TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission
302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-1741
MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING – “THE PRESERVE”
THURSDAY, November 3, 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 7:30 p.m. at the Old Saybrook Middle School.
ROLL CALL
Attendant Members Absent Members
Paul Smith, Vice Chairman None
Robert McIntyre, Planning Rep.
William Pollock, Regular Member
Kevin Zawoy, Regular Member
Judy Preston, Conservation Rep.
Charles Sohl, Zoning Representative
Frank Reichart, Economic Development Rep.
Kim Gallagher, Alternate Member
Brendan McKeown, Alternate Member
Town Staff and Consultants
Christina Costa, IW Enforcement Officer
Christine Nelson, Town Planner
Damon Hearne, Acting Clerk
Michael Cronin, Consulting Legal Counsel
Geoffrey Jacobson, Consulting Civil Engineer
Kati Drzewianowski, Consulting Civil Engineer
R. Richard Snarski, 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
Acting Chairman Paul Smith reconvened the public hearing and outlined the hearing subject. Chairman Smith introduced the Commission members present at the evenings hearing. 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 for questions and comments. Chairman Smith also noted that the hearing would continue the following week, November 10, 2005. The Chairman requested that individual public comment be limited to 5 minutes initially until everyone had an 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.
Attorney David Royston, (representative for the applicant) reviewed the evenings schedule and mentioned his letter to the Commission updating their planned schedule for the IWWC Preserve public hearings. Attorney Royston spoke about the need to cover issues concerning the site that occur outside the wetlands, watercourses and uplands review area so that the Commission may be better informed when deciding the prudence of the application. Royston noted that included in the applicants application are the alternatives that have been considered and ruled out. He then mentioned that the Commission should consider issues with uplands only if there is a likely significant activity or impact on the wetlands or watercourses. Attorney Royston pointed out that the definition of these impacts is in the wetlands
regulations and asked the Commission to read those definitions. He further stated that the Commission should look at this decision in light of past decisions, specifically, the IWWC’s decision to approve the Preserve IWWC application in the year 2000. Attorney Royston also talked about the jurisdictional definition of “conservation”, the definition of Zone C and open space subdivisions, and the criteria for open space. Royston noted that the Town Selectmen have expressed interest to own in fee much of the open space that would be designated with The Preserve project and that it was the intent of the applicant to transfer fee ownership to the Town for these open spaces.
Using power point slide presentation and more or less following the color booklet outlining the same (exhibit #05-016-65) the following representatives for the applicant presented testimony to the Commission:
“Mr. Michael Klein, biologist and soil scientist for the applicant, re-stated the applicant’s conservation strategies and talked about bridge construction and reasons why vernal pools were emphasized in the application.~ He stated that the applicant’s definition of vernal pool conservation included no loss of vernal pool diversity and no net impact to the existence of the overall population of amphibians on the site.~ He also spoke on the subjects of vernal pool invertebrates, and the potential impacts to the vernal pools.~ He also noted that public access will be increased as well as educational and scientific use.~ [end tape 1 side A]”
Dennis Goderre, project manager for the applicant, and Martin Malin, project engineer for the applicant, outlined in some detail the storm water management and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that have been proposed for the site.
Mr. Goderre then outlined the regulated activities relating to housing and infrastructure that will occur on site. Goderre presented information on each of the areas where the activities will occur and pointed out instances where the applicant had altered the plans in response to Town consultant recommendations.
Mr. Klein outlined briefly the nature of the storm water management system and pointed out that it was a gravity fed system and that there were no moving parts. [start Tape 2]
The Commission then asked questions:
Mr. McKeown asked questions regarding insects that would be affected most and how that would affect the vernal pools. He also asked about reclaiming water runoff. Mr. Goderre responded for the applicant stating that these issues would be addressed in a subsequent public hearing.
Mr. Zawoy asked Attorney Cronin, legal counsel for the Town, if the Commission should indeed consider this application in light of the previous application in the year 2000. Attorney Cronin stated that the applicant is filing a new application and it should be looked on as a separate issue. He noted that the Commission should consider specific findings from the previous application but that the Commission is not legally bound by the previous decisions. Mr. Zawoy asked Mr. Jacobson, consulting engineer for the Town, questions regarding the prudence and feasibility of the alternatives presented by the applicant. Mr. Jacobson clarified that he believed that the conventional subdivision alternatives were not prudent because they would have a higher impact than the current plan. Mr. Zawoy asked several
questions about vernal pool loss to Dr. Michael Klemens, consultant for the applicant. Mr. Zawoy also asked if mitigation measures had been considered in light of the vernal pool habitat loss. Dr. Klemens noted that he believed the applicant’s current vernal pool conservation plan included aspects of mitigation because the most productive pools had been conserved. Mr. Zawoy asked Mr. Snarski, wetlands consultant for the Town, if he considered the loss of 53% of the vernal pools to be significant. Mr. Snarski replied that he did. Mr. Zawoy then asked about the removal of vegetative canopy over the wetlands and the impact to the site. Mr. Klein replied that canopy removal would help some species and that the applicant would mitigate the removal with supplemental plantings if needed.
Mr. McIntyre asked the applicant if they could inventory where the proximity of the golf course to the wetlands do not meet the Old Saybrook standards. Mr. Goderre stated that this information will be included in the applicant’s response to the Town consultant’s reports. Mr. McIntyre then asked Attorney Cronin questions regarding the 750’ buffer around the vernal pools as mentioned by the applicant. Mr. Cronin stated that despite the fact that the mentioned buffer is not outlined in the regulations, it can be considered if it impacts the areas within the regulated vernal pools or wetlands. Mr. McIntyre then asked Mr. Jacobson, engineer for the Town, if a conventional house layout would have more impact to the wetlands than the golf course. Mr. Jacobson replied that every situation
is different; however, the conventional layouts as proposed as an alternative by the applicant would indeed have more impact.
Mr. Smith asked a question regarding changes in inflow and outflow rates to the wetlands. Mr. Klein replied that there is no change to this rate. Mr. Smith asked if the wide road cross section diagram as described earlier in the presentation occurred anywhere but in the Westbrook portion of the site. Mr. Malin replied that it did not. Mr. Smith then noted that the leaching galleries should be better noted on the plan and asked regarding percolation tests for those sites. Mr. Malin noted that the galleries were noted and that further information had been submitted to the town consultants regarding this aspect of the plan. Mr. Smith asked if the presentation slide regarding the rain gardens was typical. Mr. Malin stated that it was. Mr. Smith noted that the Commission does not want
to allow a draw down of groundwater into the storm water system. Mr. Smith asked a question regarding slide 47 and the number of galleries with detention systems. Mr. Malin noted that he will get back to the Commission with the answer. Mr. Smith noted that he was concerned that the detention areas would become point discharge sites rather than sheet flow. Mr. Malin noted that they were actually sheet flow designs. Mr. Smith then asked several questions regarding hydrology that the applicant stated would be relayed to the hydrologist who was not at the evenings hearing.
Mr. Sohl stated a concern that the signs posted by the applicant do not include the subsequent dates of the Public Hearing after the first date. Attorney Royston stated that his interpretation is that this is not required. Mr. Sohl stated that he disagreed. Mr. Sohl stated that he believed that the golf course should be on a budget for water and chemical use. Mr. Sohl then asked about the use of treated sewage for irrigation. He then stated that the protocols for the amounts and types of chemicals used should be living documents and be revised as science and BMPs are updated. Mr. Goderre replied that the issues of water and chemical use were addressed in other portions of the hearing and that there would be further discussion on the topic. Goderre further noted that the
applicant was considering the use of treated swage for irrigation and this plan will depend on DEP permitting.
Mr. Pollack stated that he wanted to see a color coded map of conserved and non-conserved vernal pools. The applicant replied that this would be provided.
Mr. Reichart asked several questions about the presence of rain gardens in every house lot and asked about the garden’s proven records of effectiveness and maintenance. Mr. Manlin addressed the fact that the rain gardens did indeed require some maintenance and that further updates on the rain gardens would indeed be supplied.
Ms. Gallagher deferred her question time to Ms. Preston.
Ms. Preston asked several questions directed to the applicants hydrogeologist. The applicant stated that the questions will be passed to their staff. Ms. Preston noted concerns about Pequot Swamp and nitrogen loading issues. Dr. Stuart Cohen, turf scientist for the applicant stated that the nutrient loading was from the sewage leach field, not the golf course turf. Ms. Preston then asked about the percentage increase in disturbance oriented species. Mr. Klein stated that there would be an increase in disturbance related species associated with subdivisions in woodlands. After some clarification questions, Mr. Klein noted potential loss of red-shouldered hawk breeding (if confirmed to breed on site) and the increase in raccoons and skunks. Mr. Klein stated that he would give a
detailed reply at the next public hearing. Ms. Preston asked several clarifying questions regarding prudent alternatives including reducing total area of development to reduce impact on the vernal pools. She also asked about mitigation issues due to the vernal pool loss. Dr. Klemens replied for the applicant. He stated that the mitigation comes in the form of the preservation of 18 vernal pools. Ms. Preston then asked questions regarding the number of spring wetlands monitoring seasons. Dr. Klemens answered that there were four seasons and two bands of sampling.
The public question period was then reopened by the Chairman.
The intervener, Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc (CFE), requested and was granted permission to present prior to the general public session. Attorney Charles Rothenberger presented for the intervener. Rothenberger introduced two consultants retained by CFE to give testimony at the public hearing.
Peter Patton, professor of geological and environmental sciences at Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT gave testimony on his opinions on the project. He stated that the clearing and earthmoving outside of the regulated area is of much importance and that he believes that the applicant is avoiding speaking on the subject of clearing and earth moving. He further spoke on the volume of earth moved, the instability of the soils and the number of acres disturbed within the regulated area. He urged the IWWC to think big and ask themselves what the mitigation for the project is. He also addressed the recommended wetland buffer, issues with the rainstorm event during the pump tests, rain garden issues and the fragmentation of the site by the golf course back nine. He asked why a nine hole course was not a
viable alternative.
Attorney Rothenberger then asked Dr. Patton if it was his opinion that the proposed development plan would significantly affect the wetlands on the site. Dr. Patton stated that this was indeed his opinion.
George Logan, of Ream Ecological Services, ecologist, certified wetlands scientists, wildlife biologist, gave testimony on behalf of CFE. Mr. Logan stated that he is in the process of providing a detailed review of the applicant’s proposal and that his report would be submitted after the applicant’s presentation has concluded. He noted several gaps in the analysis of wildlife species at the core of the site area and asked for more information from the applicant. He also noted several concerns with the role of spotted salamander productivity in choosing conserved areas and noted several issues with spotted salamander ecology vs. other amphibians. He asked to see notes on amphibian productivity, wetland associated birds, and the Pollock review of the reptiles and amphibians.
He asked for a more specific buffer analysis regarding the golf course. He also commented on justifications for height clearing of the wetlands and expressed concern over any additional nutrient load of Pequot Swamp. He asked the Commission to require the applicant to hire a consultant that is specifically qualified to address the Pequot Swamp nutrient issue. He requested the chair to request this information from the applicant.
Chairman Smith then asked the applicant to respond to each of the issues that were raised by the consultants representing CFE.
The public portion of the hearing was than continued.
Frank Hall, 18 Vincent Lane, Essex stated concerns regarding water usage and home well water supply. The Chairman stated that this issue does not fall under the jurisdiction of the IWWC and that questions regarding this should be taken up with the Connecticut DEP.
Chris Cryder, 3 Merritt Lane, stated concerns regarding acidic discharge due to blasting, specific issues with the development altering water runoff pathways, presence of the spade foot toad, toxicity screening on invertebrate populations, endangered and threatened invertebrates on the site, studies on false hop sedge, the golf course maintenance facility location, and several other topics.
The Chairman gave the applicant opportunity to reply. The applicant declined to reply at that time.
Carol Manny (sp?) of 422 Main St, Old Saybrook, inquired about the increase use of sand and salt on the roadways and the effect on the wetlands and vernal pools. She also inquired about maintenance of floatable material extractors for the storm water management system. Chairman Smith replied that the Town would be responsible for roadway management of the main roads within the development. Mr. Smith then asked for clarification on the road ownership plans. Attorney Royston stated that the two main roads in the development and the roads to the estate and small lots would be maintained by the Town. The roads in the village would be maintained by the home owners association. Mr. Malin stated that the cleanout of the floating material extractors is easy.
Seeing no further questions from the general public, the hearing was turned over to the Commission for further questions.
Mr. Zawoy asked Mr. Jacobson if there were other traditional developments that would be a feasible and prudent alternative. Mr. Jacobson replied that perhaps if there was a more clustered village design there would be less impact.
Mr. McKeown asked the applicant to number the slides for the projected portion of the presentations.
Dr. Cohen replied to several questions including the ‘living document’ question by Mr. Pollack.
Mr. Klein responded to Mr. Cryder’s questions regarding false hop sedge.
Attorney Royston confirmed that CFE’s consultants had received the entire set of application materials.
The meeting was then adjourned by the Chairman to resume the following Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Saybrook Middle School, Old Saybrook CT.
Respectfully submitted,
Damon Hearne
Acting Clerk
| 
