TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission
302 Main Street Old Saybrook,
Telephone (860) 395-3131 FAX (860) 395-1216
MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING – “THE PRESERVE”
Thursday, January 5, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
OLD SAYBROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL
60 SHEFFIELD STREET
I. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairman, Robert McIntyre, called the public hearing to order at 7:43 p.m. in auditorium of the Old Saybrook Middle School.
II. ROLL CALL
Attendant Members Absent Members
Ken Zawoy, Regular Member Paul Smith, Vice Chairman
William Pollock, Regular Member
Robert McIntyre, Planning Rep.
Judy Preston, Conservation Rep.
Charles Sohl, Zoning Rep.
Frank Reichart, Economic Development Rep.
Kim Gallagher, Alternate Member
Brendan McKeown, Alternate Member (arrived at 8:30 p.m.)
Town Staff and Consultants
Christine Nelson, Town Planner
Damon Hearne, Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Whitney McKendree Moore, Acting Clerk
Michael Cronin, Esq., Consulting Legal Counsel
Kati Drzewianowski, Consulting Civil Engineer
Wade Thomas, Consulting Civil Engineer
Dr. Martin Petrovic, Consulting Turfgrass Scientist
Juliet McKenna, Consulting Hydrogeologist
Mary Armstrong, Consulting Golf Course Architect
Geoffrey Jacobsen, Consulting Civil Engineer
Penelope Sharp, Consulting Biologist and Wetlands Scientist
R. Richard Snarski, Consulting Soil and Wetlands Scientist
III. PUBLIC HEARING
05-016 “The Preserve” – River Sound Development, LLC.
Application to construct an open-space subdivision country club, golf course community (934 ac. total) and 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 reconvened the public hearing and outlined the schedule for the evening, noting that the applicant would have one hour to respond to questions that were raised during the previous hearing. The public would then be given one hour to comment, followed by a period for questions and comments by the Commissioners.
Presentation by the Applicant
Attorney Royston, representative for the applicant, expressed gratitude for the decision to extend the public hearings. This extension allows the applicant to respond to the material presented by the Town’s consultants at the December 2005 hearing. He stated that certain portions of that material require explanation and clarification, especially with regard to concerns about toxicity, water chemistry, blasting, and the effects on Pequot Swamp. Attorney Royston further discussed issues of significant adverse effects, feasible alternatives, and various other legal issues. He then introduced presenters for the applicant. The presenters included the following:
· Dennis Goderre from BL Companies and project manager for the applicant spoke to concerns over the blasting away of bedrock that could affect the wells of nearby neighbors. He presented facts as to the areas that are going to require rock cuts and excavation and addressed additional issues related to bedrock hydrology.
· Martin Malin from BL Companies addressed concerns over the effluent from leaching fields. He shared calculations on both soil permeability and slopes, stating that they provide what it needed to ensure absorption of the effluent flow back into the ground.
· Dr. Stuart Cohen, consultant for the applicant, presented data regarding pH levels projected for Pequot Swamp. There had been a series of questions at the December 22 hearing which were, in his opinion, posed from a context that was all wrong. His walkthrough included points on pH level fluctuations, nitrogen loading, and ecological standards. He concluded his presentation by stating that nitrogen loading in the swamp is going to be minimal – so minimal as to remove pH as a concern.
Public Questions and Comments
Acting Chairman McIntyre then invited anyone from the public to speak.
· Robert Fisher of Ingham Hill Road, Essex, expressed concern about the quantities of water required for the golf course and said he thinks 250 gallons a day might be too low an estimate. He cited several Hartford Courant articles, concluding that “Water can’t be treated lightly. We have great water – let’s keep it that way.”
· Diana McMahon of Barley Hill Road, Old Saybrook, submitted a letter for the record encouraging the use of common-sense in considering this proposal. “We are being asked to allow an unsullied, 1000-acre forest to be defiled.” She quoted Joni Mitchell as follows: “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”
· Kathy Connolly of North Cove Road, Old Saybrook, expressed concern over the proposed use of pesticides on the site, explaining difficult nuances. Finally, she stated it is naïve to disregard the matter of inspections, with so many recent cutbacks to the DEP.
· Bill Phillips of North Cove Road, Old Saybrook, said that he is vehemently opposed to this application. “I can’t believe a rugged, 1000 acres may be blasted for an 18-hole golf course and 221 homes.” He feels the issues are water (because so many homes surrounding the site rely on wells), traffic which will be 221 times two at least, and future tax increases. Mr. Phillips concluded by saying that our decision now will affect generations to come.
· Sara Keaney of Bayside Road, Old Saybrook read a letter from Barbara Maynard, who stated in her letter that she knows this land well and wants it to remain untouched, calling it “Old Saybrook’s internal air-conditioner.” She related that a DEP employee told her it can take up to 50 years to correct an environmental error.
Intervener Connecticut Fund for the Environment then presented:
· Carolyn Longstreth of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment (CFE) responded to Attorney Royston’s comments, saying the applicant seems to be asking the Commission to disregard activities that lie beyond the buffer zones unless they are deemed “significant.” She stated that they can be affected by activities outside their parameters, so Commissioners should consider the big picture to
assess impacts.
· Dr. Peter Patton said that the 100-foot setback zone was giving the Commissioners a microscopic view of an immense project and cautioned that “cuts and fills” required by the road may be an “800-lb. gorilla.” He is also concerned about the pump testing, which he considers flawed because of heavy rain that fell during the test, which may not have left the system while they were testing.
Brief Responses from the Applicant
Representatives for the applicant addressed some of the issues raised during the preceding segment, such as contamination from the golf course, the validity of the pump test despite the heavy rain, and the concerns about building and site materials needed for developing this land with one unit per four acres, qualifying it as a large-lot development.
Commissioners’ Questions and Comments
· Mr. Zawoy expressed concern about vernal pools and the effects on habitat such as wood frogs, which are the main energy transfer for the carbon source. He sought opinions from the Town consultants regarding the current proposal and reasonable and prudent alternatives. The consultants generally agreed that the current version was better than previous submissions.
· Ms. Preston was interested in the potential effects of this application on streams and watersheds, seeking expert opinions about pumping and whether or not it would impact base flow, springs, and headwater streams. She also pursued issues surrounding the Oyster River watershed and how much this development would affect that.
· Ms. Gallagher was also interested in base flow, asking if water might dry up on this site as proposed. The Town consultants stated that not enough is known about the connection between surface water and ground water. She also asked about wood frogs and how their disappearance might affect the water. Richard Snarski, consulting soil and wetlands scientist for the Town, said the pools would not fill up, but the water chemistry would be affected significantly.
· Mr. Sohl asked some general questions about the western leaching field. He asked if it could be relocated (the answer to which was it could not) and whether it could ever be used more than 10% of the time. He also asked about the materials being used to build the bridges across wetlands, and was told that pressure-treated lumber would not impact the wetlands in any negative ways. Attorney Cronin, legal counsel for the Town, stated that DEP would ultimately be the controlling party to enforce such verbal agreements.
· Mr. Pollock also asked about bridges and road bridges, the sewer plant, and regulations requiring that water lines be buried below four feet. The applicant replied that the bridges across wetlands will be made of wood; road bridges will be concrete with steel beams and concrete abutments. The applicant also stated that the sewer plant will have a back-up generator (and the fuel supply for it) and that water lines must be down at least four feet, so additional blasting could be required.
Several Town consultants then submitted questions for the applicant’s review, including Mary Armstrong, Geoffrey Jacobsen, and Richard Snarski. Mr. Snarski’s questions have been entered into the record. Matt Ranelli, attorney representing intervener, the Town of Essex, requested that the cumulative effects be taken into consideration. “This site may not be viable for this type of activity,” he stated, urging the Commission to push for alternatives that might be more prudent and feasible.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Acting Chairman McIntyre then continued the meeting to resume Thursday, January 12, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Saybrook Middle School.
Next Public Hearing
Thursday, January 12, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
Old Saybrook Middle School
Auditorium
60 Sheffield Street
Respectfully Submitted,
Whitney McKendree Moore
Acting Clerk
| 
