|
(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(4-24-08)--Wal-Mart Site Plan Withdrawn; IWA Application Stays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
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 fa | 
Charles Pratt, pioneering conservationist and a GOSA founder