James Howard Kunstler

The following is a reprint from James Howard Kunstler's blog offered as a perspective that is important to consider as we struggle with the final, exhaustion run of the great suburban development era. There are still open spaces needing protection from those that still haven't seen the writing on the wall. We offer this with gratitude to Mr. Kunstler. If you think the following is way out, you might want to read his predictions for 2008, made at the end of 2007. Click here: Kunstler 2008 Prediction

Now, I don't think Jim Kunstler is a god or a fortune teller. Rather, he is someone that pays attention to what is going on, connects the dots, examines the frames we hand each other that allow us to stay in denial and continue pretending that nothing is wrong even when the most fundamental tenants of our so-called economy are irrepressibly flawed, and listens to his heart before he tries to articulate a synthesis of what he has seen, heard and learned. Even funny it is to witness the academics and intellectuals turn rationalizations of stupidity (let's just use the example of our ever-expanding economy and population on a finite earth with a finite store of resources)into opportunities for self-aggrandized philosophical diatribes. No, Jim Kunstler is more along the lines of someone that simply calls 'em as he sees 'em.

Enjoy.

"The peak oil story has not been nullified by the scramble to unload every asset for cash -- including whomping gobs of oil contracts -- during this desperate season of bank liquidation. The main implication of the peak oil story is that we won't be able to generate the kind of economic growth that defined our way of life for decades because the primary energy resources needed for it will be contracting.

Just as global oil production peaked, our economy evolved into a morbid hypertrophy, and the chief manifestation of it was the suburban sprawl-building fiesta that has now climaxed in the real estate bust. By the early 21st century, when so much American manufacturing had been swapped out to Asia, there was no business left except sprawl-building -- a manifold tragedy which wrecked the banks that financed it, and left the ordinary people mortgaged to it with ruinous liabilities.

That economy is now in its death throes. The "normality" it represents to so many Americans is gone and can't be brought back, no matter how wistfully we watch it recede. Even so, it was obviously not good for the country. The terrain of North America has been left scarred by unlovable objects and baleful futureless vistas that, from now on, will shed whatever pecuniary value they once had. It represents the physical counterpart to the financial mess that has been left to the young generations to clean up -- and the job will take a very long time.

We have to, so to speak, get to place mentally where we can face the kinds of change that are now necessary and unavoidable. We're not there yet. It's not clear whether the elected new national leadership knows just how severe the required changes will really be. Surely the public would be shocked to grasp what's in store. Probably the worst thing we can do now would be to mount a campaign to stay where we are, lost in raptures of happy motoring and blue-light-special shopping.

The economy we're evolving into will be un-global, necessarily local and regional, and austere. It won't support even our current population. This being the case, the political fallout is also liable to be severe. For one thing, we'll have to put aside our sentimental fantasies about immigration. This is almost impossible to imagine, since that narrative is especially potent among the Democratic Party members who are coming in to run things. A tough immigration policy is exactly the kind of difficult change we have to face. This is no longer the 19th century. The narrative has to change.

The new narrative has to be about a managed contraction -- and by "managed" I mean a way that does not produce civil violence, starvation, and public health disasters. One of the telltale signs to look for will be whether the Obama administration bandies around the word "growth." If you hear them use it, it will indicate that they don't understand the kind of change we face.

It is hugely ironic that the US automobile industry is collapsing at this very moment, and the ongoing debate about whether to "rescue" it or not is an obvious kabuki theater exercise because this industry is hopeless. It is headed into bankruptcy with one hundred percent certainty. The only thing in question is whether the news of its death will spoil the Christmas of those who draw a paycheck from it, or those whose hopes for an easy retirement are vested in it. But American political-economy being very Santa Claus oriented for recent generations, the gesture will be made. A single leaky little lifeboat will be lowered and the chiefs of the Big Three will be invited to go for a brief little row, and then they will sink, glug, glug, glug, while the rusty old Titanic of the car industry slides diagonally into the deep behind them, against a sickening greenish-orange sunset backdrop of the morbid economy.

A key concept of the economy to come is that size matters -- everything organized at the giant scale will suffer dysfunction and failure. Giant companies, giant governments, giant institutions will all get into trouble. This, unfortunately, doesn't bode so well for the Obama team and it is salient reason why they must not mount a campaign to keep things the way they are and support enterprises that have to be let go, including many of the government's own operations. The best thing Mr. Obama can do is act as a wise counselor companion-in-chief to a people who now have to leave a lot behind in order to move forward into a plausible future. He seems well-suited to this task in sensibility and intelligence. The task will surely include a degree of pretense that he is holding some familiar things together and propping up some touchstones of the comfortable life. But the truth is we are all going to the same unfamiliar new territory.

The economy we're moving into will have to be one of real work, producing real things of value, at a scale consistent with energy resource reality. I'm convinced that farming will come much closer to the center of economic life, as the death of petro-agribusiness makes food production a matter of life and death in America -- as opposed to the disaster of metabolic entertainment it is now. Reorganizing the landscape itself for this finer-scaled new type of farming is a task fraught with political peril (land ownership questions being historically one of the main reasons that societies fall into revolution). The public is completely unprepared for this kind of change. We still think that "the path to success" is based on getting a college degree certifying people for a lifetime of sitting in an office cubicle. This is so far from the approaching reality that it will be eventually viewed as a sick joke -- like those old 1912 lithographs of mega-cities with Zeppelins plying the air between Everest-size skyscrapers.

The crucial element in the transformation underway will be emotion. The American experience for a few generations has produced an adult population with very childish instincts, increasingly worse each decade. For instance, the desperate power fantasies among the younger tattooed lumpenproles -- those with next-to-zero real economic power -- suggest a certain unappetizing playing-out of resource competition when the supply of Cheez Doodles and Pepsi starts to dwindle. But even the heretofore gainfully employed middle classes are pretty lost in fantasies at least of comfort an convenience. For years now, I have wondered how their sense of grievance and resentment will be expressed when the supermarket shelves run bare and the cardboard signs get taped over the local gas pump and the cable TV gets cut off for non-payment. You wonder, to put it bluntly, how far gone we really are."

PLH Fundraiser

Please stay tuned for a community fundraiser planned for December to help support PLH!

East Haddam Wetlands Appeal

On Monday, November 3, 2008, the Connecticut Superior Court in Middletown heard arguments in the East Haddam IWWC appeal regarding the Morgan Estates application. Applicant (Hanks, et al) and East Haddam attorneys (all of whom are thus defendants in the appeal) argued that the appeal should be dismissed because the plaintiffs filed it in an untimely manner. Their motion argues that the IWWC wetland decision was first published in the Hartford Courant on July 18, 2008; that the plaintiffs appeal was received by the court more than fifteen days after the publishing of the decision, and outside of the window of time allowed by state statute.

The plaintiffs argued, through Attorney G, that the decision was also published in the local weekly paper the Regional Express (Standard) on July 24 and thus the filing was timely. Two of the plaintiffs attended the court hearing and testified that the weekly paper is a paper of general circulation in East Haddam. Attorney G also presented the fact that East Haddam town ordinance provides for the publishing of the notices in the weekly paper.

Interestingly, in presenting their argument, the defendants were obligated to explain away the existing case law that contradicted their position. Two separate, distinct cases decided by the Connecticut Supreme Court establish the jurisdiction of the later of two published legal notices. The attorney for the applicant went so far as to say 'we think they [the supreme court judges] were wrong.' The judge in the hearing on Monday graciously did not point out that the defendants lawyers motion to dismiss in the face of the established case law was a waste of time and money for all parties as well as the court.

Upon hearing testimony from one of the plaintiffs regarding the existence of the legal notice in the Regional Express, a free version of the paper mailed to virtually all town residents, town attorney Knapp offered his own unsolicited opinion that, as a resident of the town, he had never heard of the paper. Plaintiffs questioned the appropriateness of these remarks after the hearing and it should be noted that the judge did not admonish Knapp for the statements.

The court has up to four months to render a decision on the motion to dismiss.

Morris IWWC

During the fall of 2008, a project in Morris, Connecticut is being reviewed with regard to wetland impact of the project. Consultant REMA is active on this project and offers insight into the 2004 amendment to Section 22A of the Connecticut statutes that had the effect of expanding the jurisdiction of inland wetland commissions.

The efforts of REMA and local intervenors encouraged the local commission to add significant conditions to their approval of the application. These conditions eliminated the potential for piles of preservative impregnated sawdust to seep into a nearby stream and groundwater. They also limited floodlights from shining over the habitat.

The Morris IWWC is not alone in its attitude towards wildlife jurisdiction. There were several years when IWWC really did not have any jurisdiction over wetland or upland wildlife, after the AvalonBay supreme court decision. They still don't have it over upland wildlife. But then the May 2004 amendment to the wetlands statute was passed stating that plants, wildlife and aquatic life and habitat are a part of wetlands (not just the soil and water). That amendment changed things, but it was not as widely publicized and explained as it should have been - just a few articles in [local landuse-related publication] The Habitat.

Also, developers' attorneys keep representing to local boards as if it never happened. Admittedly there is a significant limitation to wetland commissions' jurisdiction, a condition added in response to the Home Builders' Lobby. The amendment states that impacts to biota resulting from activities happening outside the wetland boundary have to be directly associated with a physical impact to the wetland. For example simply "chasing away shy birds who were anxious because they saw people" would not count.

However, fortunately, habitat, as a part of the wetland, is not mentioned in this condition and is not excluded from jurisdiction over the out-of-wetland-impacts. For example, if the brook is heated up by sun let in by tree clearing in the buffer, and brook trout habitat is accordingly degraded, the commission may regulate that tree clearing in the buffer. The same applies to light pouring in from the buffer, which causes invasive plants to germinate and grow rapidly.

There have not been court cases yet as to whether light, noise, and vibrations count as "physical" impacts in addition to the accepted types of physical impacts: temperature, hydrological changes, soil changes, sediment deposition, and water pollution. However in one court case (Tim Melon vs. Town of East Haddam) there was a ruling that the vegetation itself was a physical part of the wetland, and accordingly regulated. Whenever such a court case involving impacts from light, vibration (important for reptiles), or noise takes place, it is reasonable to expect it would be be decided in favor of the advocates of the affected wetland biota. Therefore, and meanwhile, advocates should operate as though light and noise impacts are physical. After all, are they biological, spiritual, psychological, or hypothetical?

Old school attorneys may not quite believe the 2004 amendment happened or is applicable.

In Morris, area-sensitive listed birds (Savannah Sparrow and Bobolink) actually would live within the wetland, if it is preserved, so they are under IWWC jurisdiction. Below is the actually wording of the amendment:

Substitute Senate Bill No. 445
Public Act No. 04-209
AN ACT CONCERNING JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSIONS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. Section 22a-41 of the general statutes is amended by adding subsections (c) and (d) as follows (Effective from passage):
(NEW) (c) For purposes of this section [Section 22a-41], (1) "wetlands or watercourses" includes aquatic, plant or animal life and habitats in wetlands or watercourses, and (2) "habitats" means areas or environments in which an organism or biological population normally lives or occurs.
(NEW) (d) A municipal inland wetlands agency shall not deny or condition an application for a regulated activity in an area outside wetlands or watercourses on the basis of an impact or effect on aquatic, plant, or animal life unless such activity will likely impact or affect the physical characteristics of such wetlands or watercourses.
Approved June 3, 2004

Advocates should be warned that there are at least two wildlife biologist-consultants who charge many thousands of dollars for a very skimpy listed species report, one out of Torrington and having an odd Dutch name.

Water Woes on Drumlins

Water Woes on Drumlins
For more information, please contact Sigrun N. Gadwa, MS, PWS, Carya Ecological Services, LLC at 203 537 1989 or 203 271 1949.

A gentle, rounded, elongated hill in the Connecticut landscape is probably a “drumlin”. The best known is Horsebarn Hill on the eastern side of the UConn campus at Storrs. Landing Hill in East Haddam is currently in the local limelight. The word “drumlin” comes from Ireland, where this land form also occurs.

Rather than bedrock, the core of a drumlin hill is fine-textured, compact glacial debris, that may be over 100 feet thick, and dates from the prior Illinoisan glaciation (over 128,000 thousand years ago). Only the top layer, usually just a few feet deep, is sandier, looser soil, formed from the melting ice masses of the more recent Wisconsin glaciation, underlain by compact till (scientists’ parlance) or “hardpan” soils in common parlance. These soils are seasonally wet, and are quite challenging to develop because of their absorption and drainage characteristics – they are prone to flooding during wet seasons, drought characteristics during dry seasons, and a lack of the more typical cleansing function of more absorbent, permeable soils leading to problems with water and chemical (i.e., fertilizer) runoff and septic leachate migration.

All soils characterized by a hardpan with a relatively thin overlay share these challenges, whether on drumlins or elsewhere, such as plastered onto the sides of traprock ridges. Only ten to fifteen percent(?) of Connecticut’s soils are compact tills but a disproportionate share of construction site fiascos and problem-plagued new subdivisions occur on hardpan soils. Drumlin soils can become a mire for heavy construction equipment because the snowmelt and spring rains “perch” on top of the hardpan.

Saturated silty soils are often an erosion control nightmare. Flooding problems are more severe than on absorbent soils, and water pollution from lawns and septic systems becomes a problem at lower home densities.

This article is a plea from an experienced wetlands consultant: that CTDEP and our Conservation Districts provide us with more guidance on how to deal with their multiple constraints, and the wisdom of using them as open space. Land use boards, developers, engineers, pesticide applicators, and homeowners are all in need of such guidance. Note that excellent on-line mapping (Web Soil Survey or WSS) available from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) does show the locations of seasonally wet, hardpan soils, like the Paxton, Woodbridge, and Wethersfield series.

With careful home and septic system placement, curtain drains, and appropriate landscaping, one can avoid typical complaints of drumlin residents: wet and moldy basements, icy sidewalks, fungus-infested or burned-out grass, extended sump pump operation, mosquitoes, dying shade trees, smelly septic systems, and polluted downstream ponds – but this is possible only if home densities are relatively low. Ironically, because the loose upper soil layer of a drumlin is usually so shallow that it holds little reserve water during summer dry spells, drumlin lawns need much irrigation. Solutions: small lawns, partially wooded yards, and/or a meadow landscape with drought-tolerant grasses like Little Blue Stem, a.k.a. Poverty Grass.

Another reason to maximize the amount of remaining tree cover when subdivisions are built is that flooding – and dangerous icy sidewalks - become more of an issue for seasonally wet, drumlin soils, because less water soaks into already wet soils. (Runoff coefficients are higher, in engineering jargon.) The reason is two-fold: 1) to slow the velocity of the falling rain, and 2) because trees spew thousands of gallons of water into the air as water vapor (transpiration), helping dry out those surface soils.

Clear-cutting may be more economical for the developer, but it is not wise in this geologic setting. After clear-cutting, a drumlin slope that used to be wet only in March and April may stay wet to the surface though June – and before long one will see the tell-tale mottles of a jurisdictional Connecticut wetland soil.

Developers and land use commissions need guidance as to what approximate percent tree cover should be left in place for lots of different sizes, slopes, soil types, and configurations, in order to prevent flooding and water problems for future residents and existing neighbors. Technical guidance would also help with road design on drumlin soils. Some, but not all engineers know to correctly design roads on drumlins, with features like underdrains and clay stops, so as to prevent frost heave damage that wastes tax dollars, and allow shallow groundwater to continue to seep downslope to wetlands that depend on this water source. Fertilizers and pesticides tend to run off drumlin soils, more than off more absorbent soil types, especially when the soils are already soggy, such that additional rain and “turf products” cannot soak in.

Glyphosate herbicide (Round-up) is instantly adsorbed and quickly degraded when it enters the soil, but it will wash down a wet drumlin slope – and can kill “non target” vegetation. In 2006 I reported a half-acre emergent marsh and shrub swamp that had turned crispy brown in July. An investigation by the CTDEP Pesticide Division showed that glyphosate had washed into the marsh down a moist, non-absorbent slope from an upslope utility corridor. Although pesticide labels and pesticide applicator curricula do advise against applying products before rains, somehow this important matter is not adequately emphasized, based on the experience of my neighbors and colleagues. Schedules and dollars take precedence, such that landscapers are usually not told to stay home by their companies when heavy rain is forecast. Homeowners should also be aware of this runoff/rain issue, to avoid fertilization if they know that rain has just occurred, and more is forecast.

More guidance “from above” is also needed with regard to the appropriate watercourse setbacks and s septic system densities on compact till soils, to protect downgradient wells, streams, ponds, and lakes from lawn runoff and excessive nitrogen in septic leachate. Finally, CTDEP and conservation districts could educate town landuse boards about the multiple development constraints for hardpan soils on drumlins, as well as their valuable natural resources. Typically these landforms support ecologically valuable pools and streams; scenic hayfields; or productive forests.

Communities would benefit if substantial portions of these compact till areas were set aside to be rural streetscapes, nature preserves, habitat linkage corridors, or even dog parks, woodlots, or rifle ranges.

Who We Are

Preserve Landing Hill (PLH) is a group of concerned citizens in East Haddam, Connecticut dedicated to preserving the Landing Hill area of town, a scenic and historic area between the villages of East Haddam and Moodus. As with many areas all over the world, Landing Hill is feeling the pressure of over-development. Currently a 27-acre parcel is slated for development in this bucolic residential and farming area. We have formed to try to protect Landing Hill and in the process, preserve and protect critical aspects of the Town of East Haddam's rural character.

Our goal is saving the area from the fragmentation that would result from building more large homes here. Such homes represent another example of suburbanization that is destroying open space and habitat across the country, while putting all of us at the risk of being stranded in spread out, non-functional communities. Some people believe, when the oil runs out, we will all climb out of our SUVs and start walking down the abandoned interstate highways in search of food.

While that image may be a bit extreme, experts agree peak oil occurred in July 2006. Now, as the oil runs out, demand has outstripped supply and the very basis of suburban lifestyle is depleting away. Developers continue to propose new tracts of housing because that is what they know how to do. However, the current fiscal crisis at both a community and national level clearly shows that this continued expansion is not supportable.

Our concern on a local level is to save this beautiful, threatened area. Our economic way of life is changing. It is likely that there will be no buyers for residential homes if they are built. It is possible that starting new projects at this time will be financial nightmares for developers. We would like to offer information and education about sound preservation strategies that can work for owner/developers.

It is possible that current projects will get approvals then, halfway through construction run out of money, leaving half-built roads and skeletons of unusable homes in their wake.

It is a fact that fair, alternate proposals to development are available by partnering with the town, local land trust, neighborhood groups and individuals. These alternatives would serve the needs of land owners as well as the broader and longer term needs of the community.

Unfortunately, many owners do not want to consider preserving property. It seems, and is not surprising to realize, that they know how to develop land and leaving it 'unused' simply does not compute to their way of thinking.

As advocates for the town, we know better. We know that open space serves the town financially by reducing the burden of services. It also serves our psyches and provides nurturing, emotional support through its beauty and freshness.

For example, the proposed Morgan Estates development, located in the Landing Hill area, is just one example of many that are approved on a regular basis in East Haddam and town's just like it all across the state and country. There is a deep inertia at work that challenges those of us that would suggest there are other alternatives and that our prosperity and happiness are not solely dependent on this form of economic expansion. This particular development will destroy a small, important parcel currently serving as a connector between a primary wildlife corridor in East Haddam and the Salmon River/Connecticut River basins.

In our efforts to save this area, it has become abundantly clear that this issue is not just about this proposal. Even though our town has reasonably good regulations to guide development, their administration relies almost exclusively on information provided by the developers. Unfortunately, the process is characterized by a degree of conflict of interest that, while inevitable, can and should be managed proactively. Intervenors in the Morgan Estates application process were not even allowed to enter the property. Instead, the commission considered extensive information provided by the Applicants, and reviews of this information by town-hired consultants.

We are deeply concerned with the impact of the conflict of interest on the community. The damage from this problem is readily apparent as we watch important open space get gobbled up by paved roads, cul de sacs and big box, energy-intensive, unsustainable houses.

The suggested preservation of the Landing Hill area offers extensive wetland and moist upland terrain supporting diverse plant and wildlife species. Preservation is suggested as a positive alternative: a contiguous open space, managed as a wildlife habitat.

WE NEED YOUR HELP! Please consider writing your positive, supportive comments on this blog. We also need money to keep up this effort. Donations can be offered through this site by clicking on the DONATE BUTTON. Please consider how this issue affects your town and the quality of your life going into the future.

Welcome and...Preserve Landing Hill!

On July 15, 2008, the East Haddam Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission (IWWC) approved an application for seven four-bedroom houses to be built on a 27-acre parcel of land off of Orchard Road, also known as Landing Hill. This is formerly the land of Anna Morgan, an iconic figure in the town who recently passed away. Morgan had kept the land undeveloped during her lifetime and had expressed to friends and relatives a wish to keep it that way.

This blog has been created to increase public awareness of the positive alternative of preserving land in the Landing Hill area, rather than developing it. Residential development has multiple drawbacks for the town. This blog reflects the opportunity to do something different with land. Instead of building houses, we propose that it be preserved for the community to use to foster its connection with the natural world while avoiding construction of more suburban infrastructure in our rapidly changing, rural town.

This proposal offers the chance to change what has become a deeply ingrained pattern of development that harms the town both fiscally and psychically, yet continues to relentlessly gobble up open space, vistas, natural areas and habitat for other-than-human creatures.

Both residents and visitors to East Haddam uniformly share the perception that there is an inherent beauty to the town and the landscape upon which it exists. Day by day, development by development, this landscape is being eroded. We offer this blog to anyone that wishes to express their opinion and ideas for finding a better way.

The development in town is like a tapeworm that is eating us from the inside. Proposals for the construction of ever-larger tract homes are passed with the belief that we are serving the owners right to do-what-they-wish with their properties while creating some kind of economic development. Yet study after study demonstrates that this kind of residential development costs the town more in the long run, never returning as much tax revenue as it consumes in services. As a town, East Haddam is currently working to bear the brunt of the cost of the new $35 million middle school. Coupled with the present economic conditions in the country, this has lead to the current budget crisis.

Even though it is common knowledge among town leaders that residential development hurts the town financially, the developers pay fees that are viewed as revenue. This revenue helps pay the salaries of the employees of town hall. When construction activity dips, the town selectmen observe a corresponding dip in revenues and are forced to face the fact that taxpayers are bearing a larger share of maintaining the current level of staff and commission activity. This leads to a subtle yet powerful bias toward keeping the development happening. Thus the tapeworm feeds itself - offering the perception of short-term revenue while deferring enormous infrastructure improvements for the future. While this is politically acceptable, the reality has come home to roost in East Haddam and in many towns across the country.

In approving the Morgan Estates application, the IWWC explained away or dismissed expert opinion brought in by a group of intervening neighbors (Intervenors). State law allows such intervention. The group presented information from a state-licensed professional engineer and a Brown University-educated biologist that argued the development was flawed for a variety of scientific and technical reasons. Neighbors and concerned citizens argued more subjectively that the development was inappropriate because of its affect on the character of the neighborhood and the land itself. Intervenors consistently pointed to the option of establishing a preserve on the site as the most prudent, reasonable alternative. PLH finds this idea consistent with its mission.

In addition to the proposal to develop an ideal site for a preserve, Intervenors claim that the town's regulations are not currently fully supportive of preservation and need improvement.

The approval of the Morgan Estates application sets the stage for the next step in the process of development, an application to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). Concerned citizens may also appeal the IWWC decision in Superior Court. Correspondingly, Preserve Landing Hill (PLH), formed through grassroots efforts to promote the positive alternative of preserving this scenic area between the villages of Moodus and East Haddam, sees the activity at the former Morgan property as pertinent to our mission.

Using face to face conversations, email, letters, this blog, fundraisers and other means of getting the word out, PLH's message is PRESERVE LANDING HILL!

PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING BY CLICKING ON THE DONATE BUTTON.

The Landing Hill Area

Landing Hill Road is also known as Orchard Road. It is an area located between the villages of Moodus and East Haddam, easily accessible from all areas of the town.

One example of an area currently slated for development, but offering excellent potential as a preserve, is the former Morgan property. Offering several places along Orchard Road for access, including frontage along the southerly portion of the property, a large level spot between the existing residential structure and 40 Orchard Road, and a 50-foot corridor between 50 Orchard Road and the existing Church On The Move, these access points offer ample opportunity for trail heads and parking.

This parcel has unique ecological traits that deserve scrutiny for preservation. The 27-acre parcel offers pristine wetland headwaters flowing into the Salmon Cove. Preserving it is consistent with the recent signing of the Salmon River Preservation Compact that includes some eight other towns.

The land abuts existing power lines in town that represent a comprehensive wildlife corridor reaching from border to border. This power line area is known to be the home of a stable population of Eastern Box Turtles. Box turtles are on the Natural Diversity Database list of Species of Special Concern. The Morgan property is a critical connector between the power line habitat and down stream wetland areas including, ultimately, the Salmon and Connecticut Rivers. Box turtles have been photographed on land immediately adjacent to the parcel. Further documentation efforts, however, were stymied by the property owners be their refusal to allow any kind of independent inventory.

The East Haddam Conservation Commission, whom issued an opinion on June 20, 2008 in which commission members unanimously expressed deep concern over the proposal, had offered an independent survey of the property earlier in the Spring, but were refused. The commission had offered to sponsor an ERT - an environmental review team - for the property, a free service available statewide to help municipalities review sites proposed for development or conservation. Instead, only information provided by the Applicant's own, paid consultants was allowed into the record at the IWWC hearings. Town consultants, therefore, only reviewed Applicant-sponsored data with regard to actual, on-site evaluations.

The parcel offers moist uplands, vernal pools, mixed hardwood forest as well as open meadow. Significant wildlife, including amphibian and reptile species have been photo-documented by the adjoining landowners. American Toad, tree frogs, peepers, wood frogs, salamanders, fisher cat, deer, turkey, countless songbirds, milk snakes, Woodcock, hawks and many, many other examples have been noted. The site offers educational opportunities as well as a place for nature-connecting recreation. A large expanse of open fields provides an excellent example of quickly disappearing meadow and forest-edge habitat. Open fields may be valuable for food production in the future as the town works to improve food security in the face of depleting oil.

In addition to a large vernal pool in the northeast corner, several other wet areas offer potential for vernal pool function. Although these other areas were disregarded by the IWWC despite evidence presented by the Intervenor's expert REMA as to vernal pool functionality, they clearly do offer important breeding and food resources to the diverse mix of creatures in and around the property. This parcel is one fine example of the reasons why Preserve Landing Hill wants to do just that!

Please consider offering your ideas, suggestions and support to the idea of preserving this unique area. Your thoughts and ideas for future blogs are invited. Please feel free to comment on any of the material on this blog site. Consider providing financial support by CLICKING ON THE DONATE BUTTON!

IWWC's Morgan Estates Decision

When the East Haddam Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commission (IWWC) voted to approve the development application known as Morgan Estates in the Landing Hill area, three members voted. In doing so, they put the idea of a preserve on the site in jeopardy. Preserve Landing Hill (PLH) is organized to promote the idea of preserves throughout the between-the-villages area.

The commission consists of seven members total, two of whom are alternates. That means there are five regular members. Thus three is the minimum needed for a legal vote. This is called a quorum. Despite tens of thousands of dollars spent on information critical to the evaluation of the proposal, three public hearings, two regular meetings and two work sessions, the commission discussed, evaluated and voted on this project with the least possible number of commissioners. Significant expertise available from at least two members of the commission, Wendy Goodfriend and Bryan Goff, was not present in any of the commission work sessions.

It is not unreasonable to ask if the commission was fully functional in its actions given the importance of this application, the opportunity the parcel represents as an educational, nature-oriented preserve and the level of public interest surrounding it. If the answer to that question is no, there is the deeper implication that perhaps the town should consider reconstituting the IWWC. For those in favor of preserves in the Landing Hill area, the decision invites the possibility of an appeal to the state superior court in order to scrutinize the decision making process and help guide the exiting process toward one that is more conducive to preserving the Landing Hill area.

The application procedure for this project started around the first of the year with paperwork submitted by the owners of the property, Alan Hanks of East Haddam, and Jeffery Becker (Applicant) of Avon. After review with town staff, and meeting needed requirements for consideration, the Applicants were granted a place on the agenda of one of the IWWC's regular meetings in February. Immediately prior to that, a group of neighbors filed for intervenor status (Intervenors) in the proceedings and filed a petition requesting a public hearing on the matter. Attempts to engage the Applicant in talks about preserving the property had been rebuffed.

At the regular meeting the IWWC announced that the Applicant, represented by Mr. Hanks and engineer, Roger Nemergut, would not be able to present its proposal as planned. Instead, the commission said they would hold a public hearing; the Applicant would have to wait to until then to make his presentation.

Mr. Hanks was surprised by the fact that he could not make his presentation. Even though he had been in communication with the town Land Use office, submitting paperwork and preparing for the meeting, he apparently did not know that he would be delayed on this particular evening. The commission staff member, land use official Jim Ventres, asserted that notwithstanding the petition for a public hearing submitted by the Intervenors, it was going to be his office's recommendation to hold a public hearing all along.

Mr. Hanks was angry and upon leaving, while still on town property, verbally accosted the Intervenors. It seemed to bystanders that, even though anyone has the right to participate in the review process, there would be a hostile environment in which it would play out. For members of the Intervenors, this became even more apparent, telling PLH, they felt town staff and members of the commission viewed them as adversaries, at times getting angry over procedural issues, offering what appeared to be misleading guidance, and generally withholding key information about how to participate in the process. For example, Intervenors claim staff member Jim Ventres repeatedly told the group that there was no formal procedural requirement to gain the status of an intervenor, yet they discovered at the last possible moment that a notarized letter is required to officially intervene in the process.

The application process required three public hearings over four months. During that process, the Intervenors spent nearly $10,000 on expert witnesses including environmental consultants REMA Ecological Services and the engineering firm Meehan & Goodin, PC. The Intervenors also retained attorney Paul Geraghty.

The Applicant relied upon their engineer Roger Nemergut, surveyor Robert Weaver, soils scientist Richard Snarsky, ecologist Jodie Chase and herpetologist Anton Leenders. There were multiple revisions to the proposed design, as well as field inspections and various reports.

The Applicant refused the Intervenors access to the land, so only their experts provided data from the site itself. The commission relied on the Applicant's information to make their decision. The Applicant spent many thousands of dollars on the design and responding to input received during the process. PLH estimates that the Applicant spent over $50,000 on design and expert advice.

It should be noted that, despite the IWWC decision's negative impact on efforts to preserve the property, there were multiple improvements made to the design that otherwise would have probably gone unaddressed by the routine review process. Clearly the efforts and expenditures of the Intervenors improved the process.

IWWC commission members Randy Dill, Mary Augustiny, Dan Jahne, Wendy Goodfriend and Jennifer Burton-Reeves attended most of the hearings, as did Jim Ventres. Commissioner Bryan Goff did not attend any of the hearings, nor any of the work sessions. He did attend the meeting at which the commission approved the application, properly abstaining from the vote. The Town invested heavily in support services, engaging consultants, Nathan Jacobson and Associates and environmental consultant Penelope Sharpe for technical reviews and even having town attorney Eric Knapp attend the first public hearing.

Only commissioners Dill, Augustiny and Jahne attended any of the subsequent work sessions leading up to the vote.

With all of the time, money and resources invested in the process by all parties, why weren't all the commission members present? Although three members voting may be legal, it seems to reflect a somewhat low regard for the importance of this project. To advocates of a preserve on the site, this is discomforting. Commissioner Goodfriend, someone with significant expertise in environmental matters, who criticized aspects of the Intervenors's testimony during the third public hearing, didn't attend work sessions, nor did she vote.

In the decision, the commission preferred to limit themselves to the review of activities within the Upland Review areas established by the regulations. The Intervenors's attorney, Geraghty, presented the commission with a memorandum outlining the legal basis for their responsibility to look at the effects of the proposed development on the adjacent wetlands even when it was outside of the Upland Review areas. Yet, during the work session reviews, the constraints of the Upland Review as a guideline for understanding their charge was emphasized by Ventres. The commission accepted his characterization of their responsibility.

One pivotal point, the interpretation of filtration devices versus infiltration devices, was determined by Ventres. Even though a licensed, professional engineer, Marc Goodin, had recommended the use of infiltration criteria, it was overruled by Ventres.

Even though the Intervenors had presented reams of information, many items were deferred to PZC, and the rest overlooked or explained away. The commission's stated approach to the review was to look at everything submitted, item by item. Ventres compiled the list of review items and asserted it to be complete. This became the underlying assumption of the review: that all of the questions and concerns submitted by the Intervenors had been or were going to be reviewed and evaluated. It appears however this did not happen.

One example is the critical issue of stream erosion, something described in a report submitted by the Intervenor's environmental expert, REMA. REMA pointed out that it was incumbent under current regulations for the Applicant to review the bank erosion resulting from the increased run-off the development would create. Although the Applicant's engineer looked at and designed for peak flow coming off the property, REMA noted that they did not look at the long term affect of the overall increased flow in the stream leading to the Salmon Cove. The term used for this is 'bankful events', those times that the stream is handling its maximum capacity for flow. REMA points out that the number of bankful events increases with development, that regulation requires this be addressed by the developer, and that it wasn't addressed by the application. It appears from listening to the IWWC work session discussions and reading the IWWC decision, that the commission did not address this issue.

Until fully analyzed, it is impossible to evaluate the adequacy of the IWWC's review of the issues presented by the Intervenors. It seems possible that they did not address all of them. Of the issues addressed, each was systematically dismissed so that ultimately an approval could be made. Unless this decision, and the means by which it was reached, is appealed in state superior court, there is no recourse. This point is of critical importance to the community. Unless challenged, the town appears to continue to be at risk because of shortcomings in the process.

It remains to be seen whether concerned citizens will appeal the decision. PLH supports such an effort and will provide financial support for an appeal. Such an effort involves enormous cost and emotional toll. Concerned citizens are invited to offer support through this blog. Financial donations are also invited BY CLICKING ON THE DONATE BUTTON.

To Appeal, or not to appeal. That is the Question.

The decision to appeal the IWWC decision with regard to the Morgan Property is an involved one. The Intervenors have spent a lot of money and effort to intervene in the application process and bring in experts. However, this expertise did not sway the IWWC from approving the project. Despite unprecedented conditions put on the application by the decision, such as the requirement for homeowners to report on their rain gardens in perpetuity, the decision still opens the door to development and erodes the preservation efforts in the Landing Hill area.

Experts tell Preserve Landing Hill (PLH) that appeals are long, drawn out and expensive. They say the chances of having the decision overturned are less than 25%. PLH, formed in an effort to raise public awareness for preserving the historic and beautiful Landing Hill area offers broader support to groups like the Intervenors by supporting the appeal process and working with them during the intervention of the Planning and Zoning application review.

The knowledge gained about the process as a result of the Intervenor's experience points unequivocally to the need to appeal this decision. From the perspective of PLH, the IWWC did not address reasonable and well-support arguments presented by experts.

Town commissions are understandably afraid of developers taking them to court to challenge their decision. It has been, historically, less likely that common town-folk would take this extraordinary step. As a result, the momentum seems to be toward the approval of applications. This is born out statistically - about 9 out of 10 applications are approved. It seems that the diligence required for an approval represents a lower threshold than that which would be required for a denial. Thus, approval represents a path of least resistance.

The file of an appeal would represent resistance to the current path of approval for development applications. It is incumbent on everyone familiar with the story of this issue, the Morgan property and the opportunity to change this to the Morgan Preserve, to do what they can to sway the momentum.

CONSIDER SENDING A FINANCIAL DONATION THROUGH THIS WEBSITE BY CLICKING ON THE DONATE BUTTON.

Morgan Estates Applicant

The Morgan Property at 30 Orchard Road, East Haddam, Connecticut is owned by Alan Hanks of East Haddam, and Jeffery Becker of Avon, Connecticut. Collectively they are the Applicant. Hanks has been the lead on the project; Mr. Becker has never presented himself to the neighbors nor the IWWC.

When Hanks first approached the abutting Morgan property landowners, neighbor's claim that he stated his intention was to convert the property to a horse farm for his daughter. Subsequently he invited all of the adjacent landowners to a meeting where he presented a picture different than the initially described horse farm.

At that meeting, Hanks told neighbors that he had retired and had become involved because he wanted a project. He told the group that he had two approaches to the development of the property. One was more intensive than the other.

The less intensive approach involved the installation of a long, common driveway to serve some four lots on the interior of the property. The more intensive method involved the installation of a road that would meet town standards and therefore be more expensive. More lots would be required to justify the road.

Hanks asked the neighbors to support the less intensive approach. The group subsequently approached the land use official, Jim Ventres, and asked if the less intensive approach was feasible under the town's regulations. His answer was no, it was not feasible.

Later, when the application was submitted based on the more intense development - seven four-bedroom homes and a new road, Hanks stated that he had to go with the more intensive approach because someone went to town hall and 'rattled the cage'. He implied that, because the neighbors had gotten involved, they had made things worse.

From a strategic perspective, this approach serves the Applicant by making the neighborhood group seem responsible for a more intensive, damaging development plan. This would not only serve to get the group to think twice before acting, it might also drive a wedge between some members of the group.

Preserve Landing Hill (PLH) understands that developers are experienced in positioning their proposals in the best light, and with methods to counter resistance to their projects. Abutting landowners, neighbors and concerned citizens are less likely to be skilled with regard to the approval process or with means of influencing public opinion or the opinion and actions of volunteer commissions and town leaders.

Yet it is clear, by looking at the trend of suburban development, that something needs to be done to reduce the tax burden on town residents and ensure a more sustainable future by redirecting investment in subdivisions toward preservation and sound economic development.

Preserving Landing Hill is a giant step toward helping the town's future economic picture. PLEASE DONATE BY CLICKING ON THE DONATE BUTTON.

Mrs. Morgan

A whole blog could probably be dedicated to Anna Morgan. She lived a very long life, and was an interesting woman, to say the least. Many loved her dearly, and some remember not liking her. Her story, including her independent life in her house at 30 Orchard Road until a very advanced age and what happened when she could no longer live there, all contribute to a fascinating tale. This story includes relatives of Morgan's, the pressing need to pay her bills especially after moving to Chestelm convalescent home and a network of movers & shakers in town including real estate agents, builders and developers.

Neighbors that knew Anna Morgan remember a feisty woman. She lived in her home until some 99 years of age, until her progressing infirmities forced her into a convalescent home. From there here health deteriorated quickly. She spent a number of years in the home, although her capacity was greatly diminished. She did not recognize friends and relatives during most of this time. She died after reaching an age of 102. She was well know for her collections of stuff, including wonderful antiques, all sorts of newspaper and magazine articles, and other eccentricities. Her son, Leland, predeceased her, and was also well-known throughout the community, in particular for his newspaper, The Trumpeter.

Anna's property ultimately sold to Alan Hanks and Jeff Becker for the sum of $365,000. This included her house, which was in a state of disrepair, and the 27 acres of undeveloped land. However, prior to this transaction, there was quite a bit of activity.

The adjacent neighbor, the Harris', contacted Edgar (Bubby) Williams, Anna Williams nephew acting as Power of Attorney, about the property around the time Anna was moved to the convalescent home. Williams offered the couple a 'right of first refusal'. Together with local builder Jim Discola, an offer of over $500,000 was made. This offer was declined in lieu of another offer by local builder, United Builders. The offer amount was some $700k. Real estate agent Bill Nelson is reported to have said at the time that the offer was for cash and had no contingencies. However, shortly thereafter, United Builders pulled out of the deal. It is presumed that they determined the property could not be developed in accordance with their business purposes.

The property was re-listed, reportedly briefly showing a description that included the phrase 'not subdividable' or 'not developable'. However, a search of the real estate listing service today is unable to retrieve a record of this description.

Within several weeks, the property was sold to Hanks and Becker. for the much lower sum of $365,000, according to real estate records.

Drs. Leenders

One of the reasons Preserve Landing Hill (PLH) supports the idea of an appeal of the IWWC's decision to the Superior Court relates to questions about the testimony of experts hired by the Applicant during the hearing process. As advocates of a preserve on the property, the approval of the Morgan Estates application puts the preserve in serious jeopardy.

One example of PLH's concern has to do with an expert hired by the Applicant, Drs. Anton Leenders. Hired through the Applicant's ecologist, Jodie Chase of Essex, Connecticut, the Applicant, and subsequently the IWWC, referred to Leenders as Doctor Leenders.

Leenders was hired to review the wetlands and habitat specific to Eastern Box Turtles and to review a wetland area that the Intervenors asserted to be a vernal pool.

Leenders submitted a photograph (Fig. 4, page 4) of the wetlands in question in his report, dated April 2008. In this photograph, a dry hillside was displayed. The caption read 'Overview of wetland #2 on 6 April 2008. The accompanying text read "Wetland #2 is a wet meadow habitat that had already considerably dried between the April 6 and April 16 surveys. During the latter site visit standing water was restricted to water-filled tire ruts, which locally reached depths of approximately 15 cm. No amphibians or amphibian eggs weer recorded durig the sruveys and the only aquatic organizms visible during the later survey were large numbers of mosquito larvae. Undoubedly this habitat is of an intermittent nature and will dry up later in the season. Wetland #2 has no vernal pool function."

However, adjacent landowner Michael Harris, within two days of Leender's photograph, had taken a picture of a hawk sitting on a branch over the reputed vernal pool in question. Harris also described finding a plethora of caddis fly casings, as well as evidence of wood frogs, in the pool. Intervenor expert Sigrun Gadwa of REMA testified that this pool offered functional characteristics of a vernal pool.

In submitting this data to the IWWC, Harris described Leender's photo as a hoax in which he apparently stood with his back to the water in order to take the picture submitted in his official report. Harris' photo clearly shows a large body of water. As a result of this assertion, Leender amended his report by revisiting the area and providing more robust examples of the wetland's characteristics in his addendum including evidence of amphibians absent from his first report.

As a result of concerns over the picture and the amended report, Harris subsequently questioned the expert's credentials. Asking the definition of the Doctor's prefix, 'Drs.' Leenders responded that it was the European equivalent of a Doctorate, and that he was Dutch. Harris responded that he had researched the term only to find that it was Latin for 'one who would be doctor'. According to a source on the internet, Drs. stands for doctorandus, the European equivalent of someone that has received a master's degree and has tested to study at the doctoral level. 'Apparently, said Harris, Doctor' Leenders is not a Phd, a doctor, nor the recipient of an accredited US degree.

Leenders Curriculum Vitae indicates "1994, Doctoral Exam Biology, General and Ecological Subsection, with emphasis on Animal Ecology, Animal Physiology and Vertebrate Zoology, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen (now Radboud University Nigmegen), The Netherlands".

This information is available on the tapes and in the public record of the IWWC public hearings. Please click the DONATE button to contribute to the effort to PRESERVE LANDING HILL!

Open Space Committee

There is a whole story about the Open Space Committee in town and how it is working, and not working so well, to preserve open space. There have been statements made that the area between the villages, the area referred to on this blog as Landing Hill, is a preferred area for development. Other interests in town point out that preservation in this area is equally important; that having open space near residential neighborhoods is extremely valuable to our emotional, spiritual and community health and represents an underpinning of rural character, the top priority of people in town. Open space in these areas offers visual buffers, a key to evincing a sense of rural character.

When questioned about the emphasis on development in this area, there have been mixed responses. Sometimes the Open Space committee will deny that they try to steer development to this area. Yet when the IWWC voted to approve the Morgan Estates application, commission chairman Randy Dill stated that it was consistent with open space policy in the town (see minutes/tape of IWWC meeting on July 15, 2008 and prior work session meeting tapes/minutes). While steering development may not be an official position, it is being used in town to justify development approvals. In fact, as described below, one of the current 'official' goals of the committee that eminates from its authorizing resolution, is to "Encourage development..." (item f, section 2 of resolution).

The former Morgan property, located in the Landing Hill area, currently under application for development as Morgan Estates, was presented to the Open Space committee even before the development proposal was ever made. The Open Space Committee choose not to act on the opportunity. At the time, it was determined that the property did not fit certain criteria that the committee uses to evaluate opportunities. That criteria, using a weighting system did at the time have the effect of underweighting open space opportunities in the Landing Hill area. Local residents are currently pressuring the committee to improve the criteria. More needs to be done, however, to remove the bias for steering development.

Recently residents have begun to question the committee not only about their criteria, but about their organization and process. There are few rules guiding this committee. They have not produced minutes for their meetings since 2006. There are no term limits for the chairman. Most of the meetings are characterized by extended discussion in 'executive' session, in which members of the public are not allowed to participate.

Asmentioned, the enabling resolution for the committee is part of the problem. There are six goals listed in Section 2 of the resolution. All of them except one describe goals related to preserving open space, the de facto mission of the committee. However, the goal associated with line f. is different.

The goals are listed, according to the resolution, in no particular order of importance. Goal 'f' states: "Encourage development only in areas capable of supporting development without adversely impacting the environment." The troubling thing about this goal is the fact that it is about encouraging development. This goal seems to run counter with the mission of the committee. In fact, the presence of a goal encouraging development has a detrimental effect on the ability of the committee to do its job.

First, goal 'f' is in opposition to preserving open space. If the committee is supposed to both preserve and encourage development, a whole landscape of subjectivity is opened up. Given the current opacity of the committee and its workings, this is not a good thing.

Second, in addition to the added subjectivity, goal 'f' quite simply splits the committee's focus. By creating the separate charge of encouraging development, it increases the chances that the committee will not do a good job at either task. Moreover, the charge of encouraging development is counter to the inherent intent of the resolution, the very basis for creating the committee.

Goal 'f' gives the committee the latitude to decide which parts of town, or which parcels, will be targeted for preservation, and which will be targeted for development. While prioritization of opportunities is indeed one of the committees responsibilities, and a difficult one at that, the confusion and subjectivity introduced by goal 'f' is a recipe for mediocrity. Ironically, many in town would argue that is exactly the kind of results being achieved by the committee.

There is a role for encouraging development in the right places. In fact, highlighted at a recent environmental round table held by the town was the idea that the right kind of Economic development needed to be encouraged in the right places. This is the role of the economic Development Commission (EDC). So instead of having the Open Space Committee trying to do the work of the EDC while producing questionable results in the open space category, it would be prudent for the town to revisit the resolution that authorizes the committee in the first place.

While they are at it, they should perhaps consider beefing up the rules of conduct and process to add some transparency and accountability to the committee's workings.

Although the committee is quite vocal about is successes, many of these examples are parcels pursued and purchased by the state. The actual success record of the committee appears to be something less than what they would tell us.

Conservation Commission

On June 20, 2008, Cynthia Matthew, the Chairwoman of the East Haddam Conservation Commission, issued advice regarding the Morgan Estates application for the consideration of the IWWC. In that letter, Matthew states, "we held a special meeting on June 7th to consider the impact of the proposed development on water resources in the Salmon River watershed. All members of the commission were present, except one who was recused. Based on observations from a site walk, materials and expert testimony submitted to the land use office by the application, interveners, and town consultants, and information presented at the public hearings, Conservation Commission members unanimously expressed deep concern that the proposed water abatement methods will not consistently meet regulations and prevent water run-off over time."

The letter outlines six key points including concerns about the maintenance intensity of proposed rain gardens and conservation easements, ability to enforce maintenance, filling of a watercourse, impact on the Salmon River and affects on a wildlife corridor. The Commission concludes by saying, "...given the challenges presented by the geology of the location, its poor soil drainage capacity, and prominence in the Salmon River watershed, we have significant reservations about the current proposal, particularly in regard to methods proposed to mitigate against water run-off."

Preserve Landing Hill offers this synopsis of the Conservation Commission advice to the IWWC in an effort to provide information and education consistent with our mission to save the historic and beautiful Landing Hill area.