TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission
302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-1741
MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING – “THE PRESERVE”
THURSDAY, October 20, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.
OLD SAYBROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL
60 SHEFFIELD SREET
CALL TO ORDER- Acting Chairman, Paul Smith, called the public hearing to order at 7:30pm at the Old Saybrook Middle School.
ROLL CALL
Attendant Members Absent Members
Paul Smith, Vice Chairman Robert McIntyre, Planning Rep.
William Pollock, Regular Member
Kevin Zawoy, Regular Member
Judy Preston, Conservation Rep.
Charles Sohl, Zoning Representative
Kim Gallagher, Alternate Member
Frank Reichart, Economic Development Rep.
Brendon McKeown, Alternate Member
Town Staff and Consultants
Chris Costa, Enforcement Officer
Damon Hearne, Acting Clerk
Christine Nelson, Town Planner
Michael Cronin, Consulting Legal Counsel
Geoffrey Jacobson, Consulting Civil Engineer
Kati Drzewianowski, Consulting Civil Engineer
R. Richard Snarski, Consulting Wetlands Scientist
Penelope Sharp, Consulting Wetlands Scientist
Mary Armstrong, Consulting Golf Course Architect
PUBLIC HEARING
05-016 “The Preserve” – River Sound Development, LLC.
Application to construct open space subdivision, country club, golf course
community (934 ac. total) & open space (542.2 ac.) within 100 ft of wetlands.
(114.5 acres total wetlands)
Residence Conservation C District, Aquifer Protection District
Applicant: River Sound Development, LLC. Agent: Attorney David Royston
ACTION: Open public hearing. (Accepted 8/18/05), Close or continue PH by; 11/23/05, Decision by 01/27/06
Acting Chairman Paul Smith opened the public hearing. Chairman Smith noted that there were 8 voting members present. Smith reviewed the schedule for the evening noting that the applicant would have 1.5 hrs for a presentation, the Commission would have 1 hour for questions, and the public would have 1.5 hours to questions and comment. Smith also noted that the hearing would continue the following week (October 27, 2005). Mr. Smith requested that public comment be limited to 5 minutes initially until everyone had taken opportunity to comment in order to allow as many people to speak as possible and that the public may continue beyond five minutes after all had a chance to comment initially. Smith also noted that questions should be limited to topics relevant to inland wetlands and watercourses.
He also noted that the Planning Commission had granted a special exception to allow an open space development in lieu of a conventional subdivision. He noted that the Planning Commission decision was under appeal, but that the IWWC public hearings would go ahead.
Chairman Smith then introduced Attorney Dave Royston, attorney for the applicant (Riversound Development LLC).
Attorney Royston introduced the application and entered several items into the record (certification of notice of mailing of Public Hearing to property owners within 100 feet of the property, certification of sign posting giving notice of public hearing, notice to CT Water Company advising of application). Royston then went over the application process and noted that the applicant is applying for permits associated with all of the regulated activities involving the proposed development. Royston listed several of the CT State permits required and then went over the Town permit applications that are required. Royston noted that the IWWC application precedes the zoning and planning permits that require IWWC approval of regulated activities. Royston outlined that the upcoming presentation would
include a survey of resources within The Preserve application area and also include areas outside of the application area. Royston stated that the IWWC would need to make an analysis of what is prudent to meet the requirements of the Town and State statues and would, therefore, need to know information beyond the wetlands and 100 foot wetland regulated area. Attorney Royston also quoted the IWWC regulation 10.2e in justification to cover information outside the strict regulated area under the control of the IWWC. Royston stated that the Public Hearing would start with a presentation of resources and continue with a description of the integrated turf management plan presented by Dr. Stuart Cohen. Royston added that detailed descriptions of the wetlands would occur during the next public hearing on October 27, 2005. Royston also submitted into the record a copy of the qualifications of the BL company employees and consultants for the applicant.
Attorney Royston introduced Dennis Goderre, project engineer for BL Companies.
Mr. Goderre spoke with the use of two power point presentation screens, which are combined into a color booklet (exhibit # 05-016-35) which he submitted at the start of the presentation. His testimony, as well as subsequent applicant representatives, followed, more or less, the text printed in this exhibit.
Mr. Goderre explained that the project was designed in three phases: Phase 1: Site Inventory and Analysis, Phase 2: Maser Planning and Phase 3: Detailed Design and Engineering. Mr. Goderre outlined the steps for each phase and then proceeded to give a summary of regional resources including: overall resources, open space, drainage basins, access, archeological survey (two phases), slopes, developable area, and drainage basins. Mr. Goderre concluded with a summary of best management practices (BMPs) that are being proposed for the site. Mr. Goderre then introduced Michael Klein, biologist and soil scientist of Environmental Planning Services (consultant for the applicant) to present the “Soils, Wetlands and Ecosystems” portion of the presentation.
Mr. Klein covered topics of soils, wetlands and watercourses, vernal pools, amphibian and reptile studies, mammal survey, avian survey, and habitats. [start tape 1 side b] Mr. Klein noted that there was a discrepancy between the power point presentation and the printed material regarding a state listed bat species and that the applicant would submit a correction.
Sam Haydock, engineer for BL Companies presented the “Hydrogeology” portion of the presentation. Mr. Haydock covered aquifer protection areas (level A and level B areas), groundwater resources including irrigation supply wells development and testing, aquifer pump test study (including issues of a rain event during the test). Mr. Haydock noted a typographical error on the pump test results page – TW-2 should read 80, not 90. Also, on the on-site environmental monitoring page, the icons for deep monitoring point and community septic system monitoring well should be switched.
Stuart Cohen of Environmental Turf Services (consultant for the applicant) was introduced to speak about Risk Assessment and “Risk Management of the Proposed Golf Course and Home Lawns”. Sub-topics for Mr. Cohen’s presentation included objectives, risk assessment and risk management focus, risk assessment process, water quality monitoring, lawn care management plans and risk management. Mr. Cohen noted that much of their work was cutting edge science and that several of the risk management tests had been run on the recommendation of the Old Saybrook staff consultant’s request.
At the conclusion of the presentation, Attorney Royston noted that a correction of the slides will be provided as an errata sheet.
[end tape 1 side b]
After a brief intermission, Chairman Smith introduced the commission members and staff.
The Chairman then acknowledged notice of request and notice of intervention submitted by Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc (CFE) and further stated that CFE had been recognized as an intervening party in this matter. Chairman further noted that CFE had submitted an Interveners Request to deny the application without prejudice based upon a number of legal issues that will be taken under advisement and to be commented on at a subsequent meeting.
Chairman Smith requested that the clerk read into the record the names and authors of the Town staff consulting reports that have previously been logged in as exhibits. Those reports were:
- Old Saybrook IWWC Staff Report: Golf Course Architecture Commentary on “The Preserve” prepared by Mary Armstrong, Armstrong Golf Architects, LLC, Dated 10/14/05.
- Old Saybrook IWWC Staff Report: Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer’s Report, prepared by Christine Costa, IWEO, dated 9/30/05.
- Old Saybrook IWWC Staff Report: Environmental Review of Proposed Inland Wetland and Watercourses Activities “The Preserve” NLJA#0719-0012 prepared by Geoffrey L Jacobson, PE, Wade M Thomas CPESC, CPSWQ, Kati L Drzewianowski, EIT of Nathan l Jacobson & Assoc. Inc; Penelope C Sharp, PWS; and R. Richard Snarski, Certified Soil Scientist, PWS, CPESC of new England Environmental Services dated 10/17/05.
- Old Saybrook IWWC Staff Report: Hydrogeologic Review of Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Application The Preserve prepared by Juliet McKenna P.G. and R. G. Slayback CPT, LEP, of Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc dated 10/18/05.
- Old Saybrook IWWC Staff Report: Pesticides and Fertilizers at The Preserve: Risk Assessment Management, and Water Quality Monitoring Review prepared by A. Martin Petrovic Ph.D. dated 10/18/05.
The hearing then entered a question and comment period by the Commission:
Mr. Reichart had no questions.
Ms. Preston had several questions regarding:
current and predicted percent pervious cover of the watersheds, avian species in decline, Level A vs. Level B mapping for Old Saybrook Supply well, bedrock to overburden connection, toxicity of combined turf chemicals, bio-rational/organic products, turf as a filter, two year storm events as part of risk management, homeowner monitoring.
Martin Malin (BL Companies), Mr. Klein, Mr. Haydock and Dr. Cohen answered these questions.
Ms. Gallagher: Comments: Ms Gallagher asked that the applicant check color matching on maps vs. keys and also requested that the applicant number the power point slides and figures. Ms. Gallagher also asked several questions regarding studies on nitrates and phosphates effect on entire ecosystem Dr. Cohen and Mr. Klein answered these questions.
Mr. Zawoy asked several questions regarding testing of wells and sampling protocol for pesticide and nutrient load. Dr. Cohen answered these questions.
Mr. Pollock asked about monitoring around wetland 18 and pesticide life span in moist conditions. Mr. Haydock and Dr. Cohen answered these questions.
Mr. Sohel asked about monitoring water that leaves the site. Mr. Haydock answered this question. Mr. Sohel noted that restrictive covenants by homeowners associations are usually ignored.
[start tape 2 side B]
Mr. McKeown asked about methodology of aquifer testing and water flow to and from the site. Mr. Haydock answered the first and deferred the second question to a later meeting.
No questions from Ms. Costa, Ms. Nelson or the town consultants.
Chairman Smith asked questions regarding surface water monitoring and irrigation pond placement and testing. The applicant stated that these questions will be dealt with at a subsequent meeting.
The Chairman then opened the hearing to the public.
The Chairman asked if any state or local elected or appointed officials were present and wanted to comment. No officials came forward. The Chairman asked Attorney Cronin, consulting legal counsel, if he needed to allow the intervener to speak first. Council indicated it was his choice. The Chairman then opened the hearing to the general public.
Larry Fortier of 78 Ingham Hill Rd, Essex stated that he lives down hill and is concerned that people with deep and shallow wells are at risk of loosing their water supply. He believes that the well testing should be done at a dry time of the year. Chairman Smith clarified that groundwater flow to wells is not under the jurisdiction of the IWWC but he will let the applicant respond because they addressed the issue in the presentation. Mr. Haydock responded that the pumping tests were compliant with DEP regulations and that the applicant took extra precautions due to the rain event that occurred during the test.
Mr. Fortier also asked about issues of base stream flow and mosquito issues. Mr. Haydock answered these questions.
Chris Cryder, of 25 Merrett Lane requested that he be allowed to show a 20 minutes power point presentation as per a letter previously sent to the IWWC. Chairman Smith stated that he could have this time the following public hearing. Cryder also asked the commission to alternate with the public as to who could ask questions directly after the presentation. Chairman Smith said that the IWWC would consider this request.
Danny Redack of Old Saybrook stated to the commission “we were betrayed when the Planning Commission voted on conserved land. Don’t betray us.” He went on to encourage lawsuits past and future against the applicant. He also asked people to push for 5416, a bill (sponsored by Jamie Spalone) to buy the Preserve site.
Larry Athay, 92 Ingham Hill Rd, Essex asked about the impacts on wildlife populations, studies about how much of irrigated water reenters the shallow aquifer (he has a shallow well) and what the cumulative effect of pesticides would be over time. Chairman Smith stated that the IWWC does not regulate wildlife, but he would allow a response because the applicant covered this topic in the presentation. The applicant replied that more information will be supplied in due course regarding wildlife populations. Mr. Haydock (for the applicant) sated that a properly set up golf course irrigation system works in such a manor that all irrigated water is taken up by the plan growth and that the DEP assumes no recycling of water from the irrigation system. He further stated that on average, irrigation is used 210
days of the year with an average of 120,000 gallons per day. Mr. Cohen stated that the cumulative effects of nutrients (which is the most likely issue) will be handled via restrictions of use.
Diane McMann, 19 Barley Hill Rd, asked about recourse if wells dry up. Attorney Royston stated that the recourse would be via the Water Diversion Permit from the DEP, not via the IWWC as shown by appeals in the previous application over the illegal bonding of wells by the IWWC.
Chris Cryder, of 25 Merrett Lane requested that the commission walk the streams from the outlet to the head of the watersheds to get the best insight into the decision. Chairman Smith stated that many of the commission members had indeed been on site (some several times) and viewed the site for uplands and wetlands. Chairman Smith stated that he appreciated the suggestion. He also reminded the commission that they had the opportunity to walk the site further if they chose to do so.
Larry Athay, 92 Ingham Hill Rd, Essex stated concern for potential runoff on plant life in a pond that he owns downstream from the site. Dr. Cohen stated that EPA eco-regional criteria would take care of this issue.
Chairman Smith asked Mr. Cryder to set up his presentation for this public hearing due to time remaining.
Charles Rothenberger, Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Intervener. Attorney Rothenberger noted that their request to the IWWC to deny the permit without prejudice was on file. Attorney Rothenburger asked what the total amount of earth would be moved on site and also, what penalties were there if the homeowners did not follow the turn management practices set by the homeowners association. Mr. Goderre stated that the applicant has calculated the figures for earth moved and deferred to subsequent public hearings for this question. Attorney Royston stated that the Planned Residential Development was a different situation where there was control and enforcement via the homeowners association. He stated that the control comes from the provisions in the acceptance of the PRD and
of the wetlands permitting. He stated that the PRD/homeowners association enforcement was not without risk, but was far superior to a plan in which there was not control at all over homeowner’s use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.
Chris Cryder, of 25 Merritt Lane presented an electronic slide show: “A Pictorial Stream walk of the Preserve”. In addition to narrating slides of wetlands, rock formations, and other landscape features, Mr. Cryder made several points:
- Mr. Cryder requested that the commission re-read the Plan of Conservation Development and ask themselves how the Preserve project fits with that plan.
- Mr. Cryder read several quotes from the Plan of Conservation Development.
- He also requested that the applicant make an effort to preserve large ‘heritage trees’.
- He also stated concern about the rare Atlantic White Cedar Swamp habitat.
- He noted that Old Saybrook had an entire river continuum in one town (from first to ninth order streams).
- He stated concerns about holes 10 and 18 and some interesting rock formations.
- The presentation ended with a short video in which Mr. Cryder drinks from a stream on The Preserve and asks the audience if they would do that after the development of the site.
Chairman Smith asked for further questions and seeing none, adjourned the public hearing to October 27th, 2005, 7:30 p.m. at the Old Saybrook Middle School.
Respectfully Submitted
Damon Hearne
Acting Clerk – The Preserve 2005
| 
