TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission
302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-1741
MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING – “THE PRESERVE”
THURSDAY, November 10, 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 Brendan McKeown, Alt. Member
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
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
A. Martin Petrovic, Consulting Turf Scientist
Penelope Sharp, Consulting Wetlands Scientist
Juliet McKenna, Consulting Hydrogeologist
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 1.5 hours for questions, and the public would have 1.5 hours for questions and comments. Chairman Smith also noted that the hearing would continue on December 1, 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.
David Royston, attorney for the applicant, submitted a request and consent to an extension of the public hearings in the form of a letter to the IWWC. He also submitted several documents pertaining to previous IWWC decisions regarding former Preserve applications as well as copies of decisions and special exceptions from the Zoning Commission (recorded as exhibit 05-016-75 through 05-016-80).
Commission member Kevin Zawoy arrived at 7:40 P.M..
Attorney Royston noted that the applicant will respond to questions from the public and the intervener. However, Royston stated that the applicant would not respond to a request by George Logan, consultant for Connecticut Fund for the Environment (CFE), to see personal field notes from Dr. Klemens (herpetology consultant for the applicant). Royston further stated that this was an unprecedented request and was generally insulting to the applicant. He emphasized that the notes would not be provided.
Sam Haydock, hydrologist for the applicant, then gave testimony regarding questions raised in previous hearings and gave further explanation of several aspects of the proposal. Mr. Haydock covered issues of design criteria for irrigation, irrigation use statistics, the Drought Management Plan, waste water use in irrigation, pumping test procedures and a rainfall event, and pumping test impacts on vernal pools.
Dennis Goderre, project manager for the applicant, then introduced the construction sequence and phasing of the housing, infrastructure and golf course.
Chris Wilczynski, golf course architect for the applicant, explained the individual hole design and strategy that would apply to the entire golf construction using hole #4 as example.
Martin Malin, project engineer for the applicant, then discussed issues of sedimentation and erosion control. Mr. Malin also used golf course hole #4 as example and also discussed the housing development areas and roadways.
Dennis Goderre, Dr. Stuart Cohen, turf scientist for the applicant, and Martin Malin then discussed golf course development activities that fall outside of the 100’ upland review area. Dr. Cohen discussed the golf course maintenance shed area in detail. Mr. Malin then described the storm water control structures used in the golf course maintenance facility. Mr. Goderre then concluded that the golf course maintenance shed area was very high end and very well designed.
Chairman Paul Smith noted to the public that all letters submitted to the Commission via the Town Land Use office were entered into the official record and distributed to the Commission in weekly meeting packets.
The Commission then asked questions of the applicant:
Kevin Zawoy asked if there had been other studies of golf courses and vernal pools. Dr. Cohen responded that one researcher at the University of Rhode Island has shared un-published data with the applicant and noted that there are several studies in progress. Mr. Zawoy then asked if there is evidence that amphibian juveniles will cross the golf course areas. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Klemens replied that the golf course area was considered “developed” under their study of vernal pool habitat and that this was a conservative approach. Mr. Zawoy then asked Jeff Jacobson, consulting engineer for the Town, if he believed that there were still prudent alternatives to the current plan. Mr. Jacobson replied that there always many options and that several that seemed prudent were a) a shorter golf
course, b) eliminate the golf course, and c)use more cluster housing instead of estate lots and move the golf course into the estate lot area. Mr. Zawoy then asked the applicant if they would discuss these alternatives as to reasons why they do or do not consider them to be prudent alternatives. Attorney Royston stated that they had tried to show all the alternatives and cover all of the potential impacts of the current plan. He noted the applicant has discussed many prudent alternatives on a micro scale. Mr. Royston clarified that the alternatives were covered in volume 1A ATL2-11 of the current plan and that volume 1 of the engineering report contains narratives of these alternative plans.
Charles Sohl then stated that he wondered about the viability of the project due to current economic trends in second home construction and stated that he felt that the applicant needed to insure that the Town would not be left with a half completed project to stabilize and repair. He also stated that the applicant should turn the open space property over the Town before, rather than after, the construction started. Mr. Sohl also asked about golf course irrigation needs and stated that the best guide to how much water was allowed to be used should be the impact on the wetlands, not a state DEP calculated number. Mr. Haydock responded for the applicant with numbers on irrigation needs and drought management plan best management practices. Mr. Sohl asked where the Town consultant got the idea for
using a 25ft buffer and further asked for clarification on several statements in the consultants report on this issue. Jeff Jacobson replied that the Town consultants felt that a 100’ buffer was best, but that less buffer would be required if the Town wanted to permit a golf course in this area. He read several quotes from the consultant report and stated that the 25’ recommended buffer was an absolute minimum, not a flat recommendation. Attorney Royston replied for the applicant that there were technically no standard set-backs for inland wetlands because there was a Commission to regulate these activities. He stated that the applicant will be making further statements on the legal aspects of this issue. Michael Klein, wildlife biologist and soil scientist for the applicant stated that the current application proposes many areas of 100’ setbacks from various high quality water features. He further stated that studies have shown that
a 25’ buffer is adequate and that those studies do not incorporate the BMP’s included in the current plan. Dr. Cohen, for the applicant, stated that his risk management plan for pesticides did not include a buffer area, which makes the plan very conservative and good.
Robert McIntyre did not have any questions.
Chairman Smith asked the applicant if their current irrigation numbers included waste water. Mr. Haydock replied that the current numbers do not include waste water. Mr. Smith asked if Test Well 3 could be eliminated if the waste water irrigation plan was approved. Mr. Haydock replied that he thought that it could be left un-used. Mr. Smith requested confirmation that the Test Well 3 was only going to be used at peak times when amphibian life cycles would not be effected. Mr. Smith then asked about the current status of the applicants permitting with the state DEP. Mr. Haydock stated that the application for the waste water irrigation use had been made approximately 1 year prior and that the water diversion permit from the state had not yet been submitted. Mr. Smith then asked about an
alternate cart path route for hole # 4. Mr. Wilczynski stated that the use of the alternate path would not be good golf course design and that golfers do not like paths that are far from the play area. Mr. Smith asked about tapered trimming of wetlands to heights that would allow golf course play. Mr. Wilczynski replied that some tapering of vegetation could be done, but that golfers do not always use the center of the fairway and that this variation in playing skill would limit their ability to allow higher vegetation in some areas. Mr. Smith commented that he sees from the plans shown during the presentation that all house lots have construction entrances, and further noted that stock pile areas would need to be outside of the 100ft review area. Mr. Smith then asked if electric or gas golf carts would be used and where they would be stored. The applicant stated that the decision had not yet been made regarding golf carts, but that the carts would
likely be electric and stored below the clubhouse. Mr. Smith then confirmed from Mr. Malin that gross particle separators are being used to remove oil form the storm water at the maintenance facility and that separate oil separators would not be used at that location.
William Pollock asked the staff consultants several questions regarding bio-filters and asked them to provide a detailed description of what a bio filter is. Pollock also asked what happens to these areas under very heavy rain fall events as occurred in the last several months. Mr. Pollock also asked about the use of bio filters in other golf courses in the state. Mr. Cohen replied that there are bio-filters installed in a golf course he works with in New York. Mr. Pollock asked about wetland flyover areas and what will happen to the wetlands when balls are hit into them and teens and others go into the wetlands to retrieve balls. Mr. Goderre stated that these areas will be posted as no trespassing.
Frank Reichart asked several questions regarding the requirements for monitoring of pumping impacts on vernal pools, who will monitor those impacts and who will receive the reports. Mr. Haydock replied that it was a voluntary offer by the applicant, and that the details of this plan would be provided to the Town.
Chairman Smith asked the staff to please provide a written submission of bio filter technical explanations.
Judy Preston then asked about the reporting on disturbance species. Mr. Klein stated that this information will be made available before the next public hearing. Ms. Preston asked about the impacts on fish and insects. Mr. Klein stated that the supplemental report will also cover these topics. Ms. Preston then asked about the amount of pervious cover in the various watersheds. Mr. Goderre replied that these figures were not typically generated by the applicant. Christine Nelson, Town Planner, stated that she would follow up on this issue. Mr. Goderre stated that the applicant has no control over the total pervious cover in the watershed. Ms. Preston stated that she is alarmed by the amount of clearing and development within the 100’ upland review area and stated that the 25’
buffer did not coincide with the 100’ buffer used for other applications in the Town. Ms. Preston confirmed from Mr. Haydock that some of the aquifer recharge water would come from off site due to the depth of the wells. Ms. Preston clarified how the fractured bedrock affects the water recharge and confirmed that the water levels would not be affected in draught years because of the draught management plan. Ms. Preston then asked questions regarding the impact of pesticides on insects. Dr. Cohen stated that the applicant will address the insect issue before December 1, 2005. Ms. Preston then asked if the applicant had considered eels in its risk management study. Dr. Cohen replied that they had not. Ms. Preston asked Dr. Klemens to discuss the importance of the 100’ buffer. Dr. Klemens stated that the issue of most importance was connectivity and that many species go beyond the 100’ buffer zone anyway. Ms. Preston
asked about reduced capacity of survivorship in many of the vernal pools. Dr. Klemens clarified the issues regarding the prioritization of high productivity vernal pools for conservation.
Kim Gallagher asked about the volume of water in Pequot Swamp Pond and resting time of that water. The applicant stated that the information was not available. Dr. Klemens replied that there is a very limited amount of standing water because of the vegetative mat in the pond. Ms. Gallagher then asked about the variances of pH testing between the applicant and the Town consultants. The applicant stated that they are currently trying to solve this issue. Ms. Gallagher then asked about nitrate levels in the pond, and Dr. Klemens stated that the levels were insignificant. Several questions were asked regarding the type of nitrogen present and the allowable levels of nitrogen that could be added. Dr. Cohen discussed the EPA regional criteria and discussed some of the reasons why
nutrient loading would be bad for the pond. He also stated in response to a follow up question that a further study would be on the level of a PhD study. Ms. Gallagher asked several questions regarding nutrient loading from the septic systems that are proposed for the site. Martin Malin and Sam Haydock explained the design specifications for the septic system called for an over-design based on potential use. The applicant further stated that the actual use would be half of the capacity of the leach fields and that the field above Pequot Swamp Pond would most likely not be used to any significant capacity. They stated that the septic field that would be used was above wetland #18 which was in the Oyster River Watershed. Ms. Gallagher stated that it is not obvious what the applicant will actually do.
The Chairman then opened the public comment period of the hearing. First asking for elected or appointed officials to comment, Selectman Bill Peace made several statements. He first commented that he wanted to see more opportunity for public participation. He also stated concerns that despite the fact that the well water issue is not under the jurisdiction of the IWWC, he feared that these issues would be left for the selectmen to deal with. He also recounted a past issue where a single vernal pool derailed plans to build a ballpark for the Town and did not see why the current applicant should receive different treatment. He stated concerns about the plan to build bridges that he felt were there because of the applicants desire to avoid involvement of the Army Corps of Engineers.
He stated that the resources of a Town of 10,000 did not have the resources to take care of these bridges and that the proposal was not reasonable. Chairmen Smith replied with an explanation of the well issue and stated that he would do further investigation into the road issue and confirm that the Town Board of Selectmen would indeed be willing to maintain the roads in the long term.
Barbara Maynard of Old Saybrook stated concerns regarding the playing fields on the plan and inquired about drainage plans and parking areas. Dennis Goderre stated that all of the fields were outside of the upland review area and that detailed plans had been made for these installations and are detailed in 3A and 3B.
Laurie Givolsi of 67 Pond Miller Road, Ivoryton stated concerns regarding the crossing of the golf course by amphibians. She explained issues of skin sensitivity and ecosystem relationships.
Bob Fisher, Ingham Hill Road, Old Saybrook, stated concerns regarding groundwater issues and the rain event that occurred during the pump testing. He also asked about the pesticides that would be used and wanted to know what was done about the Town consultant’s recommendation that 11 pesticides not be used. He also recommended that the Commission contact Diane Post of the Rachel Carson Council regarding pesticide effects on insects and bird life. He stated that he saw a disconnect between the applicant’s and the IWWC’s definition of a prudent and feasible plan. He stated that this was defined by the applicant in terms of economics, and by the IWWC as wetland preservation. He also stated that he believed that no matter what efforts were made, teenagers would enter the
wetlands to retrieve golf balls. He also stated that 18 holes was not a magic number and that a nine hole golf course would be just fine.
Peter Walsh, of Leada Woods Rd. asked several questions regarding bio-basins and bio filters. He also asked the Town consultants to define eutrophication for the Commission. He also stated concerns about he possible results of contamination from the maintenance shed area. Mr. Walsh also stated that the golf course referenced in New York by Dr. Cohen did not compare to this site and that the Commission should get specific on the issue of the wetland buffers. Lastly, Mr. Walsh stated that the issue of avoiding federal supervision with the bridge building was of concern and that he hoped it was not a “put up or shut up issue”. Martin Malin clarified several points about the bio-filters.
Chairman Smith asked Dr. Klemens to define eutrophication and state his opinion on the issue at Pequot Swamp Pond. Dr. Klemens stated that it was generally defined as an aging of a water body due to inputs of nutrients and that he does not believe that it will occur to Pequot Swamp Pond. Chairman Smith then asked the same question to the Town Consultants. Penelope Sharp responded that yes she was concerned about ecological changes in the swamp resulting from nutrient loading from runoff. Rich Snarski stated that the increase in nutrients could indeed affect the ecology.
Suzanne Howard of Ivoryton asked the applicant to elaborate on drought year management plans. Mr. Haydock explained this issue for the applicant.
Robert Fisher of Ingham Hill Road, Essex stated concerns regarding the estimates for occupancy and sewage drain field design. Mr. Haydock clarified this issue regarding DEP mandated design.
Suzanne Howard asked if the meetings could be held earlier in the day and Peter Walsh asked about a Saturday meeting. Chairman Smith replied that the meetings cannot be earlier because of work obligations on behalf of the staff, and that Saturday meetings had not been considered.
Scott McKeon, of Old Saybrook, asked about the date of the next meting. Chairman Smith gave him the date.
Chris Cryder, 3 Merritt Lane in Old Saybrook, submitted to the record several Town staff reports from previous Preserve applications. He asked the Commission to read page 2 of the report submitted by Goodfriend. He further stated that the 100’ buffer around Pequot Swamp was not adequate. He further commented on concerns stated by the Town consultant reports regarding risks of blasting. Mr. Cryder urged the Commission to consider the setback distances from wetlands 10 and 18. He stated that the environmental report by the Town consultants was very worrisome and he wanted to see a significantly different proposal to mitigate the impacts of the plan.
The public portion of the hearing was then closed for the evening, and Commission members were then allowed to ask further questions.
Kevin Zawoy asked the Town consultants for several clarifications on the loss of vernal pool habitat and quoted several sections of the staff reports. Penelope Sharp and Rich Snarski replied to his questions by clarifying that 76% of the biomass of the spotted salamander egg masses would be preserved. The consultants also stated that their opinions regarding fragmentation of habitat by roads and fairways.
Ms. Gallagher asked the Town consultants if the Pequot vegetation would be altered by the project. Ms. Sharp stated that it could be altered. Ms. Gallagher clarified to ask if that change would be bad. Ms. Sharp stated that it would indeed be bad. Ms. Gallagher asked about how much of the year water resides in any quantity in the pond. Mr. Snarski stated that the water was below the vegetative mat approximately from June through late August. Ms. Gallagher asked if there was potential for eutrophication. Mr. Snarski stated that he was not comfortable stating yes or no because of various complicating factors of hydrological processes that may or may not occur on the site.
The meeting was then adjourned by the Chairman to resume Thursday, December 1, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Saybrook Middle School, Old Saybrook CT.
Respectfully submitted,
Damon Hearne
Acting Clerk
| 
