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.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Saturday, August 2, 2008
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.
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!
Friday, August 1, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)