TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission
302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-1741
MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING – “THE PRESERVE”
THURSDAY, October 27, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.
OLD SAYBROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL
60 SHEFFIELD SREET
CALL TO ORDER- Acting Chairman, Robert McIntyre, called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Saybrook Middle School.
ROLL CALL
Attendant Members Absent Members
Robert McIntyre, Acting Chairman, Planning Rep. Paul Smith, Vice Chairman
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
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
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
Acting Chairman Robert McIntyre opened the public hearing. Chairman McIntyre noted the Commission members present at the evenings hearing. McIntyre reviewed the schedule for the evening noting that the applicant would have 1.75 hrs for a presentation, the Commission would have 1 hour for questions, and the public would have 1.5 hours to questions and comment. Chairman McIntyre also noted that the hearing would continue the following week (November 3, 2005). The Chairman 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. McIntyre also noted that questions should be limited to topics
relevant to inland wetlands and watercourses.
Chairman McIntyre amended the agenda to allow the intervener Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc (CFE) to present the request to the IWWC to deny the application without prejudice and to also allow the applicant to respond.
Charles Rothenberger, representing CFE, gave a brief presentation on their motion for the denial based on the applicant not having secured rights to several essential access points to the Preserve property (namely a railroad crossing and access from the town of Westbrook). Rothenberger stated that the applicant lacks standing to apply for the wetlands permit due to these access issues.
David Royston, agent for the applicant, then gave a brief response to CFE’s presentation. Royston stated that he believed that CFE was ahead of itself in bringing up this issue because the permits in question all concern the property that is owned by the applicant and that he felt sure that the applicant did indeed have good standing to progress with the IWWC permit.
Charles Rothenberger gave a brief reply to emphasize several points of his first presentation. He restated that without access to the site, they lacked the proper standing to apply for the application because statues require that the applicant have full rights.
David Royston then gave a brief reply stating that he did not believe that Connecticut case law supported the interveners request.
Charles Rothenberger stated briefly that CFE did site several Connecticut legal opinions in its submission.
Legal council for the Town of Old Saybrook Attorney Michael Cronin then commented on both the interveners request and the applicants reply. Attorney Cronin stated that after reviewing both positions, he believed that the applicant did indeed have good standing to seek IWWC permitting because they owned the properties for which the permits were begin sought and that this meets the requirements of the application.
Attorney Cronin and Chairman McIntyre then discussed the need to act on the request to deny the application during this evenings meeting. The discussion concluded that a motion should be made to affirm the applicants standing and thereby rule on the interveners request.
The board was queried by the chairman and a decision was made to rule on the request at that time. Ms. Preston asked several questions to Attorney Cronin regarding the issue of access denial in the future in light of the current hearing. Attorney Cronin replied that the IWWC need not presume anything about the status of the access requests. He stated that the access issues were not a concern of the IWWC. He also stated that the question was being considered because a question of jurisdiction was arisen by the intervener.
MOTION to deny the request by intervener Connecticut Fund for the Environment requesting the Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Commission to deny application #05-016 without prejudice MOVED by Kevin Zawoy; SECONDED by Charles Sohl. DISCUSSION: none. VOTING IN FAVOR J. Preston, C. Sohl, R. McIntyre, W. Pollock, F. Reichart, B. McKeown, K. Gallagher, K. Zawoy; OPPOSED: none ABSTAINING: none APPROVED: 8-0-0.
Chairman McIntyre then opened the applicants presentation segment of the public hearing.
David Royston opened the applicant’s presentation by submitting to the record several supplemental answers to questions that had been asked at the previous public hearing. These supplemental information sheets were entered into the record as exhibits 05-016-48 through 05-016-50.
David Goderre of BL Companies, started the applicant’s slide presentation by introducing the evenings topics: Phase 1: Inventory – Vernal pools and Phase 2: Master Planning – Alternatives, decision making and final direction. The applicants presentation is summarized by the color bound booklet exhibit # 05-016-51 and the presenters more or less followed the outline of the booklet.
Dr Michael E Klemens, consultant for the applicant, herpetologist and vernal pool expert then presented his methodology for analysis and ranking of the vernal pools and wetland areas. His remarks concentrated on amphibian and reptile surveys and productivity studies of the vernal pools. He emphasized that spotted salamander egg counts were the best indicator of vernal pool productivity and that this was the main indicator used for ranking of the vernal pools. [end tape 1 side A] He also covered additional information on location and importance of other notable amphibians and reptiles found on the site. Dr. Klemens noted that he and his team spent more than 700 hours on the site which was a very high number and represented a very thorough study.
Dennis Goderre, of BL Companies introduced the Phase 2 Master planning process. He presented the goals of the phase planning and stated the goals and objectives for this phase was to avoid wetland filling or dredging completely, provide public recreation, allow connectivity of ecological habitats, build responsible infrastructure, maximize open space, and enhance public safety. He also presented alternatives to the current development plan and presented a summary table.
He then presented the current Master Plan including housing developments, gold course routing and basic road and utility infrastructure.
Chris Wilczynski, golf course architect for the applicant, then presented the details for the golf course design including revisions made to the plan due to issues of vernal pool avoidance and ecological sensitivity. Wilczynski emphasized that be believed that the course fit the resources very well, that a minimum of site re-working would be needed and that he thought that the course would be of championship quality.
Dennis Goderre then introduced the impact mitigation process and summarized open space resources for the town and how the Preserve project would add to these figures. Mr. Goderre then presented the three main wetland crossings for the road development and outlined the design of each of these bridges.
Dr. Klemens then presented his process for determining which vernal pools would get the highest protection. He noted that vernal pool 16 which has high productivity is not protected to his ideal level (which he stated is very conservative) because of the need to open a road to join the current Bokum Road. [end tape 1] He also highlighted the wildlife crossing tunnels that will be installed along several roads.
Michael Klein, consulting biologist and soil scientists for the applicant then summarized the applicants strategy for protecting ecologically significant areas and wildlife. He noted that the red bat population areas on the maps do not accurately represent the actual nesting areas because of the mobility of the species.
Dr. Stuart Cohen, consulting turn scientist for the applicant then presented how the risk management plan for turf chemicals was modified within the context of the master plan.
Sam Haydock, hydrogeologist for BL Companies, reviewed the Draught and Water Management Plan.
Dennis Goderre then concluded the applicant’s portion of the public hearing. He further stated the future hearings will include more information on storm water management, construction sequencing, response to staff reports and details regulated activity.
The Commission then went into a question and answer session.
Frank Reichart asked how the applicant proposes to preserve amphibian crossings between vernal pools after construction is complete. Mr. Goderre replied that the home owners association plan contains a risk management component and that there are guidelines that will be provided in a supplement to follow. Dr. Klemens added that vernal pools located within the open spaces will be managed by the town and that road crossings will need maintenance by the town. He noted that the applicant will provide a detailed protocol for that maintenance.
Judy Preston asked why they based vernal pool importance on most common species rather than on those species most needing protection. Dr. Klemens responded that the five pools with the highest ranked priority was also based on a composite of reasons such as productivity. Ms. Preston pointed out that 53% of the vernal pools will be compromised based on productivity ranking. Dr. Klemens stated that the ranking is designed to maximize conservation benefits and that the pools that will remain are derived through a complex methodology. Ms. Preston stated that there appears to be a preference in the methodology for biomass rather than biodiversity. Ms. Preston asked about the effects on quality of the water by the wood frog. [Tape 2 side B] Dr. Klemens replied by describing the process of wood
frogs use of leaf matter in the pools. Ms. Preston asked if an essential part of the vernal pools of the site would be lost if 53% of the vernal pools would be lost in relation to wood frogs. Dr. Klemens responded that changes to the site overall would affect the habitat in both a positive and negative way.
Ms. Gallagher noted that it is alarming that golf course holes 12, 16, and 8 are crossing ribbon snake crossings. Dr. Klemens stated that he would consult the application materials. Ms Gallagher asked if golf cart paths could be moved away from wetlands. Mr. Goderre responded that they could not move them back arbitrarily because of the locations of wetlands but that the applicant can show how the locations were decided and what mitigation is being used. He further stated that upland review areas need not be avoided completely. Ms Gallagher pointed out some locations where the course comes very close to the wetlands. Mr. Goderre replied that the applicant would look into how to move certain aspects of the development away from the wetlands based on these question and the town staff
reports. Mr. Klemens followed up on the previous ribbon snake question and stated that no ribbon snake clusters are disturbed. Dr. Klemens agreed that certain locations of development are on or near areas where terrestrial moving ribbon snakes are found because their terrestrial movements are wide-ranging. Mr. Klein stated that animals are wide ranging and dots on the map do not represent the only area of use. He also noted that vernal pools that will loose the habitat support will continue to be wetlands. Ms. Gallagher inquired about the applicant’s definition of “no wetland loss”. The applicant clarified that they meant that no wetlands would be filled in. They are not referring to potential wetland loss via alteration of adjacent habitat and vegetative cover.
Mr. Pollock asked who is going to ultimately own the golf course. Mr. Royston stated that the golf course would be a separate lot and ownership may be transferred at any time but the wetlands regulations would remain the same. Mr. Pollock asked if there is risk that the clustered homes would become investment properties for which the owners have no investment in the environment. Mr. Royston assured the Commission that the home owners association would ensure adherence to development permits and regulations. Mr. Royston stated that a home owners association regulation situation is much better than 150 different individual property owners doing their own thing. Mr. Pollock referred to the Enforcement Officers Report which describes enforcement difficulties. Mr. Royston stated that there were very few
activities in the single family or village dwellings that are within the upland review area and that the home owners association would care for the grass and greens of the villages. Mr. Pollock asked Mr. Klein to comment on the red bad areas within the development zones as commented on by the town staff consultants. Mr. Klein emphasized that the bat areas represented on the map are not indicative of their actual habitat use areas because they are wide ranging species. He further stated that the development will not impact the red bat populations. Mr. Pollock asked about the percent of cover loss in the areas of the vernal pools to be conserved. Dr. Klemens noted that his best management practices allowed for no more than 25% loss within the 750’ radius area. Mr. Pollock asked how 25% clearing would affect these vernal pools. Dr. Klemens replied that some reduction of carrying capacity would occur but that the vernal pools would
recover.
[Start tape 3]
The public comment and question period was then opened:
Chuck Landry, 3 Wild Apple Lane, of the Turtle Conservation Project, stated that spotted turtles are a pending species of concern (See exhibit 05-016-52). He asked how the applicant would consider this issue. He mentioned road crossing issues, issues of dogs that will disturb turtles and cause high mortality. He stated that he is concerned of a population collapse of the spotted turtle on the site.
John Stangel, 2 Pepperidge Trail, asked if the applicant could site successful golf course projects that use similar technology as is proposed. Mr. Stengal also asked further questions on golf course use statistics, predictions and also questions regarding the amount of grading, filling and blasting to be done.
Peter Walsh, 4 Leada Wood Rd. Mr. Walsh stated concern that the Town will incur financial liability due to the development. He also asked if the applicant has considered bonding financial liability of infrastructure. He further asked a question regarding the 25% loss of vernal pool upland cover and requested anecdotal evidence that this would not be bad for the vernal pools.
Bob Fisher, Inham Hill Rd, Essex. Mr. Fisher asked that the applicant look into designing an environmentally friendly gold course based on information that he had recently learned. Mr. Fisher also made several observations about Exchange Club Pond in Old Saybrook and wondered if the development would affect Pequat Swamp similarly. Mr. Fisher also noted that it would be prudent to ask the applicant about alternative access scenarios and how these might affect the wetlands. His concern stems from the uncertainty of the current access scenario.
Charles Rothenberger, CFE, inquired about the appropriateness of giving the applicant an opportunity to answer the questions from the public. He stated that the commission should consider that off site water impacts that could affect off site wetlands or watercourses. The Chairman replied that the applicant may respond if they wish but it is the Commissions duty to ask for information for use in its decision. He clarified that the IWWC cannot force the applicant to respond to the public’s questions during this meeting, but rather the IWWC will take the questions into consideration and ask questions of the applicant as needed.
Carolyn Longstreth, CFE, offered advice as to how the Commission might analyze whether there are feasible or prudent alternative to the proposed development. She asked that the Commission ask it’s consultants if there are prudent alternatives. She noted that the applicant did not explain why it rejected its other layouts (but that it is the applicant’s burden). She further stated that the applicant had referred to the current site design as binding due to the Planning Commissions approval. She reminded the Commission that it was the applicants decision to go to the Planning Commission first (which she described as not per legal requirements) and that the Planning Commission’s requirements need not dictate to the IWWC where roads should go and how the development should be structured.
She stated that the IWWC has the authority to modify the proposal within its own decision making. Attorney Cronin stated that the applicant had followed the requirements of the Land Use regulations when it went to the Planning Commission first. He agreed with the general statement that the IWWC is not bound by the Planning Commissions decisions. He stated that it was the applicants requirement (not the Commission’s) to produce or determine feasible or prudent alternatives.
Chris Cryder, Merritt Lane, Alliance for Sound Area Planning, strongly encouraged the Commission to take further site walks and also requested that the public be allowed to comment earlier in the night on some occasions. Mr. Cryder noted that the CT DEP had ranked the property highly in a 1990’s study. Mr. Cryer asked questions regarding the proximity of breeding areas proximate to development, and regarding additional false Hop sedge locations found by Mr. Snarski. Mr. Cryer then presented several video clips, flow charts, endangered species and other issues concerning vernal pools. These submissions are represented by exhibits 05-016-53 through 05-016-56. [end tape 3 side B] Mr. Cryder also addressed issues of vernal pool protection area and animal migration areas,
predatory animal opportunities due to development. He also asked that the commission look into vernal pools 1, 5, 7, 8, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28 which he feels are compromised by proposed roads. Mr. Cryder showed additional photographs of various potential problems due to the development of the site. Mr. Cryer requested that the Commission choose a prudent alternative.
The Chairman then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Royston, attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant would indeed address the questions raised that were relevant to the application. Mr. Royston stated that the applicant understood the application requirements that required explanation of possible alternatives.
Mr. Cohen cited examples of other golf courses with similar practices including Pebble Beach, Spanish Bay and several others. He described in detail several studies on gold courses that had produced results on water quality management.
Dr. Klemens addressed previous questions by Ms. Gallagher regarding ribbon snake habitat. He then spoke generally in response to other questions raised by Mr. Cryder regarding migration between vernal pools, the public.
MOTION to adjourn public hearing to resume November 3, 2005 at 7:30 pm Old Saybrook Middle School. MOVED by Brendan McKeown. SECONDED by William Pollock. VOTING IN FAVOR J. Preston, C. Sohl, R. McIntyre, W. Pollock, F. Reichart, B. McKeown, K. Gallagher, K. Zawoy; OPPOSED: none ABSTAINING: none APPROVED: 8-0-0
Respectfully Submitted
Damon Hearne
Acting Clerk – The Preserve 2005
| 
