TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission
302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-1741
Telephone (860) 395-3131 FAX (860) 395-1216
MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING – “THE PRESERVE”
Thursday, January 12, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
OLD SAYBROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL
60 SHEFFIELD STREET
I. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairman Paul Smith called the public hearing to order at 7:50 p.m. in auditorium of the Old Saybrook Middle School.
II. ROLL CALL
Attendant Members Absent Members
Paul Smith, Chairman Frank Reichart, Economic Development Rep.
William Pollock, Regular Member Brendan McKeown, Alternate Member
Robert McIntyre, Planning Rep. Ken Zawoy, Regular Member
Judy Preston, Conservation Rep.
Charles Sohl, Zoning Rep.
Kim Gallagher, Alternate Member
Town Staff and Consultants
Christine Nelson, Town Planner
Damon Hearne, Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Whitney McKendree Moore, Recording 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 Paul Smith reconvened the public hearing and outlined the schedule for the evening, noting that the hearing would (1) open with comments from public officials, after which (2) the applicant would discuss the current status of their application, followed by (3) comments from the interveners and then (4) the general public, concluding with (5) a final segment for questions from Commissioners.
Comments from Public Officials
§ Richard Blumenthal, the Attorney General of Connecticut, expressed his gratitude for the opportunity to speak and listen to the public who will be most affected by the decision regarding what he called “the last expanse of uncut wetlands and forest” in our State. He said he cares deeply about this tract of land and cautioned the Commissioners to give the most exacting and serious scrutiny to this decision. He stated, “Be as demanding as you have ever been in assessing the adverse effects of this activity…Your responsibility is particularly important on this irreplaceable resource… I hope and know you will devote the kind
of care and consideration the entire State is seeking as you decide about this State resource and treasure.”
§ Phil Miller, First Selectman of Essex, stated that this project is a truly monumental business effort to develop the largest tract that exists between New York and Boston. He believes it is, by far, the largest conservation development issue our region has ever faced. He stated that the residents of Essex object to this application as much as they did to the previous applications over the past several years, that they think it’s an untenable project. “Bill Peace calls it an unfunded liability,” he said, adding that other local and neighboring town officials are against the proposal. He pointed out that this decision goes
beyond our narrow interests to regional interests, and proposed working out a coalition to buy this property and leave it in its natural state.
§ Marilyn Giuliano, State Representative for the 23rd District of Connecticut, lives in Old Saybrook and opposes The Preserve as it is presently proposed. She cited the testimony of DEP’s Deputy Commissioner before the Environmental Committee, which referred to this tract as “the last and largest coastal forest left – not just in Connecticut, but beyond.”
§ James Spallone, State Representative for the 36th Senatorial District, lives in Essex and joined the others tonight “because this application has regional impact.” He stated that Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commissions are our local defense against adverse environmental impacts and irreversible outcomes.
§ Eileen Daily, also representing the 33rd District, lives in Westbrook and urges the Commissioners to consider reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed development approach.
§ Andrea Stillman, State Senator for the 20th District, stated that both she and her constituents “want to protect this very special piece of land. We hope, as you move forward, you will remember all who feel so strongly this is the type of development that would be irreversible. Acres are disappearing in Connecticut due to development.”
§ Bill Peace, a Selectman of Old Saybrook, was represented by his wife, Julie, who read his letter of opposition to this project. He expressed concerns about the clearing of trees, the mortality of amphibians like wood frogs, the need for safe drinking water, and “the higher taxes that would be inevitable” with particular attention to the miles of roads and bridges that could end up requiring town resources.
§ Eileen Baker, a six-year member of Old Saybrook’s Board of Education, encouraged the Commissioners to deny this application.
Following these remarks, the Chairman seated Alternate Member Kim Gallagher and moved to the next item on the agenda by inviting comments from the applicant.
Presentation by the Applicant
Attorney Royston, representative for the applicant, summarized this sereies of public hearings as “exhaustive and exhausting” with its extensive record of 223 exhibits. He stated he is submitting a list of proposed conditions of approval in response to the Commission’s questions. These materials have included (but are not limited to) the following concerns:
§ Protection of the Oyster River
§ The effects of excavation on water supply for neighboring wells
§ Protection of the wetlands and their buffer edges
§ Potential effects from pesticide applications
§ Activities that could adversely affect amphibians and vernal pools
§ Drainage designs and plans for treating effluent waste water
§ Calculations for the treatment of effluent
§ Potential erosion and sedimentation
§ Roadways and blasting
§ The effects of bridges across areas of wetlands
The document cited in their list summarizes commitments to which the applicant has agreed during the course of the past months in public hearings. Heretofore, he said, “Our commitments (as to how we will implement a particular protocol or procedure) have been scattered throughout all this. We have now taken them all and placed them into one document.” He stated that the entire package was given to the interveners prior to this evening’s public hearing.
Comments from the Interveners
Chairman Smith explained that Intervener, the Town of Essex, had requested 15 minutes and that Intervener CFE (Connecticut Fund for the Environment) had requested 45 minutes. He then invited the first intervener to the podium.
§ Attorney Matt Ranelli, attorney for the Town of Essex, stated that he had learned that day of a meeting that convened the technical representatives, consultants, and lawyers for both the Town of Old Saybrook and the applicant, without including either of the interveners or the general public. He fears this could raise the question of impropriety in the public’s mind, stating that he believes these issues need to be heard in public space. That said, he expressed opposition to the proposed project on behalf of the Town of Essex, clarifying this case is entirely different from Avalon Bay and that the golf course is clearly the proposal’s
main problem. In addition, he raised concerns about so many “dueling” expert opinions and the dilemmas posed for volunteer Commissioners faced with having to choose between experts. He underscored the need for a quality application, no matter how many different versions the applicant may submit. He also suggested that the Estate Lots, as proposed, may be contrary to regulations that guide subdivisions. Eliminating those could enable the applicant to re-design the golf course.
§ Attorney Carolyn Longstreth, of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment (CFE), stated that they have been doing their best to digest and respond in a timely manner to the enormous amounts of material being submitted at each of these public hearings. She introduced Dr. Peter Patton to make CFE’s first presentation.
§ Dr. Peter Patton, professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Wesleyan University, urged the Commissioners to consider activities outside the boundaries of the 100’ buffer in considering this application. He also stated that “rock excavation issues could be extremely important” and expressed concern over the new sequences for construction of the golf course. Again he cautioned Commissioners about the pump test and said it should be re-done. He suggested that a long-term water budget study should be also be conducted.
§ George Logan, a consulting ecologist for CFE, defended his report against a critique by the applicant. “I think it is semantics and a diversion,” he stated. His concern was primarily for Pequot Swamp where he fears negative effects to the swamp by nutrient input. He suggests that the Commissioners require a buffer around the wetlands and that they exclude slopes over 50%.
§ Attorney Carolyn Longstreth then reviewed topics of foremost concern to the CFE, including acreage, wastewater, vernal pools, amphibian mortality, sedimentation and erosion on steep slopes, earth exposures, the use of pesticides and pressure-treated lumber, and the potential for fragmentation/degradation in upland areas. CFE does not feel the applicant has shown there is absolutely no other feasible alternative and would like to see the golf course eliminated from the plans. They are recommending a focus on the woodlands as the amenity, rather than a golf course. This would result in less clearing, less chemical loading, and less environmental
disturbance. Ms. Longstreth also commented on CFE’s concern regarding the meeting referenced by Atty. Ranelli.
Public Questions and Comments
Chairman Smith then invited anyone from the public to speak, whose remarks are summarized as follows:
§ David Brown of Ingham Hill Road, Old Saybrook urged neighbors to get a water test now so they have a baseline if they ever need one. He expressed concern about Integrated Pest Management (IPM) because it can be significantly affected by unpredictable weather and leaves considerable room for human error. He said he realizes that LLC stands for “limited liability corporation” and added, “I am curious as to how limited?”
§ Kate Cryder of Merritt Lane in Old Saybrook spoke regarding the 25’ buffer. She asked the Commissioners to please require a 100’ buffer around the wetlands at the very minimum. “They are not going to compromise,” she said. “Why should we?” She submitted signatures of 135 people who are opposed to this application.
§ Robert Fisher of Ingham Hill Road in Essex expressed concern about the amount of physical disturbance in the wetlands, the creatures who will be affected, and the use of pressure-treated lumber in fresh water. “The IWWC ought to be looking at the impacts from chemical preservatives in pressure-treated wood,” he stated.
§ Walter Hirsch resides on Ingham Wood Road in Old Saybrook, an area formerly known as Coulter Woods. He shared that the site is completely surrounded by The Preserve and is identical in terrain. He described the challenges of building there because of the rock and the wetlands and wonders how anyone could ever turn terrain like this into a golf course. His own house has a well that is about 100 yards from the proposed golf course. “We like our water,” he said. “It’s better than water anywhere, and we’d like to keep it that way.” He wants the developer to donate the land to the State of Connecticut.
§ Frank Hall of Essex said, “They call it The Preserve, yet they are bringing in bulldozers and dynamite.” He stated concern for amphibians because they will have a shorter life and for residents because it will increase traffic and deplete wells.
§ Sally Faulkner of Dwayne Road in Old Saybrook said the IWWC represents both the citizens and the laws of the town. “Even a small amount of impact would be unacceptable, but this impact will be huge,” she said, adding that it all comes down to common sense because “you can’t have this amount of activity and expect everything to work the way it always has.”
§ Belinda Murano of Barley Hill Road in Old Saybrook asked about the use of pesticides and herbicides year after year. She believes this proposal has the potential to poison an entire regional aquafir. “Please hold this landowner to the same standards as anyone else,” she concluded.
§ Nancy Baldoni of Schoolhouse Road in Old Saybrook said, “Lehman Brothers doesn’t live here. It’s an awful development. She also stated that the presence of political leaders for the state should signify to the Commission that the land needs to be protected.
§ Suellen McCuin of Ingham Hill Road in Essex submitted letters from other residents who could not attend the public hearing, but wanted to join in opposition to this application.
§ Diane McMahon of Barley Hill Road in Old Saybrook expressed her opposition to this project, saying that the applicant keeps trying to compare small projects to this big one. “It’s like comparing a pond to the ocean,” she stated.
§ Barbara Smith of North Cove Road, Old Saybrook submitted some marketing materials from a nearby golfing development called Fox Hopyard, which she described as a “big flop” and went on to ask, “What if this is to nobody’s benefit?”
§ Scott McCuin of Ingham Hill Road, Essex asked about the effect of so many pilings being driven by machinery into the wetlands. He wants to know how many pilings are envisioned – and how large. Along with others during the course of the evening, he wanted the record to reflect his disappointment about the meeting that transpired without the public’s presence. He asked that explanation for this be given at the next hearing.
§ Ms. Sikpi of Briarcliff Trail in Old Saybrook rose to say, “I believe if I do not speak, my grandchildren will never see this land Lehman Brothers is trying to destroy. The IWWC owes us,” she said. “Turn this deal down.”
§ James Keaney of Bayside Road, Old Saybrook shared materials about the re-establishment of oysters in the Oyster River and the effects of poor stewardship for so many years. He asked the Commissioners to protect the Oyster River, saying “This watershed encompasses the whole town. Think about it.”
§ Bob Fisher of Ingham Hill Road in Essex asked again that attention be given to the matter of bridges in the wetlands.
§ The husband of Beth Clay of Dibble Road, Old Saybrook read a letter of opposition in his wife’s behalf.
Chris Cryder of Merritt Lane in Old Saybrook then made a Power Point presentation to address what he called “the smoke screen about feasible alternative number nine.” He reminded the audience that the applicant had offered this alternative, showing the project without a golf course and claiming it would result in decreased amphibian activity. “I’m not sure how they arrived at that,” Mr. Cryder said, asking if Mr. Snarski might be able to shed some light. He was also concerned about the water test because he doesn’t think its data is accurate. Overall, he believes that the amount of activity proposed by this application is environmentally insensitive and that the impairments and risks far outweigh any social benefits.
Chairman Smith closed the public portion of the hearing at 11:45 p.m. and said that, at this point, we have no choice but to extend the hearings. One of the Town consultants was unable to complete his report, and it must be submitted. In addition, because the hour had become quite late, he moved immediately to the next agenda item – the segment inviting questions from the Commissioners.
Questions from Commissioners
After soliciting preferences from the Commissioners seated, Chairman Smith decided it best to re-schedule this period of questioning into the agenda for the next (and last) public hearing.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Smith then continued the meeting to resume Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Saybrook Middle School.
Next Public Hearing
Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
Old Saybrook Middle School
60 Sheffield Street
Respectfully Submitted,
Whitney McKendree Moore
Acting Clerk
| 
