appeal argues that the Commission, in deciding whether to grant a special permit, such as is required for Mystic Woods, has the discretion to determine whether a project would be suitable from the points of view of harmony with the existing neighborhood; traffic flow; and environmental impact. The document said that a majority of the commission “accepted erroneous legal advice from the Commission’s staff that it had no discretion but to approve the density level as proposed in the application, without independently subjecting the effects of that proposed density” to the special permit standards. It said the commission in acting on a special permit is not bound to the “mechanical application of density and bulk regulations.”
Among other key points of the appeal:
--During the commission’s deliberations Dec. 5, the planning staff “interjected itself to such a significant extent...that it crossed over the line between permissible consultation and planning advice as requested by the Commission to an impermissible advocacy role on behalf of the applicant.” The applicant is Hawthorne Development Partners LLC of Woburn, MA.
--Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, told the Commission Dec. 5 that “The applicant is meeting the standards of the regulations now...this is not a site plan.” The appeal says that “the legal conclusion that the standards of Section 8.3-8 [special permit zoning regulations] have been met is a Commission function, not a Staff one. In short, the Staff impermissibly usurped and effectively limited the necessary discretionary role of the Commission...”
--The development density of 201 units on 47 acres is double the norm for the RU-20 zone involved and would thus be inharmonious with the orderly development of the RU-20 district. It said Mystic Woods would imperil valuable Wetland #11 near the entrance/exit road and would create adverse traffic impacts on Flanders Road.
--The tract is “in the rural residential or RU-20 zone which is designated by the Town Plan of Conservation and Development as a conservation area, and which recommends topography based density limits in order to be in compliance with the ‘harmony’ provisions of the special permit objectives.”
--The plan was impermissibly re-engineered “on the fly”--in the words of Chairman Stephen Hudecek--in a way that was not subject to review and analysis of the intervenors and the public after the public hearing had closed. [After staff objected to member Richard Haviland’s proposal for a reduction in the number of units, Mr. Haviland quickly called for an increased buffer between certain boundary lines of existing houses in the neighborhood and proposed buildings in the project. He asked for a ruler and drew lines on a plan to show his suggestion to other Commission members.] The proposal, which the appeal called “cosmetic...but unanalyzed,” was accepted by the Commission majority.
Voting against the Zoning Commission decision Dec. 5 were Chairman Hudecek and member Mariellen French. Voting to approve were members Haviland, Douglas Brandt and Robert O’Neill.
The appeal, which names the Zoning Commission and Hawthorne Development Partners as defendants, calls for the defendants to respond by Jan. 29, 2008.
^ back to headlines
GOSA Director Fairgrieve Urges Action On Open Space Plan For Groton
GROTON -- GOSA Director Edith Fairgrieve has urged town officials to give more priority to developing a plan for protecting remaining open space in the town.
She told a meeting of the Committee of Chairpersons Nov. 29, 2007, that the topic largely is confined to the Conservation Commission.
Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, responded by saying that the press of other work had prevented the OPDS from taking action on the Conservation Commission’s list of properties desirable for protection.
This is Ms. Fairgrieve’s statement:
Any suggestion that Groton needs to develop a town open space plan and the measures to implement it is officially ignored outside of the Conservation Commission.
The commission issued a map and list of “Properties Desirable for Protection” in November 2005 and submitted it to the Planning Department for the pending update of the Plan of Conservation and Development. No action was taken by Planning. Two years later the Conservation Commission is revising the list to be resubmitted for the same purpose with a number of properties dropped from the list because of development.
GOSA asks, “Will the revised list quickly move to be included in the updated Plan of Conservation and Development?” “Will there be a hearing for community input?”
It is important to open the subject of open space preservation for town-wide discussion. Presently the topic is bottled up in the Conservation Commission.
^ back to headlines
State Appellate Court Upholds Verdict Favoring Merritt, GOSA
HARTFORD -- The state Appellate Court has ruled in favor of F.L. Merritt Inc. and the Groton Open Space Association in their contract dispute with Cheshire developer Ravenswood Construction LLC over who will buy the 75-acre Merritt property on Fort Hill.
The ruling was released Dec. 12, 2007, and is to be published in the Connecticut Law Journal Dec. 18. Ravenswood will have 20 days from Dec. 18 to decide whether to seek a review by the state Supreme Court. The state’s highest court usually grants only a small percentage of requests for a review.
If Ravenswood should request a review, the Supreme Court probably would take one to three months to decide whether to hear the case. If the court refuses, the proceedings are over. If it should agree, a final decision could take another 12-16 months.
A three-judge panel of the Appellate Court heard oral arguments in the case Sept. 6, 2007. The panel consisted of Chief Judge Joseph P. Flynn, Judge Thomas A. Bishop and Judge Trial Referee David M. Borden. The decision was written by Judge Flynn, with the other judges concurring.
GOSA had signed a contract April 14, 2003, to buy the Merritt property, a wooded tract cut by two streams, from F.L. Merritt Inc. for $1 million, with the aid of a $650,000 state grant. The property would be preserved as public open space. Shortly afterward, Ravenswood sued F.L. Merritt to compel it to perform on what Ravenswood said was its own pre-existing contract to buy the land. GOSA later voluntarily joined the suit as a defendant.
A Superior Court jury found May 18, 2005, that Ravenswood’s claim to have a
pre-existing contract was not valid. Superior Court Judge Seymour Hendel then ruled that GOSA’s contract was valid. Atty. William Kroll of Salem represented F.L. Merritt in the jury trial. GOSA was represented by Atty. William Hescock of North Stonington. Ravenswood appealed the verdict.
The Appellate Court now has upheld the jury’s finding and Judge Hendel’s conduct of the trial. Ravenswood had contended that Judge Hendel erred by: failing to instruct the jury properly, allowing into evidence an unsigned contract rider, restricting
cross-examination of a witness, and failing to overturn a jury verdict that was (1) against the weight of the evidence and (2) against the court’s instructions. The Appellate Court turned down each point of the Ravenswood appeal.
Lead lawyer for the defense was Elizabeth L. Leamon, of the New Haven firm of Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn. Other members of the defense team were Gerald A. Cory, of New London, and, on the brief, Ben A. Solnit, of Tyler-Cooper.
Representing the plaintiff were Paul M. Geraghty and Michael S. Bonnano, of New London, and James M. Miele, of Cheshire.
For the full text of the Appellate Court decision, click here.
^ back to headlines
New Mystic Woods Buffer From Adjacent Property Lines Larger By 25 Feet
GROTON -- A condition imposed on Mystic Woods by the Zoning Commission Dec. 5, 2007, enlarges the buffer between some buildings in the project and the boundaries of adjacent properties, the Office of Planning and Development Services said Dec. 6, 2007. (See story immediately below for background.)
The buffer enlargement--to a minimum of 100 feet from the 75 feet specified in the Active Senior Housing section of the town zoning regulations--would apply to property boundaries at the north ends of Hemlock and Stonecrest roads and to several properties on the southwest side of Hemlock. However, a sizeable stretch on the west side of Hemlock is excluded from the condition.
At a Nov. 7, 2007 hearing on the project, the focus regarding buffers was on the distance between buildings in the project and neighboring buildings, rather than the property boundaries of neighbors. Under a developer’s concession announced then, the nearest house would be 207 feet from the nearest ASH building--on a structure-to-structure basis.
The impact, if any, of the shift on numbers of buildings in the project was not immediately clear. Zoning Commission Chairman Stephen Hudecek pointed out during the deliberations that the proposed change would not necessarily require any reduction in numbers of buildings.
It is clear from the plan that the location of some buildings would have to be changed, though the vast majority already conform to the mandated change. An OPDS planner declined to estimate the number of buildings--as opposed to dwelling units-- that would have to be reconfigured, moved or removed as a result of the condition. A GOSA guesstimate--but only that--might be six buildings, of which two already had been scheduled to be relocated or eliminated in accordance with a proposal by the applicant Nov. 7, 2007.
^ back to headlines
Zoning Conditionally Approves Mystic Woods; Vote Split
GROTON -- The Zoning Commission by a split 3-2 vote gave conditional approval Dec. 5, 2007, to the Mystic Woods Active Senior Housing project on Fort Hill.
The approval at the commission’s regular meeting included a condition that the development’s proposed motor vehicle exit onto Route 1 be restricted to emergency use.
The public hearing on the application had ended Nov. 7.
The second condition comprised new 100-foot setbacks from existing neighborhoods. These setbacks were drawn on a map during the meeting by commission member Richard Haviland but not shown to members of the public attending the commission’s deliberations.
It was not clear immediately whether and to what extent these setbacks would affect the number of units in the development, which had stood at 201. Harry Heller, attorney for Hawthorne Development Partners of Woburn, MA, had told the Nov. 7 hearing that the development had agreed to widened separation of the new housing complex from the two closest existing neighborhood houses.
Mr. Haviland originally had urged that the developer scale the project back to around 160 units but withdrew his suggestion in favor of larger buffers after Matthew Davis, town planning manager, indicated that a numerical limitation could be interpreted as “arbitrary.”
Chairman Stephen Hudecek heatedly contended that Mr. Haviland’s hastily drawn new setbacks on a map amounted to impermissible “re-engineering of [the] project on the fly.” He said, “We have no idea what the project will look like after the change.” He told Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, that Mr. Murphy had advised in the past against such wholesale changes to applications.
Mr. Murphy insisted that conditions of this type were permissible in a special permit process, such as is involved with Mystic Woods.
Mr. Hudecek said he felt the planned development would have negative effects on traffic, the environment and existing neighborhoods--the three key points to be considered when commissions weigh applications for a special permit.
Voting for the conditional approval were commission members Robert O’Neill, Douglas Brandt and Mr. Haviland. Voting against were Mr. Hudecek and Mariellen French. Ms. French had expressed reservations about project's scale and its impact on the Long Island Sound and traffic on Flanders Road. She also said she didn’t feel comfortable about the type of change in the application being made by the commission.
Prior to the closure of the session, Mr. Hudecek said the action of the commission was “way different from anything we’ve ever done.” He expressed disappointment not only with the evening’s proceedings but also with the town’s staff work on the Active Senior Housing amendment, adopted in 2005, “which allowed these things in the first place.” The ASH amendment was adopted without a buildable land definition.
A buildable land definition, long advocated without result by GOSA, would permit cluster housing, such as ASH, but would have the effect of limiting numbers of units in them by discounting unbuildable acres from the computation of permitted dwellings.
Mr. Murphy countered Mr. Hudecek’s criticism by saying, “They’re good regulations. Things change. They don’t stay stagnant.”
Earlier in the discussion, members Brandt, O’Neill and Haviland all had expressed unease about the size of the project -- more than 70 buildings -- and its traffic impact, though members Brandt and Haviland did not show concern about environmental damage. Town staff contended that possible adverse traffic impacts on Fort Hill would be taken care of by limiting the Route 1 exit to emergency-only use. Mr. Murphy said that a reduction in the number of units in the development wouldn’t have a significant impact on traffic. Mr. Murphy also dismissed the size issue by saying that the developer had met the density standards laid down by the town.
The reservations of members Brandt, O'Neill and Haviland about size and harmony of the project with the existing neighborhood disappeared quickly after Mr. Haviland made his setback adjustments, though the changes' impact seemed far from clear.
Mr. Murphy has made it known that he feels that the project would conserve open space much better than would single family housing. The project also would result in extension of a sewer line to Flanders Road, laying the groundwork for additional development along that road.
^ back to headlines
Zoning Unit Closes Three-Part Mystic Woods Hearing
GROTON -- A three-night public Zoning Commission hearing on the proposed “Mystic Woods” active senior housing project on 105 acres atop Fort Hill closed around midnight, Nov. 7, 2007. The final session drew a capacity crowd to Community Room 2 at the Town Hall Annex and held much of its audience until the closing gavel.
Under zoning regulations, the five-member commission had 65 days from the closing to decide whether to grant a special permit to Hawthorne Development Partners LLC of Woburn, MA, to build a 200+ unit complex on the hill between Flanders Road and Fort Hill Road (Route 1). However, the commission’s deliberation and decision could come as early as the next scheduled meeting of the commission Dec. 5, 2007. The two preceding Zoning Commission public sessions on Mystic Woods took place Sept. 19 and Oct. 15.
The main news coming out of the last hearing session was that the developer had increased the proposed distance of the new development from the two closest existing neighborhood houses. The closest existing house now would be 207 feet from any building in the new development, up from about 150 feet under the previous plan, according to Harry Heller, attorney for Hawthorne. The margins would be increased by eliminating one two-unit building, reorienting and moving a second, relocating a third and reducing it by one unit, and splitting a four-unit fourth building into two buildings.
The changes would reduce the number of planned units to 201 from 204 previously and from 211 when Hawthorne applied for Inland Wetlands Agency approval. The IWA approved the development Sept. 12, 2007, but imposed conditions that resulted in loss of 7 units. Mr. Heller said the increased buffers came about because of talks between Hawthorne and the nearest neighbors.
The hearing began at 7:50 p.m. with a 125-minute presentation by Mr. Heller and his team of specialist consultants. It consisted to a large extent of a repeat of material that Mr. Heller and his consultants had aired in an approximately 170-minute presentation Sept. 19, 2007.
The length of Mr. Heller’s presentations had spectators speaking of a “filibuster.” Even members of the commission were smiling in amused exasperation as Mr. Heller repeatedly stepped to the microphone and announced as a preface:
“For the record, my name is Harry Heller.”
However repetitious, Mr. Heller’s presentation had the practical effect, favorable for the applicant, of reducing the amount of time and commission patience that was left for some opponents of the project. As the clock approached midnight, citizens were being asked to severely limit their input. One Fort Hill neighbor was asked not to show a traffic video he had made. Instead it was entered into the record.
But the tactic was not all favorable for the applicant. At one point, Commission Chairman Stephen Hudecek asked Mr. Heller to stop introducing letters of endorsement for the project. Mr. Hudecek said that such material normally is reserved for the citizen input portion of a hearing.
When Commission Member Mariellen French asked Mr. Heller for further information about a letter writer who had been identified only by name and address, Mr. Heller acknowledged that the writer was an employe of Academy Point, a Mystic assisted-care facility developed by Hawthorne Development Partners.
The hearing had been preceded by distribution of a Nov. 2, 2007, memorandum from the town planning staff cautioning the Zoning Commission not to usurp the authority of the Inland Wetlands Agency, the Planning Commission or the Connecticut Department of Transportation. It said that intervention in the case (by the Groton Open Space Association) under state law “does not expand the scope of your authority, nor does it allow the Commission the ability to convert a special permit application into a de facto detailed site plan application... [I]ntervention does not allow the Zoning Commission to take on regulatory authority granted to the inland wetland agency, or to review and ‘approve’ the detailed sedimentation and erosion control plan, which in the town of Groton is under the purview of the Planning Commission.”
It said further that “it is important to keep in mind that the Commission does not have the authority to regulate traffic operations on State Highways [meaning Route 1], nor to act as a surrogate for the State Traffic Commission.”
The town’s zoning regulations stipulate that the Zoning Commission, when hearing requests for special permits, such as would be required for Mystic Woods, should consider three main factors: traffic, the environment, and harmony of the proposed project with the surrounding neighborhood.
GOSA attorney Peter Cooper had replied to the planning staff with a 4 ½ page detailed letter of refutation elaborating on this early paragraph:
“With respect, I conclude that the claims of the planning staff as to the jurisdictional limits on your Commission’s authority and responsibilities are not legally supportable.“
Whether or not as a result of Atty. Cooper’s letter, the staff did not attempt, as feared, to limit discussion of traffic or the environment.
During public input, Flanders Road resident Anna Sullivan said:
“This [planning staff] memo is a blatant directive to approve the application, and the language is highly biased in favor of the applicant. It is obvious that town staff is promoting this project, and this attempt to box the Zoning Commission in and remove their authority is highly disturbing to me. The Zoning Commission should take umbrage at this power grab.”
During GOSA presentation to the Commission, GOSA board member Joan Smith summarized the organization’s supplemental notice of intervention. The intervention notice said, among other things, that the intense proposed development threatened vernal pools, was likely to impact the slope stability of portions of Fort Hill with potential harm to Fort Hill Brook and ultimately the Long Island Sound, and would cause severe loss of wildlife habitat. The intervention notice also noted that Hawthorne has declined to provide the Zoning Commission with results of its archaeological investigations of the site and has failed to give the agency with a full set of plans reflecting the changes that responded to Inland Wetlands Agency conditions.
Commission Member Mariellen French estimated conservatively that at least 1,000 trees, each now absorbing about 10,000 gallons of water a year, would be clear-cut to make way for the development. She asked how this water, amounting to 10,000,000 gallons a year, would now be handled. She was told by an engineer hired by the applicant that storm water management engineering guidelines used by the applicant factored such tree loss into account.
George Logan, a wetlands biologist hired by Hawthorne, said -- referring to “Best Management Practices” storm water treatment basins -- that he had never seen such a “BMP-rich” storm water treatment program as the one Hawthorne plans for Mystic Woods.
Ms. French also quoted from a state statute that requires Zoning Commissions in coastal municipalities to consider the health of Long Island Sound.
Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, immediately interjected that the statute that Ms. French quoted applies to the writing of regulations. The Active Senior Housing regulation was adopted by the Zoning Commission in a split vote Feb. 2, 2005, and became effective March 1, 2005.
GOSA Director Marty Young read a letter from Steven Trinkaus, a Southbury engineer hired by GOSA. The letter found fault with the clarity and adequacy of plans submitted by the applicant and said many technical issues remain unaddressed by the applicant.
Mr. Heller acknowledged that under state definition, Mystic Woods would be a “major traffic generator.” He contended, however, that this term applies to any project with 200 parking spaces or 100,000 square feet of floor space.
He said the designation was merely “a term of art.”
In response to a question, a representative of the town-hired independent traffic consultant, Camp Dresser & McKee, said the firm had not collected its own data regarding the potential impact of Mystic Woods on Fort Hill but had done a “peer review” of the data collected by the applicant’s consultant, as requested by the town.
Wendy MacFarland, a Bel-Aire resident, earlier had told the commission, “The misuse of the experts hired to address engineering and environmental problems [involved with Mystic Woods] was shocking.” She said that in one case a wetlands expert was hired as an expert consultant to the Inland Wetlands Agency on hydrology and that town-hired consultants have been absent from hearings on occasion.
Much of the discussion at the hearing centered on whether the proposed development, consisting of more than 70 tightly spaced buildings on 47 acres, would fit into the neighborhood--where, a GOSA study showed, the average lot size is about four fifths of an acre.
James O’Donnell, a professor of marine sciences at the University of Connecticut at Avery Point, contended that the development would be “incongruous.” Placing one of Mr. Heller’s display boards on an easel, Mr. O’Donnell pointed to a thick arc of ASH buildings opposite spacious lots on Hemlock Road.
“It’s not in harmony,” he said.
^ back to headlines
Zoning Approves MX Floating Zone: The Day
Groton — Reversing a previous decision, the Zoning Commission approved Nov. 7, 2007, a regulation amendment that would allow creation of floating mixed commercial-residential zones in certain areas of the town, The Day Reported.
Following is from an article by Katie Warchut, with some additional information provided by GOSA:
The mixed-use zone, meant to be an alternative to traditional residential neighborhoods and strip development in four targeted areas of town, passed in a 4 to 1 vote.
Though commissioners rejected the so-called floating zone in a 3-2 vote last month, the town attorney advised them to reconsider after attorney Timothy Bates challenged the legality of the vote.
Bates represents the applicant, L&L Groton LLC, a division of READCO Management, which owns land in one of the areas the new zone would affect, at the intersection of routes 184 and 117. Bates had said alternate member Susan Marquardt should have been a voting member instead of Susan Sutherland, who had previously voted against the zone.
This time around, Marquardt approved the zone, as did commission Chairman Stephen Hudecek, who had previously voted against it.
Members Bob O'Neill and Richard Haviland also supported it, while Mariellen French was the lone dissenter.
[Ms. French objected that the regulation had been written by the lawyer for an applicant, rather than by the town. "This seems backwards," she said.]
The zone is designed to allow small, village-type development with commercial and residential features.
In addition to the area around routes 184 and 117, the zone would be allowed around the Naval Submarine Base; the intersection of routes 1, 12 and 184; and in downtown Groton, around the intersection of Route 1 and Poquonnock Road.
Instead of being drawn on a map, the proposed zone can only “land” when the commission approves a project.
[The Planning Commission would be consulted on such landings. A negative recommendation by the Planning Commission could be overcome only by a supermajority on the Zoning Commission.]
Commissioners made some changes to the plan, increasing the minimum development area from 3 acres to 5 acres in all areas except downtown and reducing some of the maximum heights allowed.
[The limits include 45 feet around the junction of Route 1 and 12, down from 75 feet previously, and 45 feet in the downtown, where no limit previously existed.]
Groups such as the Southeastern Connecticut Housing Alliance have supported the plan, as L&L Groton's proposal supports “work-force housing.” Town Councilor Frank “Mick” O'Beirne has been an opponent, saying the regulations are too vague and that the Zoning Commission would have too much power to approve such projects.
[GOSA opposed the original proposal, which would have allowed floating zones in eight areas plus in the 1,200 acres of industrial zones. The proposal eventually was trimmed back to four zones and it excluded the 1,200 acres. Following this change, GOSA advocated building height limitations and some procedural changes -- not adopted -- for landing a zone.]
^ back to headlines
What Is An “Open” Zoning Commission Meeting?
GROTON -- Is it possible for a Zoning Commission meeting to be both open and closed at the same time?
That question arose following a 6 p.m., Oct. 15, 2007, special Zoning Commission session.
The agenda posted by the Office of Planning and Development Services in Community Room 2 of the Town Hall Annex listed two items of business:
1. A proposed executive (closed to the public) session regarding “pending litigation” on Floating Zone amendment application. The application had been turned down by the Commission on a 3-2 vote Oct. 3.
2. Discussion and possible action on a request for reconsideration of the negative vote.
The Day newspaper, which had a reporter in the lobby outside the meeting room during the vote, reported the session as if it all had taken place behind closed doors. The GOSA website summarized The Day’s story, attributing it to the newspaper. The website report indicated the commission’s decision to reconsider at a forthcoming meeting Nov. 7 came during the executive session.
The OPDS later said the unanimously voted decision to reconsider had been made during a portion of the meeting that was open to the public. It asked the GOSA website to correct its story. It said that a vote could be taken only during a public session.
The OPDS said that a sign was posted on the door of Community Room 2 when the closed session began. The sign was taken down after discussion of the “pending litigation” and prior to the reconsideration vote, the OPDS said, calling this a “very common and prudent practice.”
An official of a neighboring town agreed that signs are common but said the common practice also includes a loud announcement to members of the public outside the door when a sign is taken down. No such announcement was reported Oct. 15. As best could be determined, no member of the public, including a representative of L&L Groton LLC, the applicant, who earlier had been dismissed from Meeting Room 2, was aware of the reopening.
“Maybe someone forgot to shout,” said the neighboring town official.
The “pending litigation” was a threatened appeal of the Oct. 3 vote by L&L Groton LLC Atty. Timothy Bates, who after the Oct. 15 meeting said the vote to reconsider had prevented an appeal.
Is a threatened appeal the same as “pending litigation?” One lawyer said no.
In any case, is a threatened appeal sufficient to justify an executive session? An official of the Freedom of Information Commission in Hartford said, without getting into the specifics of this case, that a vague threat of a suit does not justify an executive session. However, a specific threat in writing “could be OK.” The exact form of Mr. Bates’s threat was not immediately determined.
What remains fully open as a practical question is whether a Zoning Commission meeting can be both open and closed at the same time.
^ back to headlines
Mystic Woods Termed Too Big and Harmful For Fort Hill
GROTON -- The proposed Mystic Woods Active Senior Housing project would clash both with existing neighborhoods and with the land atop Fort Hill, and it would create serious traffic problems there, opponents told the Zoning Commission Oct. 15, 2007, during continuation of a hearing that began Sept. 19.
Hawthorne Development Partners LLC, of Woburn, Massachusetts, is seeking a “special permit” from the commission in order to build a 200+ unit complex of nearly 70 buildings on 105 acres of what are now sloping woods and wetlands. The RU20-zoned Fort Hill neighborhood now consists predominantly of single-family residences on lots of one half acre or more.
In the special permit process, the Zoning Commission is empowered to ensure that a project would fit in with the orderly development of a neighborhood and would do no traffic or environmental harm. Opponents -- both from GOSA and the neighborhood -- contended Oct. 15 that the project is far too big and out of character to be harmonious and that it would cause major traffic problems as well as environmental harm.
Mr. Heller said that Hawthorne had drawn up a revised plan to take account of conditions imposed by the Inland Wetlands Agency in its Sept. 12, 2007, approval of the application. The revised plan envisions 204 units, down from 211 proposed earlier, he said. (GOSA has appealed the IWA approval to the New London Superior Court.)
The Active Senior Housing project is the first to be applied for since the
Zoning Commission passed -- by a split vote -- an amendment to the Zoning Regulations Feb. 2, 2005 allowing ASH. Commission Chairman Steven Hudecek based his “no” vote on the belief that the amendment as written would allow overly dense development.
In a letter read to the commission by GOSA member Robert Schneider, New Haven Attorney Peter Cooper said, “It is vital for the future appropriate and orderly development of the Groton community that the precedent your Commission sets is the right one.”
He said the application involves 69 “townhouse-style residential buildings of a repetitive and similar nature crammed into a very small location.” He said the project does not meet regulatory requirements for diversity, balance and choice. Mr. Cooper said the uniformity of the housing and “the abruptness with which it concentrates itself in close proximity to the existing low-intensity housing...shows that the application’s design is flawed, inharmonious, and fails to meet the purpose and intent of the special permit regulations...”
After further noting traffic and environmental problems, Mr. Cooper urged that the application be denied or withdrawn.
GOSA engineering consultant Steven D. Trinkaus of Southbury said the development foresees “no effective buffer” from the surrounding neighborhood. He said grading associated with construction would remove almost all natural vegetation between the ASH units and the property line. He said, “The large buildings, approximately 70 feet by 100 feet in length and a minimum of 35 feet in height, will be a visual intrusion to the existing residential uses...”
He said that the storm water treatment systems proposed for the development have shown
promise but “the long-term effectiveness of these systems has not been verified at this time.”
Summing up, he deplored the planned removal of all trees in the housing area, as well as “significant cuts and fills to remake the topography of the site to fit the layout of the proposed buildings instead of making the development conform to current land forms.”
Lloyd J. Hutchins of Stonecrest Road, near the site of the project, pointed out numerous traffic problems that the project would entail, despite the assurances of the applicant’s traffic consultant that Mystic Woods would have no significant traffic impact. Mr. Hutchins said:
--A 48-lot project called Mystic Estates has been proposed for the south side of Route 1. One entrance of Mystic Estates would be close to the proposed entrance to Mystic Woods off Flanders Road. (Mystic Estates is subject of continuing litigation between GOSA and Ravenswood Construction LLC, a developer.) He said Mystic Estates should be factored into the traffic study.
--With Mystic Woods “doing the town a big financial favor by extending the sanitary sewer line over to Flanders Road, did the consultant consider a full buildout of Flanders Road and the impact of this on potential traffic...?”
--Mystic Woods could become a shortcut from Flanders to Route 1 for drivers seeking to avoid the traffic light atop Fort Hill, a concern also expressed by Patricia Olivier, a Hemlock Road resident.
--Entry onto Route 1 from Lemont Road already is difficult and would be aggravated by “400+ cars from Mystic Woods.”
--Drivers will be tempted to defy planned rules by turning left from the Route 1 exit of Mystic Woods and by entering Mystic Woods from Route 1.
Michael Jasenek, of Hemlock Road, a direct abutter, said the project means “we’ll be looking at concrete boxes. Lights will glow from what is now forest.” Anna Sullivan, of Flanders Road, said the intersection of Flanders Road and Route 1 now is the scene of many accidents and that “traffic barely flows through Route 1 at present.” She also expressed concern about light pollution in the currently forested area.
James O’Donnell, PhD, of Groton, a professor of marine sciences at the University of Connecticut, said the proposed storm water treatment system is “experimental” and has had only three years of testing at the University of New Hampshire, where it was developed. “It’s clear they (UNH) like it. That doesn’t mean it’s good.” He noted that plans call for the UNH storm water center to monitor the system in the post-construction period, and he asked whether this was “the fox guarding the henhouse.” Robert Roseen, PhD, director of the UNH Stormwater Center, said three years constitutes a lengthy test.
Lorraine Santangelo, a GOSA director, presented a précis of GOSA’s verified notice of intervention in the Zoning proceedings under Section 22a-19(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes. GOSA contends, among other things, that the wetlands impacts of the project is -- in the language of the statute -- “reasonably likely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying the public trust in the air, water, or other natural resources of Connecticut.”
Jim Furlong, a GOSA director, submitted to the commission a series of spreadsheets that show the average acreage of houses in the neighborhood of the project is 0.81 acre. He argued that the high-density Mystic Woods community would not fit harmoniously in with this neighborhood. He said that if the 105-acre parcel, half of which is unbuildable, were used for single family housing, a developer could build at most a little more than 100 units, assuming he could meet environmental and traffic objections. He suggested that this would be a good criterion to use in evaluating the size of a cluster development like Mystic Woods. He said that when Mr. Heller told the commission the developer was entitled under the regulations to build as many as 304 units, Mr. Heller was dealing with a figure that was “bizarre and unreal.”
The hearing was continued to Nov. 7, by which time the town's traffic consultant -- Camp Dresser and McKee of Cambridge, Massachusetts -- is expected to be ready to present its report.
^ back to headlines
Zoning Commission To Reconsider Floating Zone Vote
GROTON -- The Zoning Commission decided Oct. 15, 2007, to reconsider its vote to reject a regulation amendment that would allow floating zones to be established in four areas of the town, The Day reported.
The amendment had been rejected Oct. 3 by a vote of 3-2, with Chairman Steven Hudecek, Mariellen French and Sue Sutherland casting “no” votes and Richard Haviland and Robert O’Neill voting for the amendment.
Atty. Timothy Bates had raised questions about the vote because alternate member Susan Marquardt had been scheduled to vote on the issue but was replaced by Ms.Sutherland when Ms. Marquardt showed up late. Mr. Bates contended Ms. Marquardt, though late, should have been allowed to vote instead of Ms. Sutherland when Ms. Marquardt arrived.
Mr. Hudecek made the motion in or after (click below) a closed-door session to reconsider the vote, with Ms. French and Ms. Sutherland voting for the motion, though “with reservations,” the article said.
(See additional information)
Mr. Bates said he was glad the commission decided to do “the right thing.” He said the decision had eliminated any need for an appeal by his client L&L Groton LLC, which initiated the request for an amendment. Town Attorney Michael Carey participated in the meeting.
Ms. Marquardt will vote Nov. 7, date for reconsideration, instead of Ms. Sutherland, the article said.
^ back to headlines
GOSA Loses Appeal In Four Winds Case
HARTFORD -- The Appellate Court has denied without comment a GOSA appeal aimed forcing the Groton Inland Wetlands Agency to re-hear the application of Mystic Active Adult LLC to build a “residential life care community” called “Four Winds” on a large tract off Noank-Ledyard Road.
The general background to the court’s September decision is this:
The Inland Wetlands Agency gave conditional approval on June (correct) 25, 2003, to an application by Mystic Active Adult to build 147 units of age-restricted housing on 105 acres of the 160-acre Watrous Property. GOSA appealed the decision. So did Mystic Active Adult, which sought to eliminate IWA conditions that would have ruled out a wetlands crossing and would have mandated a road-closing schedule and some construction phasing during salamander mating season. Mystic Active Adult is headed by Massachusetts developer Ron Bonvie.
GOSA lost its appeal. However, Mystic Active Adult won on April 13, 2005. The Inland Wetlands Agency then moved to have the Appellate Court overturn the Superior Court decision.
The matter dragged on, and on July 7, 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers imposed some additional conditions on the development, including a road-closing schedule similar to the one prescribed by the IWA.
Mystic Active Adult then tried in effect to drop its appeal against the IWA restrictions by telling the Appellate Court that it would not contest the IWA’s appeal of the Superior Court ruling against it. However, the Appellate Court on Dec. 13, 2006, declined to rule on Mystic Active Adult’s request. The Appellate Court said that the Superior Court’s judgment on Mystic Active Adult appeal had not been final and thus should not have been brought up to the Appellate level.
The lack of finality, said the Appellate Court, stemmed from the fact that the Superior Court had ordered one aspect of the Mystic Active Adult appeal -- Wetlands Crossing C -- remanded to the Inland Wetlands Agency for reconsideration. That remand had not yet taken place. Therefore, the case had to go back to the Superior Court, said the Appellate Court.
The Superior Court earlier this year decided to allow Mystic Active Adult to drop its appeal, making the remand appear needless, in the view of the developer and the IWA. However, GOSA, an intervenor in the case, contended that such a “settlement” was not possible without GOSA’s consent. It appealed to the Appellate Court seeking to have the remand carried out; it is that appeal that the Appellate Court denied September 12, 2007.
GOSA has contended all along that its 2003 appeal to the Superior Court was unfairly denied because the Superior Court judge in his denial relied on the Oct. 14, 2003, AvalonBay decision of the state Supreme Court. The AvalonBay decision followed the IWA hearings on Four Winds by many months. The AvalonBay decision limited the authority of inland wetlands agencies to consider wildlife, including salamanders, in making decisions. GOSA has argued that it could have made a convincing case even under AvalonBay rules but was denied an opportunity to do that because of the timing of the hearings and decision. GOSA sought the remand in order to make these arguments, which assert that salamanders and some other forms of aquatic life promote physical water quality by removing debris, thus keeping oxygen at healthy levels.
In the past, GOSA also had appealed both Zoning Commission and Planning Commission approvals of the Four Winds decision but lost, with the Appellate Court refusing to hear its appeals.
The Department of Environmental Protection has put the Watrous Property on a list of 20 key tracts that it would like to acquire if they should become available, but the developer, who holds a purchase option on the property, thus far has declined to deal with the state.
^ back to headlines
GOSA, Neighbors Appeal IWA Approval of Mystic Woods
NEW LONDON -- The Groton Open Space Association and two neighborhood parties have appealed the Inland Wetlands Agency’s conditional approval of a plan to build a big Active Senior Housing project atop Fort Hill.
Besides GOSA, the plaintiffs are Anna Sullivan and Rachel and Michael Jasenek. Ms. Sullivan and the Jaseneks own separate properties close to the projected construction site for the 200+ unit ASH project.
The appeal to the New London Superior Court requires a reply by the IWA by Oct. 30, 2007.
The Oct. 4, 2007, action, prepared by Atty. Frank B. Cochran of the New Haven firm of Cooper, Whitney, Cochran & Francois, contends in part that:
--the commission ignored evidence that the Mystic Woods access entrance on Flanders Road would impair a significant wetland near the road.
--the applicant, Hawthorne Development Partners LLC, failed to show that no feasible and prudent alternatives existed to the project as planned.
--the IWA didn’t get answers to questions regarding the impact on wetlands and watercourses of proposed controls on stormwater, erosion and sedimentation.
The Mystic Woods proposal has moved on from the IWA and currently is subject of hearings by the Zoning Commission. At a Zoning hearing Oct. 15, 2007, Hawthorne Atty. Harry Heller said that conditions imposed by the IWA will reduce the number of planned units to 204 from the 211 applied for. The hearing has been continued to Nov. 7, 2007.
^ back to headlines
GOSA President Stresses Balance, Resource Protection, Quality of Life
GROTON -- Priscilla Pratt, president of the Groton Open Space Association, told the association’s annual meeting Oct. 11, 2007, that in a rapidly urbanizing Groton, “GOSA stands valiantly for balance, for protection of air, water, and land resources, and for quality of life for everyone.”
In her annual report, Ms. Pratt reviewed GOSA’s activities during the past year-- including its mowing of the fields at Haley Farm, its legal battle to acquire the Merritt Property, its encouragement of the Conservation Commission to take the lead in open space protection, and its participation in several major land-use proceedings in Groton, such as the application by Wal-Mart for a supercenter near the reservoir system and the proposal for a 211-unit Active Senior Housing complex atop Fort Hill.
She gave special thanks to attorneys Ben Solnit and Beth Leamon of the New Haven firm of Tyler, Cooper and Alcorn for their first-class representation of GOSA in the Merritt case at a much-reduced rate. The case currently is before the Appellate Court in Hartford.
The full text of Ms. Pratt’s remarks appears further on.
GOSA members re-elected Ms. Pratt as president for a one-year term. Voters also re-elected to one-year terms Genevieve Cerf as treasurer and Lorraine Santangelo as secretary. Anna Sullivan of Groton was elected as a new member of the GOSA board, and Jim Furlong was reelected as a board member, both for three-year terms.
Guest speaker at the meeting was Joseph Leary, authority of A SHARED LANDSCAPE, A GUIDE & HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT’S STATE PARKS & FORESTS. Mr. Leary gave an eclectic talk that stressed the advantages of seeing parks in all seasons, rather than just summer; being wary of archeological interpretations that are based more on hope than evidence; appreciating the conservation efforts of previous generations and passing the favor on to future generations; and preparing for possibly traumatic change to our environment, such as the 1938 hurricane. Copies of Mr. Leary’s book sold briskly following the talk, with proceeds going to GOSA.
Following is the text of Ms. Pratt’s report:
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
GROTON -- Alicia Betty, project manager for the Trust for Public Land, made a presentation Oct. 1, 2007, to the Groton Conservation Commission on methods of protecting valuable land in municipalities.
Ms. Betty, based in New Haven, said that local conservation finance measures in Connecticut had raised $134 million in the period 1996-2006, with 50 of the 55 measures proposed passing.
The Conservation Commission has a list of properties that it deems worthy of protection, but has been unable to prevent the list from shrinking as the properties are purchased for development. At present, only 11% of Groton’s land is securely protected as open space.
In a letter to the Town Council’s Environment Committee early this year, GOSA Director Edith Fairgrieve said that the Conservation Commission still was awaiting consideration of its list for inclusion in the pending update of the Plan of Conservation and Development. She said the topic has been raised at but then “pushed aside” by the council’s Environment Committee and the Committee of Chairpersons, of which land-use chairpersons are members.
The Trust for Public Land has done a recent study for the town of Stonington on the feasibility of a bond issue for open space. Ms. Betty said that nationwide, voters tend to support open space bond issues up to a tax cost of $30 a year per household. In New England, however, voters tend to support issues that will cost up to $50 per household--or higher in more affluent communities.
The TPL is a national nonprofit conservation organization that helps conserve land for parks (mostly passive recreation), community gardens, historic sites, rural lands, and other natural places, its goal being to ensure “livable communities for generations to come.” It has conserved some 4,200 acres in Connecticut. It does not own land itself but plays a facilitating role in public land acquisition and protection.
The organization would be available to provide advice to Groton on how to protect its lands.
^ back to headlines
Zoning Commission Nixes Floating Zone Amendment
GROTON -- The town Zoning Commission rejected by a 3-2 vote Oct. 3, 2007, a proposed zoning amendment that would have allowed for floating mixed-use residential/commercial zones in four development “nodes” identified in the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development.
Voting to reject were Chairman Steven Hudecek, Mariellen French and Sue Sutherland. Voting in favor were Robert O’Neill and Richard Haviland. The vote came after Mr. O’Neill moved to close off discussion. His subsequent request to nay-voters to reconsider was unsuccessful.
The floating zone had been proposed by L&L Groton LLC, which would like to build a mixed-use development on 33 acres near the corner of Routes 184 and 117. The floating zone amendment proposal on June 26, 2007, had received unanimous but conditional approval from the Planning Commission, which has a significant advisory role in the process of zoning amendments.
Originally, the applicant had sought an amendment to allow the floating zone to “land” in eight development nodes and in the little-developed Industrial Park zones, which comprise nearly 1,200 acres. The proposal later was slimmed down to four nodes, with the industrial park being excluded.
Besides the node at Routes 184 and 117, the other nodes that would have been affected are located around: Route 12 at the sub base, downtown Groton, and Route 12 near its crossing by I-95.
Chairman Hudecek said he didn't oppose mixed-use zones. He said, "There are plenty of places I could envision it. But there's a lot of leeway in this regulation as written... I believe it permits bad projects."
Mr. O'Neill said opposition to the amendment seemed to be based on lack of trust in the competence and good will of present and future commissions. He asked whether opponents thought "morons" would comprise the commission in the future.
Ms. French also said she didn't oppose the concept of floating zones but she wanted a provision to set aside open space and she said that the floating zone question should be considered as part of a forthcoming rewrite of land-use regulations in Groton. Ms. Sutherland said she was concerned about extension of floating zone regulations into areas adjacent to the nodes.
Town Councilor Frank "Mick" O'Beirne attended the meeting. He has opposed the amendment, contending it would place too much power in a small land-use board.
^ back to headlines
Hawthorne Presents “Mystic Woods” To Zoning: NEW MATERIAL ADDED AT END 9-21-07
GROTON -- Hawthorne Development Partners LLC made a lengthy presentation to the Zoning Commission Sept. 19, 2007, of its application to build a 211-unit Active Senior Housing complex called “Mystic Woods” atop Fort Hill.
At the conclusion of the approximately three-hour presentation directed by Uncasville Attorney Harry Heller and following comments by the town’s Office of Planning and Development Services, members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. Among other complaints:
--the Zoning application is premature given that the Inland Wetlands Agency ordered changes when it granted conditional approval to the project only a week earlier.
--the stormwater treatment plan for the project is experimental and the slope stability analysis was flawed.
--Hawthorne engaged in misleading advertising of the project on its website and engaged in largely meaningless consultation with neighbors of the proposed project.
--the large size of the project is not in keeping with the neighborhood.
Mr. Heller said the development would offer several types of dwelling for seniors, starting in price around $275,000 and ranging up to $450,000. He said 100% of the occupants of the buildings will have to be at least 55 years old, though rules on senior housing require only 80%. He said 42.6% of the 105-acre tract would be under conservation easement.
He said design of the project had improved during the review process conducted by the Inland Wetlands Agency. Development has avoided environmentally sensitive areas, he said, adding that “Density done right is a community asset.” He said the developer had the right under town regulations for the RU20-zoned tract to build up to 304 units.
The project will “complement, rather than detract from” the existing neighborhood, he added. Mr. Heller said he expected the project would lose 3-10 units as a result of the IWA’s conditions imposed Sept. 12, 2007.
The developer-hired traffic consultant, James Bubaris of Cheshire, asserted that the project, which would be connected both to Flanders Road on the east and Route 1 on the west basically “does not change anything” with regard to projected traffic congestion or accidents. He estimated that the project would generate approximately 90 to110 one-way trips an hour during two morning peaks and the same number during two evening peaks. The town has hired its own consultant -- Camp, Dresser and McKee -- to review the traffic situation. The Cambridge, MA-based CDM is the same consultant hired by the town to examine engineering plans for Mystic Woods submitted to the IWA by the Woburn, MA-based Hawthorne Development Partners.
Opposition speaker Joan Smith, a director of the Groton Open Space Association, read a fax message from GOSA’s attorney, Peter Cooper of Cooper, Whitney, Cochran and Francois, New Haven, contending that the Hawthorne’s application should be withdrawn until the company has revised its plan in order to comply with the IWA conditions. Mr. Cooper said that should the Zoning Commission somehow act in a way that failed to take account of IWA Condition 17 protecting Wetland 11, an “administrative nightmare” would result.
Mr. Heller responded that changes in the plan responding to the IWA would not affect the Zoning Commission’s deliberations. Michael J. Murphy, who heads the town’s Office of Planning and Development Services, said only “minor adjustments” are entailed by the IWA decision.
Lloyd Hutchins, who lives near the project, said that the University of New Hampshire- designed stormwater treatment plan for the steeply sloped tract is “experimental.” Mr. Hutchins, who said he holds a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, noted that he had pointed out errors in the developer’s slope stability analysis during the IWA hearings and complained that the town’s engineering consultant, CDM, had accepted the figures with a “one-line report.” Fort Hill slopes down to Fort Hill Brook, which flows into Mumford Cove, off Long Island Sound.
Patricia Olivier, an abutter, said the developer had canvassed the neighborhood at one point asking, in her paraphrase, “what it would take to make us [opponents] go away.” She said neighbors asked that the developer avoid the wetlands, give existing property owners adequate buffers and move the construction dump, vehicle storage area and site trailer away from existing houses. “They moved the trash, and we never heard from them again,” she said.
Ms. Olivier said the website advertising the project has stated for the last two years that Mystic Woods is “in the final stages of permitting” when in fact the first permit by a town land-use agency was granted Sept. 12, 2007.
Jim Furlong, a GOSA director, criticized the project’s size. He noted that Mr. Heller’s computation of a theoretically possible 304-unit development was based on an allowable 15,000-square foot minimum per unit where more than one housing unit is to be built. The minimum lot size in an RU20 zone is 20,000 square feet--or half-acre zoning if the unit involved is single-family housing. Mr. Furlong noted that the area as built is
single-family housing. The 105-acre tract could yield a theoretical maximum of 210 single-family units, but the actual yield would be far lower because of the area’s unbuildable sections. Mr. Furlong said he did not object to clustering housing units but said that in order to fit into the neighborhood the project should be sharply reduced in scale.
The Sept. 19, 2007, hearing was a special meeting for Mystic Woods only. The public hearing is to be continued at a second special meeting Oct. 15, 2007.
NEW MATERIAL ADDED SEPT. 21, 2007. Original story filed Sept. 20.
The Zoning Commission is charged in town regulations with "encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the town" and "preventing the overcrowding of land and avoiding undue concentration of population," among other duties (source: Section I, "Purpose and Authority").
In evaluating an application for a special permit (the case here), the commission may prescribe safeguards to insure that (source: Regulation 8.3-8, "Special Permit Objectives"):
--"the proposed use is of such location, size, and character that, in general, it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is proposed to be situated..."
--Traffic problems are avoided
--"the location and size of such use, the nature and intensity of operations involved in connection therewith, and the site layout and development will not have a negative impact on any environmental and natural resource areas on or adjacent to the site or within the neighborhood."
^ back to headlines
Conservation Voters Rank Rep. Wright At 100%
HARTFORD -- The Connecticut League of Conservation voters has given a 100% rating to State Rep. Elissa Wright, D-Groton, based on her legislative record on environmental issues.
Rep. Wright was one of four representatives to achieve the top rating on the League’s 2007 environmental scorecard, the League announced recently. Only two state senators received the 100% rating.
The average 2007 score for the House was 71%, down from 88% in 2006.
^ back to headlines
IWA Approves Mystic Woods with Conditions
By Joan Smith, GOSA Director
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency on Sept. 12, 2007, approved with conditions the application of Hawthorne Development LLC for a large Active Senior Housing community.
The proposed site is Fort Hill, between Route 1 and Flanders Road. Agency Member Mary Ellen Furlong was the lone dissenter, citing potential impacts to the valuable Wetland 11, and the likelihood of large amounts of water flowing downhill on the Fort Hill Brook side of the project. Hawthorne has applied for a 211-unit complex, but conditions imposed by the IWA could reduce that number somewhat.
Construction of sanitary sewer into the roadbed of Fort Hill Road was approved. A sidewalk on Flanders Road was denied to protect Wetland 11. The “enhancement area” surrounding Wetland 4 was increased to 50 feet from the wetland edge. This decision will require a revision to the road design and removal of buildings from the wetland envelope. “Non-disturbance” areas of approximately 170 feet from Wetlands 10 and 11 were created to protect the wetlands from building activity planned for the edge of steep slopes above the wetlands. As many as 10 units could have to be relocated or eliminated. The controversial access road next to the vernal pool in Wetland 11 will remain.
Ms. Furlong expressed frustration that the town’s hired experts were not available for questioning at the final public hearing. She described the slope stability report of town consultant Camp, Dresser and McGee as a “one-line answer,” which was “pretty pathetic.” When she attempted to review specific data, and questioned apparent inconsistencies, she was advised by Chairman David Scott that she does not have the requisite scientific qualifications to evaluate such data, and must abide by the experts’ summary, “which is fine.”
No reference was made to the report by GOSA wetlands expert Penni Sharp, which said that 300 amphibian egg masses indicated a “hot” vernal pool in Wetland 11, and which predicted severe impacts to amphibian numbers and subsequently to water quality itself. One agency member stated: “We are not talking about amphibians.” Board Member Eunice Sutphen said that an amphibian migratory corridor was now protected by the non-disturbance areas.
Ms. Furlong cited the statement of the applicant’s expert, George Logan, that the egg mass count could decline but that he “guaranteed” it would “not dip below 25,” the minimum for a Tier 1 pool. Ms. Furlong said that the projected egg mass loss indicated damage was expected to water quality, given that Mr. Logan also had said that amphibians themselves would not be harmed.
Member Robert Ashcroft said he wanted to say “no” to the whole project, but that, based on the regulations, the agency had to focus on water quality and on slopes above the wetlands, and could not “revise and put in a new entrance,” a reference to GOSA’s alternative analysis.
Chairman Scott dismissed statements that the IWA must consider potential impacts to Mumford Cove, as “way out of our jurisdiction.” He said also that Fort Hill Brook is a “long, long way away.” The stream, which flows at the base of Fort Hill, runs into Mumford Cove, off Fisher’s Island Sound.
Members Mr. Ashcroft, Ms. Sutphen, Barbara Block and Mr. Scott voted to approve the application.
After the conclusion of the hearing, Chairman Scott said that a townwide buildable land definition would “save us all this trouble.”
^ back to headlines
Zoning Commission Meeting Unveils Two Noteworthy Matters
GROTON -- At least two noteworthy matters surfaced at the Sept. 5, 2007, Zoning Commission meeting on a proposed zoning amendment to allow creation of mixed residential-commercial floating zones in four areas of the town.
First, Michael J. Murphy, director of the town’s Office of Planning and Development Services, said that James Sherrard, chairman of the Planning Commission, has requested in an e-mail that the amendment application be withdrawn and resubmitted to the Planning Commission for a second review. The e-mail was produced for the Zoning Commission; Mr. Sherrard was not able to attend.
Mr. Sherrard’s e-mail said he understands that the amendment has undergone extensive changes since the Planning Commission endorsed it June 26, 2007, before sending it on to the Zoning Commission, which has the final say. Therefore, Mr. Sherrard said, the Planning Commission should be allowed a second look at the proposal.
Mr. Murphy said he didn’t know if Mr. Sherrard was speaking for the commission or only for himself in the e-mail. Mr. Murphy said the OPDS could not recommend withdrawal of the application.
Another noteworthy piece of news was that a second company has plans to create a floating zone should the amendment be approved. The Day reported that Brian O’Looney, an architect with Torti Gallas and Partners Inc. of Silver Spring, Maryland, said the firm has an option on land around the Navy sub base.
Mr. O’Looney showed the commission pictures of other developments by his firm.
He said that current zoning in Groton segregates residential development from commercial development and employment centers and links the different parts by highways. His firm’s goal would be to bring these elements together.
Until the meeting, the only publicly announced planned project was one by L&L Groton LLC, a division of READCO. It is L&L Groton, represented by New London Atty. Timothy Bates, that submitted the zoning amendment application that would permit creation of floating zones. L&L Groton would put up a mixed-used development on 33 acres northwest of the corner of Routes 117 and 184.
Much discussion took place at latest meeting on the areas to which the floating zones could apply. The proposed regulation would center the floating zones on four “nodes” singled out in the Plan of Conservation and Development. These areas appear in circles on maps shown in the POCD.
Several commission members -- including Richard Haviland, Mariellen French and Chairman Steven Hudecek -- expressed concern that the nodes are not defined clearly enough. Mr. Haviland proposed drawing the circles on the zoning map for greater clarity. This was opposed by Mr. Murphy, who argued that the zoning map should be altered only when actual floating zones are landed.
The Day summarized some complex statements by saying that “Mr. Murphy proposed adding language calling for any project to be linked to the core of the node, to preserve existing residential areas within or abutting the node, and to create transitions between existing land uses and new uses.”
The proposed amendment would confine floating zones to the circles but adds that “In the [Zoning] commission’s sole discretion, minor sections of the subject tract(s) may extend outside of the circular generalized locations...”
Commission Member Robert O’Neill said the town needs to break out of “cookie cutter” thinking about zoning. He said that the commission would have ample means to prevent unwise extensions beyond the circles. He said worst-case scenarios should not be used as a reason for doing nothing. The commission would have wide-ranging “legislative” authority in approving or disapproving proposed developments in floating zones, as opposed to the narrow “administrative” authority that it has now in applying zoning rules.
Mr. Hudecek responded to Mr. O’Neill that “you must not only think of the good things that could happen.”
The discussion continues next month.
(Note: the article above contains attributed quotations from an article in The Day by Katie Warchut. Unless specifically attributed to The Day, other information in the article represents GOSA reporting.)
^ back to headlines
Appellate Panel Hears Arguments In Merritt Case
HARTFORD -- A three-judge panel of the Connecticut Appellate Court heard oral arguments Sept. 6, 2007, in the contract dispute over who will buy the 75-acre Merritt property on Route 1 in Groton, between the summit of Fort Hill and Fishtown Road.
The panel consisted of Chief Judge Joseph P. Flynn, Judge Thomas A. Bishop and Judge Trial Referee David M. Borden, who retired this summer from the state Supreme Court.
GOSA signed a contract April 14, 2003, to buy the wooded property from F.L. Merritt Inc. for $1 million, with the aid of a $650,000 state grant, and preserve it as a public nature park. Shortly after that, Ravenswood Construction LLC, a developer, asserted that it had a prior contract with Merritt to buy the tract, and sought to compel Merritt to sell to Ravenswood.
A New London Superior Court jury found May 18, 2005, that Ravenswood’s claim of a
pre-existing contract was invalid, and Superior Court Judge Seymour Hendel then ruled that GOSA’s contract was valid. Ravenswood’s appeal of the jury verdict is the issue before the Appellate Court now.
It is expected that the Appellate Court will announce its ruling within 90 days.
GOSA and F.L. Merritt both are defendants. GOSA’s case was argued before the Appellate Court by Atty. Elizabeth Leamon of Tyler Cooper & Alcorn LLP of New Haven. Atty. Gerald A. Cory, of New London, addressed the court on behalf of F.L. Merritt.
Atty. Paul M. Geraghty of Geraghty & Bonnano LLC, New London, represented the plaintiff, Ravenswood.
Any request for a state Supreme Court review of the eventual ruling by the Appellate Court must be filed within 20 days of publication of the Appellate Court decision.
^ back to headlines
IWA Continues Discussion of Mystic Woods to Sept. 12
By Joan Smith, GOSA Director
GROTON --The Inland Wetlands Agency began deliberations Aug. 22, 2007, on the proposed 211-unit Mystic Woods senior housing project on Fort Hill and decided to continue the discussion to its next meeting Sept. 12.
Agency members discussed stormwater runoff and treatment, as well as problems associated with building density on the 105-acre site.
Member Eunice Sutphen raised concerns about rainstorms flowing down Fort Hill, and cited the cautions raised at a public hearing Aug. 15 by James O’Donnell, professor of marine sciences at the University of Connecticut. Alternate Member Mary Ellen Furlong pointed out that a minimum of 45 acres of trees would be cleared. Fort Hill Brook flows by the bottom of Fort Hill, connecting with Mumford Cove, off Fisher’s Island Sound.
Chairman David Scott countered that density is “not anything we have any say about, but was put in place by political powers” and “is not our call.” Ms. Furlong responded that density causes the town to lose valuable wetlands, that paved surfaces are closer to wetlands, and that last year’s storms placed water “where I’ve never seen it before.” Member Barbara Block cited many unknowns about the new stormwater treatment techniques that are planned for Mystic Woods. She said it was desirable to discuss the “overall, before the pieces.”
Chairman Scott said, "We can’t hold one development hostage. Development has to have impacts on wetlands--a given--and we must balance development with inevitable changes and impacts.” He added that there is no answer to the long-term effectiveness of any engineered systems, and that maintenance and inspection procedures can be part of the Agency’s conditions. He also focused on the “purview of the regulations,” and said he does “not want a court case to happen.” Ms. Furlong responded, “We do not want a bad decision.”
Mr. Scott said emotion should not be brought into the discussion.
Ms Furlong responded: “Valuable resources are at risk.”
Scott said: “There are new uses in new situations, which no one can foresee. I don’t know if there is an answer.” He proposed to study one aspect of the project at a time, based on a list prepared by Deb Jones, environmental planner with the Office of Planning and Development Services, who was present advising the Agency. These were the areas and the direction of the discussion:
--Sewer built into Fort Hill roadway: tricky, steep, large amount of water flow: Only the roadbed will be impacted, and the area will be filled and rough-graded each day, and will be under constant observation.
--Sidewalks on Flanders Road: Ms. Block said she knows what the shoulder looks like now. However, a state Environmental Review Team that examined the proposed project mentioned that the intersection of Flanders Road and Route 1 would need to be widened and realigned. She said she doesn’t know where the sidewalk will be placed and who will clean it. Ms. Jones said the OPDS wants sidewalks on both sides, and the abutters would be responsible for maintenance. Ms. Sutphen said there would be too much impact to the nearby vernal pool.
--Wetland No. 4: Ms. Sutphen raised the issue of buildings and roads surrounding and isolating the wetland and suggested a “bendy road,” and a wider, undisturbed setback. Deb Jones pointed out that expert consultants had not raised serious concerns about the current plan for Wetland No. 4. Chairman Scott said he worried about impact from the placement of eight inches of topsoil near the wetland. He also expressed concern that the surrounding construction would isolate the wetland and provide habitat for humans, not wildlife.
He suggested that this might be a site to let the “axe fall.” Ms. Sutphen suggested a closer look at the road that is right on Wetland No. 4 at the grading near the wetland and at potential problems concerning the basements of surrounding buildings.
Ms. Furlong inquired about the impact of five inches of rain, such as recently fell, and Ms. Jones was instructed by the agency to “tease out” volume amounts for the next meeting, and to clarify issues regarding maintenance of the stormwater treatment system.
Member Robert Ashworth said he had searched the record and found no state Department of Transportation document indicating that full access to the property from Fort Hill Road was prohibited, as had been stated at the preceding IWA meeting by Atty. Harry Heller, representing the applicant, Hawthorne Development Partners LLC, of Woburn, MA. Ms. Jones read comments from the report of the state Environmental Review Team report saying that ingress and egress from Fort Hill could be a problem. Further discussion about Department of Transportation permitting will take place after other commissions have made decisions, if the project gets that far. Ms. Jones stressed that, at this stage, there is no official ruling, but only “comments.”
GOSA’s alternative plan for the site foresees elimination of an access road from Flanders Road, which could endanger valuable Wetland No. 11, and substitution for it of two-way access from Fort Hill Road.
^ back to headlines
Appellate Arguments Set For Sept. 6 In Merritt/GOSA v Ravenswood
HARTFORD -- Opposing attorneys are scheduled to present oral arguments in the Merritt/GOSA v Ravenswood contract dispute at 10 a.m., Sept. 6, 2007, at the Appellate Court, 75 Elm St., Hartford.
Ravenswood Construction LLC of Cheshire is appealing a Superior Court jury verdict May 18, 2005, that Ravenswood did not have a valid contract to buy the 75-acre Merritt Property on Route 1 between the summit of Fort Hill and Fishtown Road.
GOSA and Merritt signed a contract for the sale April 14, 2003, and Ravenswood immediately challenged the document, claiming that it had a prior contract. GOSA has won a $650,000 state grant toward the $1 million price of the property. It has put down $90,000 as a deposit and will raise the remainder of the money. Following the May 18, 2005 verdict, Superior Court Judge Seymour Hendel declared GOSA's contract to be valid and ordered it carried out.
In its appeal, Ravenswood contended that Judge Hendel made errors during the May 2005 trial and that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. GOSA considers Ravenswood’s arguments to be without merit.
An Appellate Court ruling is expected within 90 days of the oral arguments. The losing side will have the opportunity to seek review by the state Supreme Court, which typically refuses to hear all but a small number of cases. In the event the Supreme Court should decide to hear the case, a decision could take another 12-16 months.
GOSA is represented by Tyler Cooper & Alcorn LLP, New Haven. Ravenswood’s law firm is Geraghty & Bonnano LLC, New London.
^ back to headlines
IWA Hearings on Mystic Woods Closed
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency has closed its lengthy hearings on the second, revised proposal to build the large “Mystic Woods” senior housing complex on Fort Hill in Groton.
Following a tense, four-hour special hearing Aug. 15, 2007, the agency is expected to deliberate the application at its next regularly scheduled meeting, Aug. 22. The IWA has 35 days following the close of the hearings Aug. 15 to make a decision. Thus, a ruling is likely either Aug. 22 or at the following scheduled meeting Sept. 12.
How the IWA will vote is uncertain at this point. If the 211-unit project were to receive the go-ahead from the IWA, it still would need approval from the Zoning Commission and the Planning Commission.
The Aug. 15 meeting featured argument by lawyers for the applicant and for GOSA and testimony by paid experts on soil science and engineering, criticism of the project by an independent University of Connecticut professor, and citizen input.
The hearing began with a 140-minute presentation by Harry Heller, attorney for the applicant, Hawthorne Development Partners LLC, of Woburn, MA, and specialists hired by Hawthorne who made multiple trips to the lectern when called by Mr. Heller.
Mr. Heller said, among other things, that the projected development is a good use of the land because of what he said is a need for 55-and-over housing. He said also that the project strikes the balance envisioned by state wetlands legislation between environmental protection and economic growth. He asserted that the Mystic Woods plan conforms to Groton regulations.
By contrast, Mr. Heller had contended at a Planning & Zoning meeting in neighboring Stonington April 3, 2007, that active adult housing would not be a “realistic” use of a Jerry Brown Road tract for which Mr. Heller was seeking a floating zone designation on behalf of a client. He said more than 2,000 units of active adult housing currently had been approved or were before agencies in the area.
Regarding the question of economic/environmental balance, Atty. Frank B. Cochran, representing GOSA, said wetlands laws were enacted in Connecticut to “give voice, and protection, to wetland resources and systems not otherwise able to protect themselves from economic activity.”
He said, “Wetland resource protection is the thrust and purpose of this legislation [Connecticut General Statutes 22a-36].” He said “if proposed economic development carries with it significant risks that the natural resources will not be protected both for the short term (our generation) and for the long term (generations yet unborn), then that proposed economic activity should be denied by your Agency.” Mr. Cochran said the roads, buildings, other infrastructure contemplated represent “too intensive a development for you to be assured that the viability of the site’s wetland resources can be maintained on a long-term basis.”
He added that the scope of the Mystic Woods project was dictated by “bottom line” considerations of the applicant. He noted that GOSA has submitted an alternative plan with less adverse impact. He said that under state law “Where there is a less resource-impacting alternate, the proposal should be denied.” Mr. Cochran was appearing for his partner, Peter B. Cooper, who largely prepared the brief but could not attend the meeting.
A major issue during the hearing was whether the proposed “gravel wetlands” method of dealing with runoff could cope over the long-term with stormwater flowing off impervious surfaces of the 60 developed acres of the 105-acre site. The method has been tested with apparent success at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, which handles water coming off a paved 9-acre parking lot on the UNH campus in Durham.
Mary Ellen Furlong, an alternate member of the IWA, commented that Dr. Robert Roseen, director of the stormwater center, had said twice in testimony to the agency that he would be “interested” in the outcome of using the gravel wetlands method at Mystic Woods. This wording, together with the method’s short, three-year history at UNH, indicates that “gravel wetlands” is a promising but still experimental treatment, she said.
Patricia Olivier, an abutter to the proposed project and an intervener in the application review, questioned whether the highly controlled UNH environment would be replicated on Fort Hill. She said the tract’s wetlands and other areas are “unlikely to be adequately protected both during and after construction. This development is too large for the land...”
Addressing the issue of economics, Ms. Olivier said, “The sum total of land purchased to date is about the price of one lower-end home in Mystic.” She urged that fewer units be built and should be sold for higher prices. “I would implore the applicant to revisit their plan and adapt it into something that they and the community could be proud of.”
George Logan, a soil scientist hired by the applicant, said he initially was a skeptic about predictions of long-term success of gravel wetlands treatment based on only three years of testing but became a believer when he examined the matter more closely. He didn’t elaborate on the point.
James O’Donnell PhD, a professor of marine sciences at the University of Connecticut at Avery Point, said that the UNH treatment was an “experiment” and that the development could harm “our common resource”--the Long Island Sound. Referring to necessary financial upkeep of the stormwater treatment process, he said that when “condo owners complain about cost, maintenance goes first.” He said Atty. Heller’s opinions on potential pollution impacts of Mystic Woods ought to be rated “very low.” He added that “an auto accident caused by drunken driving is not an accident. It is a foreseeable consequence of a bad decision.” Mr. O'Donnell said he was speaking for himself and not for the University of Connecticut.
Located at the bottom of the approximately 220-foot-high Fort Hill is Fort Hill Brook, which runs into Mumford Cove, off Fisher’s Island Sound, part of Long Island Sound.
Steven D. Trinkaus, a Southbury engineer consulting for GOSA, presented an alternative plan for development that he said “fits the environment, as opposed to the applicant’s plan, which is a highly engineered stormwater treatment” to fit a design imposed on an unwilling environment. He said it is possible to build in many places using highly engineered methods, but the question is “whether you should.”
The purpose of Mr. Trinkaus's presentation was to show that a project with less environmental impact would be both prudent and feasible. His conceptual alternative would eliminate an access road off Flanders Road that would come close to a biologically significant vernal pool. Also eliminated would be buildings and stormwater outlet structures near the pool. The amphibian habitat above the pool no longer would be limited to a narrow corridor threatened by adjacent construction. Mr. Trinkaus's plan also showed sensitive wetlands, steep slopes and other areas unsuitable for building, and it provided for buffer areas to protect neighboring homes. His design is less dense and has fewer impervious surfaces that the one envisioned by the applicant.
Penelope C. Sharp, of Northford, a wetlands scientist commissioned by GOSA, said the wetland near Flanders Road would be hurt badly by the development. She said that direct impacts to water quality would be compounded by habitat loss and by road kills of amphibians. Mr. Logan, who counted 300 egg masses in the pool last spring, said he guaranteed that the project would not cause the egg count to drop below 25--the minimum level for a pool to qualify for Tier 1, or best quality, designation. A drop from 300 egg masses to 25 would amount to more than 90%.
Deb Jones, town environmental planner, said that the hydrology firm hired to provide the IWA with independent advice, Camp, Dresser and McKee, of Cambridge, MA, had concluded that the western slope of the project would be safe from collapse in the event of rainstorms and seismic activity. The conclusion was based on a review of data provided by JGI Eastern Inc., of Manchester, NH, a firm hired by the applicant.
Wendy MacFarland, of Mystic, appearing as an independent citizen, noted with regret that neither Richard Snarski, a town-hired expert on wetlands, nor a representative of Camp, Dresser and McKee, appeared at the meeting in order to take questions. Their absence was not explained during the hearing.
Hearings on the project began May 9, 2007, but the project goes back more than a year. Hawthorne originally presented to the IWA an application May 10, 2006, to build 241 units, but withdrew it in October 2006 after scaling it back to 219 units. The second application comprised a somewhat smaller number of 211 units.
^ back to headlines
Hearings On Floating Zone Continued To Sept. 5
GROTON -- Public hearings on a proposal to allow floating, mixed-use commercial/residential zones in four areas of Groton have been continued to Sept. 5, 2007.
The Zoning Commission decision to continue was taken at a contentious meeting Aug. 1, 2007, where the town planning staff urged that the hearings be closed on grounds that the panel had heard enough to make a decision.
A continuance had been urged by Zoning Commission Chairman Stephen Hudecek and Town Councilor Frank “Mick” O’Beirne. Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, in arguing for closure of the hearings, had remarked that the proposed zoning-regulation amendment that would allow floating zones would undergo revision based on public comment following the hearings.
Mr. O’Beirne said that if that was the case, then the revised application needed to be presented to the public at the next hearing. Responding to the pressure for a continuance, Atty. Timothy Bates, representing the applicant, granted an extension of the time period allowed to the commission to rule on the matter.
Mr. O’Beirne was critical of the proposal, while Mayor Harry Watson, who also attended the hearing, spoke in favor of it.
It was Mr. O’Beirne who had drawn the council’s attention to the amendment proposal by L&L Groton LLC, saying that it was of such overriding significance as to justify attention by the council, which normally stays out of such matters. Mr. O’Beirne, a former Groton mayor, flagged the proposal at a Town Council Committee of the Whole meeting July 24.
In his presentation at the latest Zoning Commission meeting, Atty. Bates said the Groton Open Space Association favors the proposal. Priscilla Pratt, president of GOSA, qualified that statement. She said that while GOSA does appreciate that Mr. Bates met with GOSA ahead of submission of the application, she said it was not accurate to characterize the organization as a supporter. She said GOSA does not oppose concentrating development, but added that concentration would only add to sprawl if it were not balanced by significant open space.
GOSA Director Joan Smith recommended that in exchange for heavy density allowances in the nodes, developers should either make a contribution to the town’s open space fund or, in the case of larger developments, set aside land for open space within nodes.
The heart of the proposal is to allow high-density commercial/residential developments in four areas, or "nodes," designated for development by the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development. An earlier version of the proposal, strongly opposed by GOSA, would have allowed high-density development in the nearly 1,200 rugged acres of the town’s sparsely developed Industrial Park. The IP zones have been withdrawn from the proposal for the time being. The floating zone developments, as described by Mr. Bates, would be pedestrian-friendly and would have a “village” sense of place, in keeping with the principles of the “new urbanism.”
Ms. Smith said that if the floating zone concept were ever extended to the IP zones, GOSA would recommend:
--setasides of contiguous open space large enough (25 acres and much bigger). These should be sufficiently large and articulated to support diverse wildlife, animal corridors and hiking trails and to promote a sense of solitude and enjoyment of nature.
--language be adopted that would limit the amount of contour changes, blasting and the quantity of ground materials removed or filled.
--limits be adopted on the numbers of “villages” permitted in the beautiful IP zones, where intensive development never was foreseen.
She added that the floating zone proposal is symptomatic of the development pressure that exists on Groton. She said time is running out for the town to act on proposals by the Conservation Commission’s recommendation to protect 20 properties. She also called for action on the OPDS promise to hire a consultant to rewrite the town land-use regulations, a rewrite that would include a definition of buildable land.
Eric Knapp, a Glastonbury lawyer representing GOSA, urged again that the procedure for establishing a floating zone in a nodal area be broken into two separate parts: (1) designation of a tract as suitable for a floating zone and (2) approval of the master plan for the zone. As the application is now written, the decisions would be made in one process.
Zoning Commission member Richard Haviland argued that the nodes were too loosely drawn for regulatory purposes. The areas need to be defined down to street names and addresses, he said.
Fellow member Sue Sutherland suggested a fiscal impact study of the application.
^ back to headlines
Councilor O’Beirne Flags Floating Zone Proposal
GROTON -- Town Councilor Frank “Mick” O’Beirne has raised a cautionary flag about the floating zone amendment proposal that currently is before the Zoning Commission.
“It’s not often that an amendment comes along as strong, as overriding as this,” Mr. O’Beirne said at the July 24, 2007, Town Council Committee of the Whole meeting, according to The Day. He said the matter’s importance made it worthy of the council’s attention, even though the council doesn’t normally intervene in zoning.
A Day article by Katie Warchut said: “O’Beirne wants to know what kind of capabilities the new zone could allow future developers. He also took exception to language that considers the Plan of Conservation and Development as ‘purely advisory.’”
As previously noted, the floating zone amendment would allow floating zones to be established on a case-by-case basis in any of four development nodes on tracts of three acres and above. When the amendment first was proposed by L&L Groton LLC, a division of READCO of Old Lyme, it would have applied to eight development nodes and to tracts of at least 25 acres in industrial zones comprising nearly 1,200 acres.
GOSA opposed the proposal as it applied to the industrial zones, and the proposal was narrowed to exclude these. GOSA has suggested some changes to the proposed procedures for establishing a specific floating zone, but it has not opposed the idea in principle as it applies to the four nodes.
The Zoning Commission hearing on the proposal continues Aug. 1.
^ back to headlines
IWA Continues Mystic Woods Hearing
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency has continued the long-running “Mystic Woods” hearings to mid-August so that the applicant, Hawthorne Development Partners LLC, can answer questions raised by an independent hydrological consultant.
At the latest hearing, July 11, 2007, agency members learned that the outside consultant, Camp Dresser and McKee, has asked Hawthorne for information concerning the predicted stability of two slopes at the building site.
Hawthorne has proposed to build a 211-unit Active Senior Housing community on Fort Hill. The project has generated substantial opposition, based on fears of flooding, harm to the 105-acre tract’s wetlands and vernal pools, destruction of wildlife, and pollution of Fort Hill Brook, which flows at the base of the hill and ultimately empties into Mumford Cove.
The hydrology consultant was hired by the IWA under a town ordinance that became effective early this year. It authorizes land-use commissions to employ experts to help evaluate complex applications, and then bill the developer for their services.
The two northern and western slopes, about which Camp Dresser and McKee wants to know more, are not scheduled to be developed, but questions were raised about their stability due to infiltration of storm water into the ground associated with the development.
Hearings on the Mystic Woods application began May 9. They were to be continued June 13 but were delayed by about a month at the request of the developer. This is the second round of IWA consideration of “Mystic Woods.” Hawthorne originally submitted an application May 10, 2006, to build 241 units. The application was withdrawn in October 2006.
Between the May 9 and July 11 meetings, the developer introduced into the plan what it said are improved methods of handling storm water runoff, including use of wetlands systems underlain by gravel.
Experts hired by GOSA and Fort Hill residents found the new plan inadequate.
In a letter to the commission, Atty. Peter B. Cooper cautioned the commission against “claimed technology solutions. This degree of technological reliance would not be required were the intensity of this project not so high. Your statutory responsibilities...extend as far out into the future so that you will be satisfied the project will avoid long-term degradation of the resource. This particularly applies to the areas known as Wetlands 7 and 11 of this site.” He said that the proposed storm water treatment technology is “interesting, but unproven for the long pull.”
Steven D. Trinkaus, of Trinkhaus Engineering LLC, of Southbury, said “many outstanding technical issues” remain in the revised plan. Among other things, he criticized the plan’s pollutant loading analysis as “badly flawed.” He questioned proposed control of erosion during construction. Mr. Trinkaus’s questions also included the impact of storm water flows on two large vernal pools near Flanders Road and the plan’s failure to consider pollution from snowmelt.
Certified Wetland Scientist Penelope C. Sharp of Northford said the “numerous internal roadways” proposed would carry automotive contaminants that could eventually reach wetlands. Even after treatment, these could harm sensitive areas, she said.
“In my opinion, the applicant could further amend the plans to eliminate building units and portions of the roadway network to design a plan that less interferes with the natural environment and works more closely with the constraints imposed by typography and wetlands,” she said.
Several Groton residents commented in opposition to the plan. Anna Sullivan of 81 Flanders Road expressed concern over potential destruction of wildlife habitat on Fort Hill. She said “the shoddy work on the plans, disrespect shown to the citizens at the [IWA] meetings, and lack of cooperation historically that Hawthorne has shown for the neighbors and community spoke volumes to me.”
Ms. Sullivan said that “when [Hawthorne Attorney] Harry Heller turned his back to us in one of the early meetings and reminded us he was ‘presenting to the commission’ it didn’t set well with me. With so little care shown to human inhabitants of the area, I have little hope that care would be taken with any other species.”
Sue Sutherland, of 32 Neptune Drive in the Mumford Cove neighborhood, asked that the application be denied and that a committee be formed between the applicant and other interested parties to recommend alternatives to the proposed plan.
Wendy MacFarland, of 48 Bel-Aire Drive, asked for a second evaluation of the area by the Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team. She said the Autumn, 2006, timing of the previous ERT review prevented the full wildlife evaluation that would be possible in the summer.
The hearing is scheduled to continue Aug. 15, 2007.
^ back to headlines
SCCOG Draft Plan Termed Weak On Conservation
GROTON -- The Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments presented a draft Regional Plan of Conservation and Development in Groton June 28, 2007. It listed Issue No. 1 for the region as governmental fragmentation and it gave scant attention to the need for open space.
In commentary that followed the SCCOG presentation, Brae Rafferty, chairman of the Town of Groton Conservation Commission, said the conservation component of the report was “very weak.” He said it is important to have greenbelts, including wildlife corridors, linking towns, and he would like to see a much stronger emphasis on conservation in the final 2007 report.
The Groton Open Space Association also was generally critical of the report, though it praised Section 12.8, which said:
“Significant natural resources exist throughout the region. While these resources pose limitations to development, it is imperative that these resources be protected. Failure to meet this challenge will create significant impacts on every facet of economic growth and quality of life in southeastern Connecticut.”
Joan Smith, a GOSA director, commented that the draft plan “does not adequately address the conservation goals articulated by the large citizen group that attended the public hearing [last year] in Groton. The plan minimizes the overwhelming response in favor of farm and woodland protection, and prioritizes water resource protection without recognizing the critical importance of open space protection in achieving that goal.”
She said the plan’s “historic review of past [regional] POCDs fails to emphasize conservation opportunities won and lost and fails to provide a focus for new efforts.”
Another GOSA director, Sidney Van Zandt, urged the SCCOG to establish as a major goal the protection of the region’s water supply, which she said could fall short of needs created by development as early as 2010--“only three years from this very night.” She urged promotion by the SCCOG of innovative stormwater practices, including pervious blacktop, such as those that are being developed by the Stormwater Center of the University of New Hampshire at Durham.
Discussing the need for open space, Ms. Van Zandt said that only 11% of Groton’s open space is securely protected. Looking back, she noted that GOSA and its members had a major hand in saving the 1000+ acres of Bluff Point and Haley Farm “from the threat of over 600 acres of residential development, an industrial park, a 400-boat marina, underground oil storage, a helicopter landing pad, a bridge promised by NY’s [Planner Robert] Moses from the east end of Long Island to Fisher’s Island and Bluff Point and Watch Hill to hook up with [a] four-lane highway” connecting Route 117 with Bluff Point. She also recalled the threat of a “major jetport across the Poquonnock River” from Bluff Point.
She said, “My question tonight is have we learned?” from the proposed anti-environment follies of the past.
James Furlong, another GOSA director, said the draft seriously overstated the amount and percentage of securely protected open space in Groton and said the numbers in the draft SCCOG report conflict with those in the 2002 Groton Town Plan of Conservation and Development, adjusted for the addition of 57 acres to Haley Farm since 2002.
In contrast to last year’s well-attended meeting on June 15, 2006, this year’s drew only about 10 members of the public. (Last year's meeting.)
James Butler, SCCOG executive director, said, “We want to continue to improve the [10-year draft] plan...” At present, he said, SCCOG is without regulatory or taxing powers and is limited to the “power of persuasion.”
^ back to headlines
Zoning Unit Continues Floating Zone Hearing To Aug. 1
GROTON -- The Zoning Commission plans to continue its public hearing Aug. 1, 2007, on a proposal to allow mixed-use commercial/residential floating zones in four areas of Groton.
The hearing began June 27, 2007, with a 2¼-hour presentation by L & L Groton LLC, the applicant for a zoning amendment to allow the floating zones. One night previously, the Planning Commission had given a favorable referral to the Zoning Commission on the application but had suggested some refinements.
Led by the applicant’s attorney, Timothy Bates, of Robinson & Cole, the presentation to Zoning put forward the view that floating zones would:
--help address southeastern Connecticut’s “housing crisis by developing workforce housing.”
--encourage “responsible residential & economic development through mixed use village patterns”
--create development that returns to New England’s village roots
--build a “nodal neighborhood while preserving and enhancing Groton’s existing community character”
The floating zones would be allowed in four of eight areas identified as development “nodes” by the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development. These designated areas are nodes around: the intersection of Routes 117 and 184, downtown Groton, and Route 12 around the I-95 overpass and, to the north, Route 12 around the Ledyard border.
After receiving feedback from the Office of Planning and Development and the Groton Open Space Association, the applicant earlier had withdrawn proposals to allow floating zones in four other nodes and in the nearly 1,200 acre Industrial Park zones. It’s expected the Industrial Park initiative will return in another form. GOSA had criticized the original Industrial Park proposal for inadequate protection of open space and no safeguards against creation of cheek-by-jowl “village” developments.
GOSA explained at the hearing that it had dropped its opposition to the proposal when its scope was narrowed. However, GOSA did present a letter from its attorney, Eric Knapp of Branse, Willis & Knapp of Glastonbury, asking the commission to consider two procedural alternatives to what is contained in the application.
GOSA asked for increased time for the Planning Commission to consider Zoning Commission referrals on floating zones. As the proposal is written, the Planning Commission effectively has only 25 days to report out a referral unless it gets an extension from the applicant. Though the applicant is bound to grant such an extension, GOSA has argued that the rules should give Planning ample time without any need for an extension.
The application foresees that the decisions both to rezone an area and to adopt a so-called master plan for developing it would be made in one Zoning Commission process. GOSA has suggested that the process be broken into two parts. The first would be to decide whether an area should be rezoned and the second would be to determine what kind of development should be allowed in the zone.
GOSA also questioned whether buildings as tall as six stories ought to be allowed in floating zones, as is proposed.
^ back to headlines
Planning Endorses Floating Zone But Seeks Refinements
GROTON -- The Planning Commission unanimously issued a favorable advisory opinion June 26, 2007, on a proposed zoning regulation amendment that would allow creation of floating zones.
However, the commission expressed a number of concerns about the amendment and recommended that the Zoning Commission address them.
The Zoning Commission had referred the matter to the Planning Commission for an opinion. If the Planning Commission had recommended against the proposal, then the measure would have had to pass the Zoning Commission by a supermajority, rather than a simple majority, in order to take effect.
The Planning Commission said it wanted:
--language to ensure that the Planning Commission would have enough time to comment on proposed floating zones and master plans. Concerns had been raised, including by GOSA, that the Planning Commission could be rushed or excluded altogether from referral opinions.
--more specific protection of recreational and green space, a point pushed by Commission Member Peter Roper.
--explicit affirmation of the Planning Commission’s undiminished authority to approve site plans associated with master plans.
--mechanisms to ensure that master plans were carried out in accordance with the terms approved by the town.
The initial scope of the floating zone proposal has been narrowed considerably from the original draft. On June 5, 2007, the applicant, L & L Groton LLC, excluded from the application the Industrial Park zones, totaling nearly 1,200 acres, and four “nodes” identified by the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development.
The floating zone amendment at present would apply only to four other POCD-identified nodes: downtown Groton, the area surrounding the crossing of I-95 and Route 1, the submarine base area and the intersection of Routes 117 and 184.
The floating zone language would free developers of conventional zoning requirements in designated areas and allow them to build in accordance with a town-approved master plan. Atty. Timothy Bates, representing L & L Groton, has listed walkability, good architecture and a sense of place as among the goals of floating zone proponents.
Though the proposals for the Industrial Park zones have been withdrawn for now, they are expected to resurface. GOSA had opposed them originally on grounds that they lacked provision for protecting open space.
The first “landing” of the floating zone reportedly is planned for Routes 117 and 184, where a mixed-use commercial-residential “village” is proposed. Commission Member Roper said such a development would be preferable to a big box store, which potentially could locate there.
^ back to headlines
Groton Floating Zone Applicant Reduces Scope Of Request
GROTON -- The applicant for a Floating Mixed Use Zone for Groton has amended its application, considerably reducing the area to which it would apply.
The applicant, L & L Groton LLC, notified the Office of Planning and Development June 5, 2007, that it would exclude from its proposal the Industrial Park zones and four development “nodes” identified by the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development.
The Industrial Park zones comprise some 1,200 acres, of which more than 700 were undeveloped or underdeveloped as of publication of the POCD.
The amended application also excludes the following nodes: Mystic, Noank, City of Groton and the Institutional Node along Route 215 and U.S. Route 1.
The nodes that would remain subject to the Floating Zone would be Downtown Groton, the area around Route 12 where it is crossed by I-95, Route 12 near the Ledyard border, and the area near the intersection of Routes 117 and 184.
An Industrial Zone proposal for greenfields development is expected to resurface in some form. Atty. Timothy Bates, representing L & L Groton, said in a letter to the Planning Commission:
“We are aware of interest in exploring the possible creation of mixed-used communities in a part of the industrial zone. However, given the concerns raised to date, we believe it would be advisable to take additional time to identify what portions of the industrial zone should or could be so developed and what specific development restrictions should be considered before allowing mixed uses in greenfield areas, including open space goals.”
He said that "Planning staff has questioned the advisability of including the entire industrial zone as a potential site for mixed use, and the Groton Open Space Association has expressed concern about extending mixed uses into the undeveloped industrial park absent more detailed objectives, particularly regarding protection of open space."
For an earlier story on the proposal, click on: background
^ back to headlines
Paving Paradise: from The Day.Com
By Steve Fagin, Day Staff Columnist
Published on 5/22/2007
The other morning a friend and I ran from the Mystic River to the Poquonnock River – not a vast distance, only about five miles as the crow flies, a few additional miles on foot – and within that span gas stations, convenience stores, housing subdivisions, strip malls, an interstate highway and dozens of smaller roads make up the patchwork of development that has spread not just in Groton but from coast to coast...
To go directedly to the full article, click on: Day Website
^ back to headlines
Schedule For Floating Zone Consideration Changed
GROTON -- The schedule for official review of a proposed Mixed-Use Floating Zone has been changed to give more time to the Office of Planning and Development Services, the Planning Commission and the Zoning Commission to do their work on the proposal.
The Zoning Commission originally was scheduled to hold a public hearing June 6, 2007, on the proposal, which would require a Zoning Regulation amendment.
Michael J. Murphy, head of the town’s Office of Planning and Development Services, told a Planning Commission meeting May 22 that the previously scheduled June 6 Zoning Commission meeting has been cancelled and will be replaced by a meeting June 27. Meanwhile, he said, OPDS staff will complete their review of the amendment initiative, which he said could undergo some alteration by mid-June. He presumably was referring to the time when the June 27 hearing on the proposal must be publicly advertised.
Among other preliminary work that needs to be completed is the Zoning Commission’s referral of the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for an opinion. In the event of a negative Planning Commission opinion, the amendment would need to pass the Zoning Commission by a supermajority, rather than a simple majority.
The new timing apparently means that the main Planning Commission discussion of the Floating Zone proposal, by L&L Groton LLC, of Old Lyme, will take place at the next PC meeting, June 12. It could extend to the June 26 session, as well.
The Planning Commission heard a short preliminary presentation on the referral at its May 22 meeting. Atty. Timothy Bates, representing L&L Groton, reviewed the plan and its goals in general terms: to break the pattern of strip malls and standardized subdivisions and to mix housing and commercial development in village-like settings. This “New Urban” vision would apply both in certain nodes identified by the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development and in the large Industrial Park zones north and south of I-95. Six-story buildings would be allowed in the Floating Zones, subject to town approval.
Earlier, during the Public Communications portion of the meeting, GOSA had expressed general approval of the idea when applied to the nodes. However, GOSA urged that the IP zones be left out of the amendment. Mr. Bates played down GOSA concerns that the regulations could lead to side-by-side compact developments in the 700+ vacant or underdeveloped acres of the IP zones. However, he said he was willing to work with GOSA to deal with its concerns.
Following is the text of a GOSA letter, signed by President Priscilla W. Pratt, to the Planning Commission that was read in part to the commission during the Public Communications portion of the meeting. GOSA’s reading was cut short after an estimated nine minutes by Acting Chairman Jeffrey C. Pritchard, who cited the commission’s heavy agenda. GOSA handed out written copies of the letter to commission members.
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
GROTON -- Susan Sutherland, representing the Friends of Fort Hill, made a statement to the Inland Wetlands Agency May 9, 2007, concerning the proposed 211-unit "Mystic Woods" active senior housing complex between Route 1 and Flanders Road. The statement dealt not only with the project but the planning process in Groton. Following is the text:
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
GROTON -- The Town of Groton Inland Wetlands Agency began a hearing May 9, 2007, on a revised plan for the proposed Mystic Woods Active Senior Housing complex on Fort Hill. The hearing will continue at the IWA's June 13 meeting.
GOSA coverage begins with The Day's Groton-datelined report on the meeting, filed by reporter Katie Warchut. It ends with a GOSA summary of statements made too late in the evening to be included in The Day:
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.
BEGIN GOSA MATERIAL ADDED MAY 11
Both GOSA and the Friends of Fort Hill spoke in opposition to the application.
Peter B. Cooper, a New Haven attorney representing GOSA, said that the current application represented a mere “tweaking” of the withdrawn 2006 application.
“The current design is not a rethinking of the site with an understanding of the specific location of its most important wetland areas, its vernal pools, and the steepness of the slopes and their location.”
Mr. Cooper said the the IWA is legally charged with protecting ecological integrity when it reviews a proposed development. He said, “As an Inland Wetland Agency, it is vital to remember the most simple of rules: water always runs downhill.” He said “when a development proposal is one of massive intensity at the top of the hill, and where the highest quality wetlands on the site lie downhill from that development, as here, the agency should heed all of the flashing warning signals about the threats to preserving long-term wetland integrity.” He urged that the plan be denied.
Sue Sutherland, a member of the Friends of Fort Hill who lives in the Mumford Cove area, expressed concern about the negative impact of the development on Fort Hill Brook, which runs into Mumford Cove less than a mile downstream. The development would “add significant pollutants to the already stressed Cove,” she said. She also said the plan threatens to destoy vernal pools in Wetlands 11 by placing a road nearby.
More generally, she said, “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.”
Noting the high priorities placed by the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development on protection of water and open space, she described as discouraging “the lack of consensus-building from the town down from [Planning] Staff to the community, including relevant volunteer agencies and community groups across Groton.” She said that the town should have adopted years ago a buildable land definition with a density regulation and, if it had, “we would be welcoming active senior housing, not fighting it being plopped in the wrong place.”
Steven D. Trinkaus of Trinkhaus Engineering LLC, of Southbury, discussed the GOSA-commissioned engineering review he performed of the revised project. His lengthy report concluded, that “there are many outstanding technical issues with the [applicant’s] submitted plans and reports.”
He said, “The layout of the site has not significantly changed from the original application which was reviewed last August. The road and unit layout appear virtually the same. While two of the storm water treatment systems have been improved by the use of gravel wetland systems, other portions of the storm water treatment systems remain unchanged. The proposed development appears to be forced onto the site in a rectilinear fashion, which requires substantial earthwork to force the development onto the land, instead of working with the natural land forms.”
^ back to headlines
GOSA Withdraws Proposed Zoning Amendments
GROTON -- The Groton Open Space Association withdrew its application for zoning amendments at a May 2, 2007, meeting of the Zoning Commission after the commission declined to consider changes GOSA had attempted to make in its application.
GOSA had proposed adoption of a definition of buildable land and a moratorium on new applications for Active Senior Housing complexes. After getting feedback from the Planning Commission and town Staff, it softened some of the buildable land elements of its proposal.
After a short presentation May 2 by GOSA’s attorney, Frank Cochran, and a brief discussion among commission members, Mr. Hudecek recommended that GOSA resubmit its proposals as a new application. He said the changes proposed by GOSA were too large to fall into the category of minor adjustments that could be made in the course of a hearing.
Michael J. Murphy, head of the town’s Office of Planning and Development Services, said that the alterations GOSA wanted to make in its original proposal had not been legally advertised ahead of the May 2 meeting.
Mr. Cochran asked that the proceedings be postponed so that the changed proposal could be advertised and so that he could work with the OPDS on integrating GOSA’s suggested zoning amendments into existing town regulations. However, Mr. Murphy insisted that the town was planning to hire a consultant to do a major rewrite of town land-use regulations and that he was not prepared to work with GOSA on a separate process.
Following the withdrawal, Mr. Hudecek told Mr. Murphy that he considered adoption of a buildable land definition a “high priority.” Mr. Murphy rejoined that this was considered a “moderate priority” in the 2002 Town of Groton Plan of Conservation and Development.
Mr. Hudecek said, “For the record, I feel it’s a high priority.” In a referral meeting on GOSA’s proposal, the Planning Commission also had identified a buildable land definition as a high priority, though it did not feel GOSA’s definition could be adopted as written.
Because the hearing was cut short by GOSA’s withdrawal of both its proposals, GOSA did not have an opportunity to elaborate on its attorney's remarks. (Its planned statement follows.) Nor was that opportunity to speak given to the lawyers and numerous landowners who had shown up to oppose GOSA’s proposals. Mr. Murphy asked that they be allowed to address the commission, but Mr. Hudecek did not permit that, in light of GOSA's withdrawal. Among those present was Atty. Harry Heller, who represents the potential developer of the "Mystic Woods" Active Senior Housing development on Fort Hill. Mr. Heller also is representing developers who seek to create a mixed-use transitional floating zone that ultimately would land on a tract adjoining the Golden Triangle in Stonington.
POST-PUBLICATION NOTE: Mr. Murphy said May 4 after reading a portion of this article that he wanted it made clear that he did not urge that people be permitted to speak after the official close of the hearing. While the article does not assert that he did so urge, we are glad to include his statement with this article. END NOTE
Mr. Hudecek indicated he would like to see a buildable land definition before completion of a rewrite of town land-use regulations, which he thought might take a couple of years.
Mr. Murphy said, “Well, maybe we can move certain things up.” Mr. Murphy expressed consternation at comments by the state Department of Environmental Protection on GOSA’s proposals. He noted that the DEP even advocated including [notable or specimen] “trees” in the definition. Mr. Murphy said that was “extreme, even for the state.” Earlier, Matt Davis, Planning Manager, had rebuked a DEP official who inquired as to whether the GOSA proposal had been referred to the town’s Conservation Commission for comment. Mr. Davis said in an April 23 e-mail to the official, David J. Kozak, Senior Coastal Planner:
“Your asking these questions within the context of a zoning regulation amendment is, frankly, very disconcerting.” He asked for a meeting with the official and “your supervisor.” The e-mail was copied to Groton Town Manager Mark Oefinger, among others.
Despite the evident upset of some in the Groton officialdom, Mr. Kozak produced an April 26 letter that included considerable backing of GOSA’s proposals, while recommending strengthening some of them, as well as a withdrawal in order to allow work to integrate the proposals with existing regulations. He made no reference to Mr. Davis’s e-mailed rebuke.
Following is the statement GOSA would have made to the commission, if the withdrawal had not prevented that:
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
GROTON -- The Planning Commission on April 24, 2007, rejected GOSA’s specific proposal for a buildable land definition, but it said that a satisfactory definition is a high priority and should be produced in a timely manner.
In an advisory opinion to the Zoning Commission, the Planning Commission said that GOSA failed to provide justification for the specific form of its definition and that the impact of GOSA’s proposal on the full range of the town’s Zoning Regulations wasn’t known.
However, the five-member panel drew up its own motion on the GOSA suggestions, rejecting a harshly critical motion offered by Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, and Matthew J. Davis, manager of planning services. The commission’s motion, which it approved by a 5-0 vote, said that the need to address buildable land, as proposed by the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development, is a high priority, as are several companion POCD recommendations.
Mr. Murphy and Mr. Davis had urged the panel to vote on the motion that Staff had prepared, rather than drafting their own. At one point in a sometimes heated discussion, Mr. Davis asked Chairman James Sherrard about Mr. Sherrard’s statement that he wanted a buildable land definition though he wasn’t satisfied with GOSA’s definition.
Mr. Davis asked, “What does that mean? Your job is to make a recommendation.” Mr. Davis said Mr. Sherrard’s statement amounted to an endorsement of “warm and fuzzy feel-good things.”
Mr. Sherrard responded that the Planning Commission in fact frequently responds to referrals from other agencies without giving a “definitive yes or no.”
Both Mr. Sherrard and Commission Member Peter Roper expressed disappointment that the OPDS staff had not reacted to GOSA’s proposals in a more constructive manner.
Mr. Roper said that “we’re seeing more and more [development] proposals on worse and worse land” and that the town needs tools to control this.
The Zoning Commission, which has the final say on GOSA’s proposed amendments to the zoning regulations, is scheduled to consider the proposed changes at its May 2 meeting.
GOSA also had proposed a moratorium on Active Senior Housing, but the Planning Commission recommended against this measure.
Regarding buildable land, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Davis said that the OPDS is ready to hire a consultant to overhaul a town land-use regulations and that a definition should await this overhaul. Mr. Murphy said that under this scenario, a definition would be a year away. The wording of the Commission’s referral recommendation showed dissatisfaction with that timetable.
GOSA Attorney Frank Cochran offered to work with the OPDS over coming weeks to fine-tune GOSA’s proposal, which he said had been purposely aggressive in order to stimulate debate, but staff said no satisfactory overhaul would be possible in two to four weeks. Mr. Cochran said GOSA was surprised by the OPDS’s “hostility” to its proposals. Mr. Davis and Mr. Murphy contended that besides being aggressive and broad, the proposed GOSA buildable land definition was not integrated with existing Zoning Regulations.
“This is a citizens’ group that is trying to put the Plan of Conservation and Development into effect. We’d be happy to work with you.”
The POCD’s recommendation for a buildable land definition is accompanied by several others, all on Page 79 of the POCD report. The others, which the Planning Commission endorsed April 24 as high priorities, are:
--using a density regulation to regulate development yield.
--requiring a specific percentage of a parcel be preserved as open space.
--providing flexibility in minimum lot size requirements within acceptable health code standards.
(For additional background, see April 10, 2007 story directly below this one.)
^ back to headlines
Planning Commission To Comment on GOSA Land Proposal April 24
GROTON -- The Planning Commission is scheduled to vote Tuesday, April 24, 2007, on whether to recommend that the Zoning Commission pass or deny GOSA’s proposal for a buildable land definition and a temporary moratorium on Active Senior Housing.
Final decision on the zoning amendments proposed by GOSA rests with the Zoning Commission, but the Planning Commission makes an important recommendation. If the Planning Commission’s finding is negative for the proposal, the measure would need approval by a “supermajority” of the Zoning Commission in order to pass. Otherwise, a simple majority would be sufficient for passage.
The Zoning Commission has five members, so a simple majority would mean three votes, while a supermajority would demand four votes. The Zoning Commission begins hearings on the GOSA proposal May 2, 2007.
In the Planning Commission’s initial consideration on April 10, the staff of the Office of Planning and Development Services recommended against the measures. Matthew Davis, manager of Planning Services with the OPDS, presented a memo to the commission that called the moratorium unnecessary and termed the buildable land definitions inflexible, not well integrated into existing regulations, very broad and overly aggressive.
GOSA proposes that buildable land should exclude inland wetlands and watercourses, 100-year flood zones, slopes in excess of 15 per cent and areas having naturally occurring ledge or rock outcroppings exceeding 150 square feet in horizontal area. It proposes that in determining compliance with minimum lot and parcel sizes, the buildable area only should be counted. One of the most important impacts of the GOSA amendment, if adopted, would be to limit the size of Active Senior Housing developments, such as the 241-unit Mystic Woods community that a developer proposed last year on Fort Hill. The GOSA proposal is aimed at limiting density calculations, rather than prescribing physical limits on building.
The 2002 Groton Plan of Conservation and Development recommended adoption of a buildable land definition. The OPDS has been promising one for more than two years. Mr. Davis, who joined the OPDS six months ago, told the Planning Commission that the OPDS expects to begin work on overhauling zoning regulations in July. GOSA had urged adoption of a buildable land definition prior to enactment of the Active Senior Housing amendment Feb. 2, 2005. However, Michael Murphy, head of the OPDS, said a definition would have to wait for a more comprehensive forthcoming measure that would deal with other forms of housing as well.
In the background to the Planning Commission deliberations is a proposal by an Old Lyme developer to create a floating mixed commercial/residential zone that could land on various town locations -- both on "nodes" as defined in the POCD and on certain other areas. The zoning would allow buildings up to six stories in height. The first proposed landing for the floating zone would be a 33-acre tract at the intersection of Routes 117 and 184.
Mr. Davis’s memo said a proper zoning revision would “promote a built environment that achieves adopted form, character and environmental objectives, while placing far less emphasis on conventional regulation via Euclidean metrics (i.e. ‘density’ and ‘lot size’), especially in areas served by or planned for, public water and sewers.”
He said the GOSA proposal does not take into consideration “high-priority objectives such as implementation of the ‘nodes’ concept.”
GOSA noted in the hearing that the POCD contemplates both buildable land definitions and nodes and said GOSA finds nothing contradictory in those goals.
Attorney Frank B. Cochran, appearing for GOSA, told the meeting that GOSA wants “active discussion” of buildable land, noting that many communities have such definitions and that these rules do not cause the “havoc” that Mr. Davis predicts in Groton if the GOSA proposal is adopted. Mr. Cochran said the basic purpose of the proposal is to “reduce overcrowding in developable areas.” In a memo to Mr. Davis, he said that “Most post-Euclidean zoning techniques have some size and/or density standards” in order to comply with state law.
Groton resident Susan Sutherland raised questions about whether Active Senior Housing really would offer the tax advantages that are claimed and urged further study of the tax aspects of senior housing. She said education costs entailed by ASH could be far higher in a new ASH community than proponents claim and could grow over time.
The Planning Commission was expected to consider detailed arguments on the GOSA proposal on April 24, 2007.
None of the Planning Commission members expressed final opinions in this first hearing. Planning Commission member Peter Roper said he feels that “the good land has been developed and we’re pushing the envelope on some development. We ought to have a way to keep things in bounds.” He noted the POCD recommendation for a buildable land definition is longstanding and said that if the OPDS does not like the GOSA proposal, it should come up with an alternative.
Member Ray Munn expressed skepticism about a moratorium but said he was more open to a buildable land definition. Member Hank Steinford asked whether the Zoning Commission could accept an altered GOSA plan and, if so, whether the Planning Commission would get another chance to comment on it.
Mr. Davis said, “I don’t think this proposal can be fixed.” Chairman James Sherrard said it appeared that the Planning Commission could be able to comment on any changes if the Zoning Commission hearings went past May 2, but would not be able to do so otherwise. Member Jeffrey Pritchard said he would like further information as to how engineers could measure the area of a three-dimensional rock outcropping. Member Richard Fitzgerald asked whether ASH moratorium proposals had occurred elsewhere in the state.
^ back to headlines
Mixed-Use "Town" Plan Near Route 117/184 Corner: The Day
Groton — The Day reported April 12, 2007, that a 33-acre mixed-use development is proposed for the area around the northwest corner of Routes 117 and 184.
An article by staff reporter Katie Warchut said:
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
GROTON -- GOSA director Sidney F. Van Zandt has established a system to deal with the increasingly bothersome problem of dog waste along the trails and in the meadows and woods of Haley Farm State Park.
Mrs. Van Zandt, assisted by her husband, Sandy, mounted a dispenser for Mutt-Mitts on the rustic bulletin board at the entrance to the park on April 3, 2007. Mrs. Van Zandt also posted several signs on the board asking park users to clean up after their dogs. Dog owners use the mitts first to pick up the waste and then turn the mitts inside out to make bags.
To complete the system, Mrs. Van Zandt obtained from the Groton Parks Department a large metal barrel with a lid to accept used bags, and she arranged with the Noank Fire District for regular pickups by the Sauchuk sanitation company.
The new sanitation system has the blessing of the state Department of Environmental Protection, which is responsible for the park.
The Groton Open Space Association paid for the dispenser and mitts.
In the above picture of Mrs. Van Zandt, a tractor sits in the background, to the left of the bulletin board. It belongs to the Crowley farming family, whom GOSA has hired for 21 years to cut the fields to prevent them from turning to woodland.
^ back to headlines
New Version Of Mystic Woods Introduced To IWA
GROTON -- Atty. Harry Heller introduced a new version of the controversial Mystic Woods Active Senior Housing project on Fort Hill to the Inland Wetlands Agency March 28, 2007.
The new version envisions 211 units, down from the 219 units in a plan that was withdrawn after heavy fire last October. Mr. Heller is attorney for Hawthorne Development Partners LLC of Woburn, Massachusetts.
Mr. Heller asked whether the IWA wanted a full presentation. In response, the IWA requested that he hold that presentation for the hearing, which the IWA scheduled for May 9.
The Inland Wetlands Agency discussed its need to hire a soil scientist and an engineer who specializes in hydrology to help evaluate the project.
br>
^ back to headlines
Superior Court Judge Studies Bonvie’s Proposed Appeal Drop
NEW LONDON -- Superior Court Judge Joseph Purtill said March 27, 2007, that he will study Massachusetts Developer Ron Bonvie’s request to withdraw his appeal of environmental restrictions placed by the Town of Groton Inland Wetlands Agency on his proposed development of a “residential life care center” off Noank-Ledyard Road.
After hearing arguments by Atty. Thomas Londregan for Mr. Bonvie’s Mystic Active Adult LLC and Atty. Richard Dixon for the Groton Open Space Association, Judge Purtill said that Mr. Bonvie’s motion to withdraw appeared more complicated than is usual in such cases and the judge would need to review the matter.
He said he would make a decision as soon as possible. It was expected the decision would come within a month.
Mr. Bonvie’s proposed “Four Winds” development would sit on 105 acres of the 160-acre Watrous property. The site recently was placed on a list of 20 properties that the state would like to acquire for public open space.
GOSA, which has intervenor status in the dispute between Mr. Bonvie and the IWA, maintains the case should be remanded to the Inland Wetlands Agency. Judge Purtill had ordered such a remand April 13, 2005, when he ruled against the town on the appeal.
In the April 2005 decision, Judge Purtill struck down two restrictions by the IWA that were intended to protect salamanders. Judge Purtill said that the measures were unjustified in light of the State Supreme Court’s Oct. 14, 2003, AvalonBay decision, which sharply limited powers of wetlands agencies to protect wildlife. The judge also directed the IWA to reconsider its decision to disallow Wetlands Crossing C because he said the agency’s economically based argument against the crossing was not backed up. He said the crossing should be reconsidered “in light of” his denial of the two other restrictions--on construction phasing and closing of an interior road during salamander mating season.
Mr. Londregan said in court March 27 that Mr. Bonvie had wasted a lot of time and money on the appeal and had decided to drop the matter. He argued that a simple “withdrawal” of the appeal did not require the agreement of GOSA. The town has agreed to accept the withdrawal, though its attorney, Michael Carey, said it would have to made clear that Judge Purtill’s memorandum of decision in April 2005 was vacated and that Mr. Bonvie agreed to accept all restrictions placed on the development by the IWA.
Mr. Dixon argued for GOSA that the dropping of the appeal would be a “settlement,” rather than a “withdrawal,” and would require participation of GOSA in the process. He urged the judge to stand by his original decision and require remand to the agency.
GOSA, too, had appealed the IWA decision because it felt the decision didn’t adequately protect the site’s extraordinarily rich aquatic life. Judge Purtill ruled against GOSA, also on April 13, 2005, largely because of the AvalonBay decision. Mr. Dixon said March 27 that GOSA was deprived of its chance to frame its argument to the IWA in terms of the AvalonBay decision because the decision did not exist at the time of the IWA hearings, months earlier in 2003. Mr. Dixon said it was in the public interest that those arguments should now be heard, in connection with the remand.
The Appellate Court declined Dec. 13, 2006, to allow Mr. Bonvie in effect to drop his appeal, saying that the Superior Court’s judgment was not final but involved an order for remand that had not yet been complied with.
Mr. Carey said the Inland Wetlands Agency, rather than GOSA, represents the public interest. In response to Mr. Dixon’s argument that the public interest demanded review of the questions raised by the timing of the AvalonBay decision, he said, “You only get so many bites at the apple.” He indicated that if GOSA had possessed evidence relevant to the Supreme Court’s then-future decision on Avalon Bay, it should have presented that evidence.
^ back to headlines
Mystic Woods Again On IWA Agenda
GROTON -- The “Mystic Woods” application is coming back before the Inland Wetlands Agency.
The official IWA agenda for the March 28, 2007, meeting lists “Mystic Woods, 0 Flanders Road” as second item under New Applications. The IWA meeting in the Town Hall Annex begins at 7:30 p.m.
Last October, the would-be developer of a 219-unit "Mystic Woods" Active Senior Housing complex on a 105-acre parcel on Fort Hill withdrew its application from the IWA, which was deliberating the project.
Mystic Woods had provoked intense opposition. Opponents have said the project would cause local flooding; pollute Fort Hill Brook, which runs into Mumford Cove; destroy wetland habitat; constitute unacceptably intense use of the land; and create severe traffic hazards on Route 1. The development would be located between Flanders Road on the east and Route 1 on the west.
At the time of the withdrawal, it was expected that the would-be developer, Hawthorne Development Partners LLC, of Woburn, Massachusetts, would be back with a new version of the project.
Harry Heller, attorney for Hawthorne, recently finished presenting a controversial 35-lot development in a historic area of Ledyard to the Ledyard Planning Commission. The developer in that case does business as “332 CLH LLC,” according to The Day.
^ back to headlines
Environmental Review Report on Mystic Woods Is Released
HADDAM -- The Connecticut Environmental Review Team report on the proposed Mystic Woods Active Senior Housing complex was released March 5, 2007. The full report is available at www.ctert.org.
^ back to headlines
Hill Friends’ASH Paper Discussion Barred; GOSA Application Taken
GROTON -- Only two items were scheduled at the March 7, 2007 Groton Town Zoning Commission meeting.
No. 1 was Old Business: a petition by the Friends of Fort Hill, with John Sutherland representing his absent wife, Susan, to request a moratorium on Active Senior Housing to allow adoption of a buildable area definition, and a request to address the tax and social consequences of current ASH regulations. The second item was New Business: acceptance of GOSA’s application for a zoning text amendment, concerning buildable area definitions, ASH density calculations, and a moratorium on Active Senior Housing.
Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, recommended against discussion of either agenda item, so as not to jeopardize GOSA’s application process. He argued that, because there were similar, overlapping, topics, any discussion could put the application at risk. Only procedural issues were discussed. The committee did not permit discussion of any substantive topic, including the tax and age components of the Friends’ petition, which are not found in the GOSA application.
The Friends had submitted a petition, with approximately 110 signatures, to the Commission on Jan. 3, 2007. The Commission placed it on the schedule for its Feb. 7 meeting, but announced a cancellation of that meeting on Jan. 31. There is no current plan and -- it was stated -- no legal requirement for the Zoning Commission to address the Friends’ petition.
GOSA submitted its application Feb 7, 2007. The Commission has 65 days, from the March 7 acceptance date, to schedule a hearing. Related commissions have 35 days to respond to required referrals. A hearing is scheduled May 2, 2007.
By Joan Smith
^ back to headlines
Groton Wal-Mart Developer Suing Town Commission
GROTON -- The Day reported on March 3, in an article written by Karen Florin, Day Staff Writer, that Konover Development, the Groton Wal-Mart developer, is suing the Town Commission. The full article from The Day follows:
Groton — The proposed developer of a 200,000-square-foot Wal-Mart Supercenter off Route 184 is appealing the Planning Commission's Feb. 15 rejection of the project.
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.
Whitney estimated it would be eight or nine months before the appeal is heard.
--Karen Florin, Day Staff Writer (Originally printed in The Day, March 3, 2007)
^ back to headlines
GOSA Seeks WRPD Moratorium
GROTON -- Joan Smith read a GOSA statement, at Citizen’s Petitions, February 20, 2007 Groton Town Council meeting, requesting collaboration with the Planning and Zoning Commissions to impose a moratorium, for up to one year, on new applications for development within the State-designated Water Resource Protection District, surrounding the Groton reservoir system. The Council referred the request to the committee of the Whole. The text of GOSA’s request:
“GOSA recommends that the Town Council collaborate with the Planning and Zoning Commissions to seek a moratorium on all new applications for development within the CT State-designated Groton Water Resource Protection District. The State of Connecticut Plan of Conservation and Development 2005-2010 policy for state-designated conservation areas and public drinking water supply watersheds states: “Guide intensive development away from existing and potential water supply watersheds and aquifers and consider the cumulative effects of incremental growth in state, regional and local planning programs and regulations.”
The moratorium could provide time, for up to one year, to allow completion of a State-funded study of the WRPD, already under way, and for implementation of appropriate amendments to the Groton Town Zoning regulations, as they relate to stormwater discharge and water resource protection. Thankfully, the existing zoning regulations provided sufficient protective language to support a recent Planning Commission motion to deny a large retail development within the WRPD. However, GOSA recommends more stringent requirements for percentages of impervious and undisturbed surfaces, and more stringent requirements for the treatment and discharge of storm water. Revised regulations need to conform to current engineering practices, and to the standards found in the Connecticut DEP 2004 Stormwater Quality Manual. Additionally, the regulations may require an outside engineering review, by a qualified CT Licensed Professional Engineer, on any applications within the Water Resource Protection District, with the cost to be borne by the applicant.
Mike Murphy, Director of Groton Department of Planning and Development Services, introduced an “economic development master plan” at the Planning Commission Feb. 13, 2007 meeting, which could have a profound deleterious impact on the reservoir system. This plan would provide for a connector road between Buddington Road and a site proximate to the intersection of Winding Hollow and Antonino Roads. The plan would “infill” the area, now forested, with commercial development in more “depth” than is possible now. This “master plan” would imperil the existing protection the reservoir receives from natural vegetative cover by permitting an increase of many acres of impervious surface area. Mr. Murphy further recommended against the citizens’ requests to restrict truck traffic on Winding Hollow Road, despite the fact that the road now serves only a residential area.
Despite the State designation of a Water Resource Protection District, and despite the proximity of the area to the Groton Reservoir water system, Mr. Murphy classified this area as “low priority” for protection. He advocated more commercial development similar to the existing Wal-Mart, the new Hyatt Hotel, the Mariott Hotel, and the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter. This “Master Plan” alone threatens the WRPD, and is reason, by itself, to impose a moratorium until a review of the watershed can be completed and more comprehensive and protective regulations can be adopted.
The CT Department of Public Health Drinking Water Section (DWS) stated in a Jan. 8, 2007 memo that: “A new commercial development containing over fifty percent of built up area is inconsistent with this strategy for the protection of the State’s public drinking water supplies.” Groton Town regulations allow up to seventy percent impervious coverage within the WRPD. “Built up areas” include not only impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, sidewalks and rooftops, but also drainage ditches, stormwater basins and other disturbed areas. A strip of landscaping next to a building, tree wells within a parking lot, and narrow vegetative buffers do not provide sufficient overland flow to adequately absorb and provide for plant uptake of contaminants and nutrients. The Commissions might want to review the regulations in other communities, concerning specific requirements for building coverage, pavement, and other impervious surfaces, such as sidewalks, etc. This type of regulation is very common in other towns, and can provide sample language for use in Groton.
A large number of citizens attended three, very long, Planning Commission meetings, and many signed petitions against the Wal-Mart application, indicating a growing concern for the impending peril to our reservoir system. Clean water is our most valuable resource, which you have the responsibility to protect, and which can only increase in value. Montville recently lost a manufacturing business due to inferior water. Please do not let this happen in Groton. Our health and safety and economic well being depend on it.”
Copies of the statement were forwarded to the Planning, Conservation, Zoning and Shellfish Commissions, the Inland Wetlands Agency, and the Groton Utilities.
Councilor Peter Bartinik questioned what legal authority the Council would have to engage in the request, without interfering with the authority of the Commissions.
Joan Smith responded that it is a function of the Council, as a policy making body, to provide leadership in promoting public health and safety, by bringing together the many agencies involved in watershed protection. She stated that effective water supply protection “falls between the cracks,” separating the jurisdictions of several entities: the Towns of Groton, Preston and Ledyard, the City of Groton Utilities, the State Departments of Public Health, Transportation, and Environment, the Ledge Light Health District, the Town’s Planning, Zoning and Conservation Commissions, the Inland Wetlands Agency, the Shellfish Commission and Federal agencies charged with protection of Long Island Sound, such as the EPA, not to mention citizen and commercial customers in several towns, who have an interest in protecting this regional resource.
--By Joan Smith
Wal-Mart Plan Denied
GROTON -- A 2:20 a.m., 4-1, vote by the Planning Commission approved a motion to deny the site plan application of Konover Development Corporation for a Wal-Mart Super Center on Gold Star Highway. Commissioner Steinford, the sole dissenter, preferred the original draft motion to approve, while Commissioners Sherrard, Roper, Munn and Kane crafted a new motion with the assistance of the Town Attorney. Commissioner Fitzgerald, a non-voter, would have approved the project.
Citizens and the applicant met a 7 p.m. deadline submit written materials. Approximately 70 people waited for the Commissioners to read the documents, and at 8:15 p.m., questioning began. Commissioners focused largely on the compliance and enforcement plan, stormwater impacts to the reservoir, changed stormwater flow patterns, traffic impacts, containment of spills and hazardous materials from the parking lot, and within the building, and containment of contaminated runoff in the event of a fire. Commissioners stated responsibility to protect public health and safety and expressed reluctance to defer this responsibility to a Memorandum of Understanding, as yet unsigned and insufficiently protective, between parties beyond the Commission’s control: the applicant and Groton Utilities. The Commission also expressed reluctance to defer its authority to a future, unknown, permit from Department of Environmental Protection. A Department of Public Health, (DWS) memo was cited for its recommendation against a project of this size at the proposed location.
GOSA members commend the Chairman of the Planning Commission, James Sherrard, for conducting the three site plan meetings in a highly professional and fair manner, and thank the Commission members for permitting extensive public testimony. We commend them for their professionalism, in spite of fatigue, the very late hours, and the statutory deadline.
The text of the motion to deny
a site plan for the Wal-Mart Superstore follows:
Proposed Retail Development (Wal-Mart Superstore)
529, 553, 571 Gold Star Highway & Antonino Road
February 15, 2007
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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…”.
Motion made by Sherrard, seconded by Roper.
Munn said the last word on the first page should be “ensure”, and on #4, add “and that of the Town”.
MOTION: To modify the original motion to change the word “assure” to “ensure” and to add “and that of the Town to #4.
Motion made by Sherrard, seconded by Roper, so voted unanimously.
Original motion passes, 4 – 1, 1 opposed (Steinford).
-- By Joan Smith
^ back to headlines
Groton Wal-Mart Plan Draws Fire
GROTON -- The continued site plan review of the Konover Development Corporation's application for a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 east of Antonino Road was continued February 13, 2007, with a standing-room only crowd at Room 1 in the Groton Town Hall Annex. Although the Planning Commission meeting began at 7 p.m., the Konover Application was placed on the Agenda to occur after several other items of business were taken care of. The Wal-Mart presentations began at 9:40 p.m., nearly three hours after the commencement of the meeting. The standing-room only crowd patiently waited its turn for public comments, and were invited to begin speaking at 11:10 p.m., after presentations by the developer, staff, and questions from the Commission. The meeting continued until 1:30 a.m., February 14. The Commission scheduled a Special Meeting for Thursday, February 15, to craft a motion of decision by the Commission, which must be done by midnight February 17 in accordance with state statutes. The Commission will accept written statements until 7 p.m. on Thursday, February 15, and will not hear verbal testimony at the Special Meeting.
Diane Whitney, attorney for the applicant, began the Konover presentation by advising the Commission to follow the town regulations, not those of any other agency, and to not become a "mini EPA." She introduced Stephen Hesketh, the applicant's engineer, who presented recent plan revisions, and Scott Hesketh, who presented traffic information and the results of a survey of traffic currently using the existing Wal-Mart store.The applicant's experts were followed by a presentation by Groton Director of Planning and Development Services, Mike Murphy, who stated that the project would follow the Economic Development Master Plan of "infilling" the area and explained that the Wal-Mart Super Center would fit into the long range Master Plan. He produced maps to show that other watershed areas were designated for acquisition or as "Critical Protection Areas" but that this watershed site was "outside the critical source protection area." He called Tollgate and Winding Hollow Roads "major collector roads," and he revealed plans for a possible future road, which would connect the site area to Buddington Road, providing "depth" to the developable commercial area.
Matt Davis, Town Planner, introduced a revised Groton Utilities memo. He acknowledged receipt of a Groton Conservation Commission memo, a Groton Shellfish Commission memo, and a letter from Rivers Alliance, all with comments in opposition to the project. He recounted many emails and letters in favor and in opposition, which Mr. Murphy interjected were "principally in favor." Petitions for and against the project were also submitted.
Following the presentations by staff, Commissioners responded with many concerns, which were noted by the applicant's representatives and will presumably be addressed by them prior to the Thursday meeting.
Commissioner Michael Kane challenged the plan's capacity to retain 100% of hazardous materials in the event of a fire, and expressed "shock" that someone would have to physically run to close a valve in the event of a spill. He had questions about the emergency response team and procedures, and asked who would perform clean up in the event of a spill, beyond the training of a Wal-Mart Associate. He expressed doubts about handling a spill with a broom close to storm drain inlets. He questioned whether the staff would have knowledge of federal requirements in disposing of a spill, that dumpsters are shown near storm drains on the plan, and a floor drain may go to a grease drain. He noted that the garden area is remote from the loading docks, and questioned whether loads would be trucked to the front of the store. He also raised questions about the definition of a subdivision or a resubdivision, which were answered by
Mike Murphy.
Commissioner Ray Munn questioned spill response, monitoring and reporting procedures, environmental bonding time and the destination of untreated Total Suspended Solids. He asked how car emissions, such as antifreeze, are treated, and where water diverted from the Tollgate Road area would go. He questioned whether control of light spillage was adequate, and what the procedures for future pad uses are.
Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald calculated that the new Wal-Mart will be 70% larger than the present store, but that the vehicle trips increased at a lower rate, from 700 to 900 at time I, and from 980 to 1200 at time II. He asked about possible outdoor truck storage, impacts to a cemetery, and protection for a possible automotive center.
Commissioner Hank Steinford inquired about the location of the additional pads on the property, and asked whether small delivery vans could use the front entrance to reduce traffic on Antonino Road. He asked what would happen if testing results proved "unacceptable" in the Memorandum of Understanding with the Groton Utilities? It was later stated by Mike Murphy that the Memorandum of Understanding is between the City and the applicant, and outside the purview of the Town.
Commissioner Peter Roper called the plan the "biggest project this close to the reservoir." He asked what kind of storm could overwhelm the systems? Did the first Wal-Mart traffic predictions prove accurate? (This question was addressed later in the meeting by an intervener, Raymond Belval, who presented the original Wal-Mart traffic report, indicating that the actual number of cars had actually doubled the predicted number.) Commissioner Roper questioned how, in the newly revised traffic report submitted by the applicant, the "reassignment of traffic" to Tollgate Road would take place. He asked whether it was arbitrary. He inquired how the dissolved pollutants from cars and salts are accounted for, and whether they ended up in the water system.
At the conclusion of the questions by the Commissioners, the meeting was opened, at 11:10 p.m., for comments by the public. Sidney Van Zandt, a Groton Open Space Association director, used photographs, a tape measure and the ceiling height to illustrate problems with the drainage ditch near the entranceway, with an outlet pipe enlarging from 15" to 48" and with the drop of fifteen feet to Hempstead Brook. Joan Smith, another GOSA director, presented an overview of risk to the drinking water, and applicable state statutes and town regulations. Steve Trinkaus, P.E., an engineer who represented GOSA, provided a systematic critique of engineering inadequacies in the site plan.
At 12 midnight, Marjorie Shansky, attorney for five interveners, addressed the Town's site plan objectives of "Public Health and Safety," quoting from the Town site plan regulations.
She introduced Dr. Robert De Santo, who provided samples of melted clean and dirty snow from a Wal-Mart site in Waterford, stating "it is impossible to be ecologically invisible;" "there is always a water quality cost to development;" "cars break down, water flows downhill;" "contaminants are mobile;" "the testing protocol is to standard-the wrong standards." Every year 1000 pounds of contaminants, from within the parking lot and 750 feet of the entrance, will enter the reservoir system. In a year of average precipitation, 19,000,000 gallons of water will be handled in different storm frequencies, 1,749,701 vehicles will visit the site in one year. He pointed out a second hydrological connector to the reservoir, a stream listed as intermittent, but possibly perennial now. Roof water, whether in ground or on the surface, will ultimately flow directly or indirectly into the reservoir. Ten contaminants pass through filters, including phosphorous, nitrogen zinc, lead, and copper.
Atty. Shansky summarized that less development is a prudent and feasible alternative and that the Groton Utilities Memorandum of Understanding is "flaccid," not protective, but reactive, and will transfer costs back to citizens. She strongly urged the Commission to deny the application based on the evidence submitted.
Konover Attorney Diane Whitney stated that it was "discouraging" to get questions at this late date, after nine months of contact with the Town. The applicant will have to "scramble" to prepare responses by Thursday, she said. Steve Trinkaus, GOSA engineer, had pointed out that the applicant provided revisions at a late date, thus providing a "moving target."Among the many citizens who spoke, Tim Sullivan, a carpenter, provided “public records and court documents” concerning problems with development by Michael Konover. Chairman Sherard noted that the Commission will have to disregard this information, but did not state a reason.
Arlene Allard of Ledyard stated: "My family lost property to the water authority; take care of it."
By Joan Smith
^ back to headlines
GOSA Formally Requests ASH Halt, Buildable Land Definition
GROTON -- The Groton Open Space Association formally requested Feb. 7, 2007, a moratorium on new applications for Active Senior Housing and adoption of a definition of buildable land linked to permitted housing densities.
GOSA documents requesting zoning amendments to implement these measures were delivered to the Office of Planning and Development Services (OPDS) by Priscilla Pratt, GOSA president, along with a GOSA check for the $400 zoning amendment review fee. The documents were accepted by the OPDS for processing.
An OPDS staff member told Ms. Pratt that rules call for the Zoning Commission to hold a public hearing on the application within a maximum of 65 days from the next Zoning Commission hearing, scheduled for March 7. The commission hearing that had been scheduled for Feb. 7 was canceled last week because of a lack of formal applications.
The application would exclude from development “any area classified as inland wetlands, watercourses, areas of 100-year flood hazard, or having a slope in excess of 15% or having naturally occurring exposed ledge or rock outcroppings exceeding 150 square feet in horizontal area.”
Under the GOSA proposal, only the developable, or buildable, area would be counted in determining allowable densities. At present, all land in a given tract, including land that is under water, may be counted in determining the number of units permitted on the tract.
At present, for example, a 100-acre tract in an area zoned for half-acre lots could support an Active Senior Housing complex of 200 units, even if 60% of the 100 acres were wetlands. Under the GOSA proposal, at most 40 acres of the 100 total acres would count in the calculation of permitted units. That would limit the maximum size of the development to 80 units. The 60 wetlands acres would be excluded from the calculation.
GOSA seeks a moratorium of one year on Active Senior Housing -- units that theoretically are occupied 80% by adults at least 55 years old -- or until ASH can be comprehensively reviewed. The review would include consideration of “environmental, open space, density, taxation, and related standards applicable to such developments...”
The 2002 Groton Plan of Conservation and Development urged adoption (on Pages 79 and 82) of a buildable land definition, and GOSA has been calling for a definition for two years without success.
Ms. Pratt said the application was necessary in view of the lack of action and current severe “development pressure” on the town.
The issues of a buildable land definition and ASH resurfaced dramatically last summer when a Massachusetts builder unveiled plans to put a 241-unit Active Senior Housing complex on 60 acres of a 105-acre tract on Fort Hill. The steeply sloped area contains at least 11 wetlands and is cut by Fort Hill Brook, which flows into Fisher’s Island Sound via Mumford Cove.
The developer first modestly reduced the number of proposed units and then withdrew the plan in the face of engineering criticisms, but the developer has said it will come back with a new plan.
^ back to headlines
Conservation Commission Recommends Denial of Wal-Mart Application
GROTON -- The Conservation Commission voted Feb. 5, 2007, to recommend that the Planning Commission deny a developer’s application to build a
Wal-Mart superstore until it’s shown definitively that water from the store’s planned driveway won’t pollute the Groton Utilities reservoir system.
The Conservation Commission’s unanimous vote probably carries only moral force but certainly will have to be considered seriously when the Planning Commission holds a second meeting on the Wal-Mart site plan Feb. 13. The Planning Commission needs to decide at that meeting or shortly thereafter whether to approve the project.
At the last Planning Commission public discussion of the project Jan. 9, Planning Commission member Ray Munn had requested that the matter be referred to the Conservation Commission, but the request was not acted upon.
The Conservation Commission vote came after a presentation by GOSA Director Sidney Van Zandt during the portion of the meeting devoted to citizens' concerns. The presentation resulted in the issue being placed on the commission's agenda for consideration later in the evening. Ms. Van Zandt argued -- using many documents and recent photos -- that the wetlands that ultimately will receive partially treated runoff from the project are not robust enough to filter it sufficiently under all circumstances before it flows into nearby Hempstead Brook and thence to the reservoir.
Questions were raised about the at least 20% of suspended solids that would escape detention basins and about dissolved material that would be unaffected by detention basins. GOSA Director Joan Smith noted that UConn Prof. James N. Kremer had said in the earlier Planning Commission session that monitoring of storm runoff may not catch a looming crisis in which natural buffers suddenly become overburdened and cease functioning to filter runoff. Mr. Kremer also said that so-called best management practices for handling storm water have serious limitations and he urged town not to take chances with the drinking water supply by allowing the development.
Conservation Commission Chairman Brae Rafferty, after earlier asking many pointed questions of Ms. Van Zandt, said, “It sounds as if there’s not enough buffer” for the driveway runoff.
A motion quickly followed, with all seven Conservation Commission members recommending that the project be denied until such time as treatment of storm water runoff from the driveway is designed to “definitively protect the water quality of Hempstead Brook and the reservoir.” A copy of the motion will be sent to Groton Utilities, which runs the reservoir system. The panel made it clear that its concerns about the Wal-Mart project would apply to any other major commercial undertaking that might be proposed for the same site.
^ back to headlines
WITH UPDATE: Zoning Meeting Canceled With ASH Halt Call Pending
GROTON -- The Office of Planning Development Services said Jan. 31, 2007, that the planned Feb. 7 meeting of the Zoning Commission has been canceled.
An e-mail to GOSA said that the “Zoning Commission may take up the GOSA ‘petition’ [for a temporary halt to Active Senior Housing] at its March 7 meeting.”
The e-mail didn’t explain the use of quotation marks around the word petition. The petitions, bearing about 110 names, had been collected by the Friends of Fort Hill, rather than GOSA, and delivered by that group to the commission at its last meeting Jan. 3.
The Commission had voted at the Jan. 3 meeting to consider the moratorium request Feb. 7.
The e-mail indicated that the meeting had been canceled because no business other than the citizen requests for a moratorium would have been before the committee.
Renewed calls for a moratorium on ASH had stemmed from an application, since temporarily withdrawn, by a Massachusetts developer to build 241 ASH units on 60 acres of a steeply sloped 105-acre tract on Fort Hill that is cut by Fort Hill Brook. The brook flows into Mumford Cove. For more detail, click on:
background
Opponents of the project expressed disappointment following cancellation of the Feb. 7 meeting that the commission is not dealing with the moratorium request in a timely manner despite the considerable citizen concern that the petitions demonstrate.
They noted the OPDS does not guarantee that the issue will be weighed at the March 7 meeting.
- - - -
UPDATE: Matthew Davis, manager of planning services for the OPDS, said Feb. 2 that "use of the word 'may' in regard to the March 7 agenda" was based on a desire not to usurp the chairman's prerogative to set the agenda. "I do believe it is the chair's intent to have consideration of the petition on the March agenda...," he said.
Mr. Davis said use of quotation marks around the word "petition" was meant to limit meaning of the word to its original context. "I do not want anyone to misunderstand the procedures that apply to the review of an 'application' versus the consideration of this petition," he said.
^ back to headlines
Wal-Mart Runup: Annex Community Room 1 Site of Feb. 13 Airing
GROTON--The Feb. 13, 2007, Planning Commission meeting on Wal-Mart’s proposed super store near the Groton reservoir system is scheduled to take place in Community Room 1 of the Town Hall Annex, a staff member of the Office of Planning and Development Services said Jan. 29, 2007.
The OPDS employee said the site had been chosen a few days earlier. The meeting originally was scheduled for Community Room 2, where the previous airing of the project started on Jan. 9. That session had to be moved to the larger Community Room 1, where the Town Council normally meets, because of an overflow crowd.
At the Planning Commission’s Jan. 23 meeting, the minutes of the preceding meeting were corrected. The correction, requested by Commission Member Ray Munn, added the missing information that Mr. Munn had asked that the Wal-Mart plan be referred to the town’s Conservation Commission.
GOSA Director Sidney Van Zandt appeared at the Jan. 23 hearing and asked the Commission to vote that evening on GOSA’s request for hiring of outside experts in water and traffic to evaluate the project. Shortly before Ms. Van Zandt spoke, Diane Whitney, attorney for Konover, the developer behind the Wal-Mart project, said she had heard that some individuals planned to make a presentation concerning Wal-Mart at the meeting. She asked that no presentation be made ahead of the scheduled airing Feb. 13. Nonetheless, Ms. Van Zandt was allowed to speak briefly and to distribute a statement emphasizing the need for independent outside expertise.
The public airing of the Wal-Mart project is not classified as a formal hearing. As originally presented, the Wal-Mart project was a subdivision, which would have required a formal hearing and subjected the project to other stipulations of the subdivision regulations. However, the project had morphed by the time it reached the Planning Commission. It henceforth would reduce, rather than add to, the number of land parcels involved. That change allowed it to be classified as a “site plan” not covered by subdivision regulations. The application to the Inland Wetlands Agency did not identify Wal-Mart as the retail development involved.
Wal-Mart, it has been learned, has sent glossy flyers to at least some Groton residents inviting them to mail in a post card offering to write letters or attend a meeting in support of the project. The flyer claims the project would add 150 jobs in Groton. It does not give the numbers of jobs that would be extinguished in supermarkets that would be squeezed by price competition from Wal-Mart, which possesses enormous power over its suppliers. Hence, the 150 does not appear to be a net figure. The flyer says the average wage of a full-time associate in Connecticut is $11.24 an hour, but does not say what percentage of the non-union company’s work force would be full-time employees with that pay level. It did not say what percentage of employees would have health insurance.
^ back to headlines
IWA Seeks Legal Opinion In Four Winds Case
GROTON -- The Inland Wetlands Agency decided Jan. 24, 2007, to refer to the town counsel a GOSA request that it reopen hearings on the Four Winds “Residential Life Care Community” that Massachusetts developer Ron Bonvie proposes on the 160-acre Watrous property on Noank-Ledyard Road.
In a Jan. 19 letter to the IWA, GOSA President Priscilla Pratt asked that the hearings be reopened, that new evidence be heard and that the IWA reconsider its approval of the 147-unit 55- and-over project that would be built on 105 acres of the site.
The Watrous property, which had been recommended for preservation as open space by the Groton Conservation Commission prior to Mr. Bonvie’s optioning of the tract, is heavily wooded and is the site of one of the most biologically productive vernal pools in New England.
The state Appellate Court declined Dec. 13, 2006, to consider a motion by Mr. Bonvie that eff | 
Charles Pratt, pioneering conservationist and a GOSA founder