The following letter to First Selectman Mark Walter was submitted to our blog site:
Dear Mark, Thank you for attending the P&Z public hearing last night. There were many important issues presented and discussed.
I am passionate about this issue, but not because it is my backyard, although that certainly supplies a lot of energy. Rather, there is a curious dynamic at play in town that is not constructive for people that live here and I feel strongly that we as a town need to improve this situation.
There is a subtle yet powerful inertia serving the perception of economic development in the form of residential housing that pushes applications like Morgan Estates forward despite a lack of diligence and in spite of the harm that this type of development does to the town in the long run. It is commonly understood that residential development is an economic drain on the town. Yet this knowledge is not being served in the least. Rather, there is an old perception that progress includes the construction of new houses and the best we can do is to stay out of the way.
This is old thinking. It hurts the town and makes it a more and more challenging place to live as we move into a future that requires a resilient community economy. This resiliency consists of businesses that serve the everyday needs of people that live here. This is true economic development, and an imperative of the changing times.
I urge you to not let the temporary downturn in energy prices and upturn in the stock market lull you to thinking that our national or local economy will ever be again like it was. It will not – we are at peak oil and peak natural resource in all areas – ores, metals, wood, clean air, clean water – the list goes on and on and includes debt and the ratio of ever rising GDP to a fixed (and declining) resource base. The nature of these exponential growth curves is that we will be overwhelmed with sweeping changes in a very short time. This is frankly a question of mathematical certainty, not opinion. (see chrismartenson.com for a cogent information supporting this view).
You can also read much more of the views of a small but growing group called Preserve Landing Hill at their blog site: http://preserve-landinghill.blogspot.com/
The unfortunate dynamic in our town includes the use of our tax dollars, public money, to support a system of review that is geared toward approving applications rather than holding them to a firm interpretation of our regulations. You heard examples of this last night when we parsed the meaning, or lack thereof, in NL Jacobsen’s engineering consulting letter. You heard it when Town Attorney Eric Knapp inappropriately challenged me, a taxpayer that pays his bills, with requests for justification of points I had made in my presentation. You also heard a clear argument that town dollars are being spent to review an incomplete application.
I am writing to express my concern as a citizen and tax payer over expenditures of public money in this regard; paying an attorney that is not representing the best interest of town folk, paying an engineering consultant that is not protecting the town and conducting resource intense public hearings on incomplete subdivision applications.
Lastly, now is the time, since they did close the public hearing, to turn away from being oppositional and to create an outcome that serves the town better – a preserve in the place of 7 four bedroom homes. The Land Trust and the developer are talking. All that is needed is to now talk realistically about creating this reality. It’s that easy. Please support the positive alternative, win/win possibility that a preserve offers to all involved!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Background for March 24 Hearing 8 PM - EH Grange
The following was submitted to Preserve Landing Hill by one of the intervenors. This email exchange summarizes common concerns and reluctance to get involved, and also expresses an important context that can help folks acquire additional energy needed to face the sometimes intimidating public commission hearings.
Hi,
Can you tell me more about the Morgan Estates issue? Has it passed wetlands? What are the regs that it doesn't meet? I know that particular parcel [years ago]. I remember the wetlands, and that it was home to many, many deer (for which Deer Run is named, I presume).
Unfortunately, if it does meet all the regs, then just not wanting it, because it changes quality of life...and I agree it would, doesn't fly legally. The commission cannot reject it on the basis that the neighbors don't want it (they would have had to have bought the land, to keep it the way they want it...there are ownership rights). Because of landowner rights, and the way they conflict with "rural atmosphere" I think we as a town should buy up every piece of land we can...but there is a lot of land. Another thought is that this piece is close to the town center (as was the Daniels Road development) where, we should be building...not out halfway to Devil's Hopyard. Lake residents, who's properties, at the moment, are protected from developers by kind neighbors that buy up all the open space are aware of how precious woods are....I would like to see the woods behind me in a really protected preserve, as I don't know what my neighbors children may do with it in the future.
Fill me in, if you have time, please, on what your arguments are for the commission.
Thanks,
A Concerned Citizen
Dear Friend: Thank you for taking the time to write and ask about the issues. I forget to tell people that they can read much more about this at the blog site of our local group called Preserve Landing Hill at preserve-landinghill.blogspot.com. You can find much more info there.
To answer your questions, let me begin by saying our interests span a range from the general to specific and our recommendations are consistent with all aspects of this range of concerns - from the philosophical down to the level of specific regulations and the process used to implement them. We believe this application should be denied and all efforts put into the creating a preserve on the property. The great news is that the Land Trust and the developer are discussing this alternative. This has come about as a result of our intervention and because of the broader trends in the economy and the world. While we understand the history of law and thinking about landowner rights, we also believe strongly that the resulting systematic suburbanization of town has and continues to put current and future residents in a difficult position for dealing with a very different culture in the not-so-distant future.
So we are offering ideas consistent with this on a philosophical level. We also do not agree that the concept of encouraging development in areas near the villages is good for the town. We need open space near where people live. It has also been shown over and over that residential cul de sacs are not economic development, they are an economic drain on the town.
More specifically though, the proposal does not meet the regulations of the town nor the public health code. We pointed this out during the IWWC process, yet it was approved anyway. We have appealed the IWWC decision as a result.
We pointed out, then, that the process of applying our rather good regs, is flawed. For example, we submitted clear evidence of the developer's expert misrepresenting themselves as a 'Doctor' (Phd), and then submitting a report in which they took a picture with their backs to a pond of water and offered the picture as an 'overview' of the the subject wetland. (see article about Dr. Leeanders on the blog site). Our licensed engineer pointed out during IWWC that the site is a large construction site under the state guidelines and therefore must apply best management practices (BMP). We also pointed out that certain separation distances did not meet the public health code.
After passing IWWC, yet still under appeal, the plan was submitted, though still deficient, to the P&Z. The Chatham Health District has since reiterated our public health concerns. Yet the Town continues to consider this application even though it does not meet the public health code nor other aspects of our regulations.
For example, the applicant has never acknowledged the sites designation as a large construction site and continues to try to meet only the bare minimum practices rather than BMP. The plans did not go through a pre-application review, yet they never submitted two sets of plans, one a conservation approach, the other conventional, as required by the regs. They have not done a passive solar analysis per the regs and this is something that can not be done retroactively. They have offered deep hole test data and peculation tests that are curiously benign, to those of us living here and having an understanding of the ground water and soil types, and the Chatham Health District person can not find field notes for all of these test. They have not done required hydraulic permeability testing for the proposed infiltration devices including rain gardens and a detention pond. They have not provided 25 foot wide buffering consistent with the regulations and with preserving existing land values.
In our experience and in talking with others in town, there is an element of politics that unfortunately also creeps into this process. We can make a difference by showing up at the grange and voicing concern. Even better, because we have the positive alternative of a preserve as a possibility, we can offer our support of this idea, which is consistent both philosophically and technically, generally and specifically, with the town's best long term interest. We don't have to be simply in opposition to the proposal.
I hope you'll consider coming to voice your opinion regardless of where you fall on this range of issues.
Hi,
Can you tell me more about the Morgan Estates issue? Has it passed wetlands? What are the regs that it doesn't meet? I know that particular parcel [years ago]. I remember the wetlands, and that it was home to many, many deer (for which Deer Run is named, I presume).
Unfortunately, if it does meet all the regs, then just not wanting it, because it changes quality of life...and I agree it would, doesn't fly legally. The commission cannot reject it on the basis that the neighbors don't want it (they would have had to have bought the land, to keep it the way they want it...there are ownership rights). Because of landowner rights, and the way they conflict with "rural atmosphere" I think we as a town should buy up every piece of land we can...but there is a lot of land. Another thought is that this piece is close to the town center (as was the Daniels Road development) where, we should be building...not out halfway to Devil's Hopyard. Lake residents, who's properties, at the moment, are protected from developers by kind neighbors that buy up all the open space are aware of how precious woods are....I would like to see the woods behind me in a really protected preserve, as I don't know what my neighbors children may do with it in the future.
Fill me in, if you have time, please, on what your arguments are for the commission.
Thanks,
A Concerned Citizen
Dear Friend: Thank you for taking the time to write and ask about the issues. I forget to tell people that they can read much more about this at the blog site of our local group called Preserve Landing Hill at preserve-landinghill.blogspot.com. You can find much more info there.
To answer your questions, let me begin by saying our interests span a range from the general to specific and our recommendations are consistent with all aspects of this range of concerns - from the philosophical down to the level of specific regulations and the process used to implement them. We believe this application should be denied and all efforts put into the creating a preserve on the property. The great news is that the Land Trust and the developer are discussing this alternative. This has come about as a result of our intervention and because of the broader trends in the economy and the world. While we understand the history of law and thinking about landowner rights, we also believe strongly that the resulting systematic suburbanization of town has and continues to put current and future residents in a difficult position for dealing with a very different culture in the not-so-distant future.
So we are offering ideas consistent with this on a philosophical level. We also do not agree that the concept of encouraging development in areas near the villages is good for the town. We need open space near where people live. It has also been shown over and over that residential cul de sacs are not economic development, they are an economic drain on the town.
More specifically though, the proposal does not meet the regulations of the town nor the public health code. We pointed this out during the IWWC process, yet it was approved anyway. We have appealed the IWWC decision as a result.
We pointed out, then, that the process of applying our rather good regs, is flawed. For example, we submitted clear evidence of the developer's expert misrepresenting themselves as a 'Doctor' (Phd), and then submitting a report in which they took a picture with their backs to a pond of water and offered the picture as an 'overview' of the the subject wetland. (see article about Dr. Leeanders on the blog site). Our licensed engineer pointed out during IWWC that the site is a large construction site under the state guidelines and therefore must apply best management practices (BMP). We also pointed out that certain separation distances did not meet the public health code.
After passing IWWC, yet still under appeal, the plan was submitted, though still deficient, to the P&Z. The Chatham Health District has since reiterated our public health concerns. Yet the Town continues to consider this application even though it does not meet the public health code nor other aspects of our regulations.
For example, the applicant has never acknowledged the sites designation as a large construction site and continues to try to meet only the bare minimum practices rather than BMP. The plans did not go through a pre-application review, yet they never submitted two sets of plans, one a conservation approach, the other conventional, as required by the regs. They have not done a passive solar analysis per the regs and this is something that can not be done retroactively. They have offered deep hole test data and peculation tests that are curiously benign, to those of us living here and having an understanding of the ground water and soil types, and the Chatham Health District person can not find field notes for all of these test. They have not done required hydraulic permeability testing for the proposed infiltration devices including rain gardens and a detention pond. They have not provided 25 foot wide buffering consistent with the regulations and with preserving existing land values.
In our experience and in talking with others in town, there is an element of politics that unfortunately also creeps into this process. We can make a difference by showing up at the grange and voicing concern. Even better, because we have the positive alternative of a preserve as a possibility, we can offer our support of this idea, which is consistent both philosophically and technically, generally and specifically, with the town's best long term interest. We don't have to be simply in opposition to the proposal.
I hope you'll consider coming to voice your opinion regardless of where you fall on this range of issues.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Next Morgan Estates Public Hearing: March 24, 2009
The next hearing on the Morgan Estates Subdivision proposal is March 24, 2009. This is scheduled to be the final hearing. It is extremely important that everyone with an opinion about this development, the challenges of further suburbanization, and the lack of functionality of Town regulations, attend this meeting and SPEAK UP!
Please attend!
Please attend!
March 10 Hearing For Morgan Estates - Part II, Public Comment
An abutting landowner spoke in response to the presentation, the discussion of high ground water and the Developer's dismissal of concerns about potential problems with the septic system. The landowner, also an Intevenor, stated with some force and emotion that she had lived on the land for thirty-five years and knows quite well the challenges of dealing with constant high ground water in the area. Examples of water flowing over the back yard, overflowing stream banks, and the now frequently cited characteristic of alternating dry conditions and flooded conditions were mentioned. The speaker pointed out that the academic discussion did little and would do little to prevent a growing problem with the addition of the proposed cul de sac road and the houses.
Another Intervenor and abutting landowner spoke next. He stated that the neighborhood is one-acre zoned and the proposed eight and nine acre lots are not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He pointed out the extensive and complicated conservation easements that the Developer points to as beneficial compromises. He concluded that a the formation of a single preserve by combining all of the conservation easements would be better for the neighborhood and any future residents, as well as good for the town as it would provide accessible open space and alleviate oft cited maintenance and enforcement concerns regarding the conservation easements. He further stated that the resulting, smaller lots would be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
The speaker submitted written testimony regarding the review letter of Brian Curtis: "The Intervenors wish to point out several key aspects of the letter of Brian Curtis of Nathan L. Jacobson & Associates, Inc., (NLJ) dated March 4, 2009. This letter provides a summary of NLJ's review of the Morgan Estates Subdivision plans with regard to the East Haddam Planning and Zoning Subdivision Regulations only. It is based on information received on January 13, 2009. The letter states on page 1, paragraph 1 that "The documents were reviewed for conformance with the engineering requirements of the East Haddam Subdivision Regulations."
#1 -The letter states "Our previous engineering reviews included consideration of comments provided by Meehan & Goodin, PC and comments provided by REMA Ecological Services, LLC." However, neither Meehan and Goodin nor REMA Ecological Services, LLC have as yet reviewed the plans
for conformance with subdivision regulations. This will happen when the Intervenors are given a set of valid plans that are not concurrently undergoing revision. Mr. Curtis' letter is specifically about a review with regard to the subdivision regulations. Therefore, the former comments of Meehan & Goodin, PC and REMA Ecological Services, LLC are not relevant to Mr. Curtis' letter.
#2 - Given its focus on the subdivision regulations, it seems fair to say Mr. Curtis' letter does not comment on general conformance with the East Haddam Planning and Zoning Regulations nor the Public Health Code.
#3 - At the previous public hearing on February 10, 2009, the Intervenors submitted evidence that the Morgan Estates Subdivision plans do not meet the public health code. At that time, the PZC had before it a letter from the Chatham Health District confirming the failure of the plans to meet the public health code. Given that Mr. Curtis' letter does not comment on public health code issues, and its focus on the
subdivision regulations, one would presume that he does not note the public health code issues because the subdivision regulations do not clearly articulate a requirement to meet the public health code. This
would obviously be provided elsewhere in the Planning and Zoning regulations.
#4 - However, NLJ's omission of the public health code issues is of concern. If Mr. Curtis' letter is strictly limited to a review of the plans conformance with the subdivision regulations, then there may be an acceptable reason for the omission of the public health code issues. However, given paragraph 2, page 2 stating consideration of Meehan & Goodin, PC comments, that we have already demonstrated raised examples of the plan's failure to meet the public health code that have been confirmed by the Chatham Health District, we find NLJ's omission deeply concerning. This omission does not serve the best interests of the Town of East Haddam.
#5 - We conclude that the information in paragraph 2, page 2 of Mr. Curtis' March 4, 2009 letter was provided in error - that its references to his consideration of Meehan & Goodin, PC and REMA
Ecological Services, LLC comments is out of context and not pertinent to a subdivision regulation review. Moreover, it is potentially misleading to this commission.
#6 - This commission should be uncomfortable with the NLJ letter of March 4, 2009 because of this clear conflict. The letter fails to properly treat the pertinent and valid comments made by a licensed
engineer with regard to the Public Health Code yet refers to consideration of these comments in an unrelated aside. This reference could easily be misinterpreted by the Commission to mean that NLJ has dismissed the Intervenors experts' comments despite that fact that a. the reference appears in a letter whose subject matter is unrelated and b. the issues in question are extremely relevant to the Town's interest.
#7 - NLJ has not yet had the opportunity to review Intevenor comments on the plan's conformance with any aspect of the Planning and Zoning Regulations, including the Subdivision Regulations, except, perhaps, where these regulations intersect with the Public Health Code. In that regard, the Intervenors ask the Commission to petition NLJ for their review of the plans with regard to its compliance with the public health code and to also consider advising NLJ that its omission of the public health code issues in its review letter of March 4, 2009 does not serve the best interests of the residents of East Haddam."
The speaker made additional points about the Curtis letter including pointing out the requirement to move footing drains. He stated that during the IWWC review, several footing drains were incorrectly shown on the plans and it was not clear if they had been corrected to reflect proper engineering, nor if the new changes would further impact there proper installation. He pointed out that at least one footing drain comes very close to emptying into a confirmed wetland.
The average speed on Orchard Road was also discussed with regard to sight distances. The speaker indicated that he routinely saw vehicles approaching 50 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, especially during drive times. It was asked of the Commission if the proposed sight lines accounted for the excessive speeds. No answer was offered.
The speaker commented on a proposed stockade fence proposed for along his property line, noting that this violated provisions of his deed as it may well violate the Developer's deed. He also asked if the removal of a swale in front of Lot #8 had any impact on the IWWC approval that was contingent on the plan as it was submitted prior to this revision. We note here that lot lines and house locations have also been changed subsequent to the IWWC approval. Curiously, no review by IWWC of all of the changes happening to the plan currently has been yet proposed. Staff member Jim Ventres offered to make the determination as to whether or not the IWWC should review the change to Lot #8.
The speaker addressed the high ground water issue stating he had submitted photographs into the record during the IWWC hearings showing the problem including volunteer fireman that were called in a few years prior to help with emergency flooding that occurred from water coming off the hill where Lot #4 is proposed. He clearly stated a concern for well contamination because of the proximity of his well to the proposed septic on Lot #4. He reminded the Commission that expert testimony submitted to them described the reasons why even the State's public health code was insufficient to protect his well and back yard from septic leachate contamination because of the soil structure and type in the area. Expert testimony described the Paxton/Montauk soils with under lying hard pan that resulted in water running horizontally rather than penetrating into the soil as is usually the case. He pointed out on the plans where the leachate would emerge under the scenario. He advised the Commission that the Town would be liable for contamination as they have been fully apprised of the risks.
The speaker also rebutted testimony from Mr. Nemergut in which it was stated that using a mottling line was the best method for determining ground water levels. Expert testimony submitted described the variability of the ground water levels in the soils found in the error. This testimony stated that mottling lines are not a good way to determine the range, frequency and duration of ground water levels. The speaker said the overall proposal is flawed in that it proposes more development on the land than the land can support. He pointed out that the Intervenors and the Commissions had been in effect helping the Developer engineer a bad initial plan, describing the process as putting 'perfume on a pig'. It was suggested that monitoring was needed to properly determine ground water levels.
A concerned resident next spoke, asking if questions he had posed at the prior public hearing had been answered as promised. The Developer's attorney stated that they had not been answered. The resident went on to question the engineer, through the Commission, about the heights of the various, proposed septic systems. The revised plans include a table indicating for which lots engineered septics are proposed.
During the comments of the town resident, the Developer's attorney interrupted and angrily told the Commission that they were doing everything they could to meet the regulations of the Town, but that they would not be responding to questions 'off-the-cuff'. The resident attempted to return to his comments and questions, but soon finished.
However, during his comments, the resident providing personal experience as a farmer that had, at one time, grown corn on the property in question. He attested to the extreme wetness of the land. He further commented on the need to provide for some safety factor with the proposed development noting that there was no cushion proposed in the plan that would protect the neighbors and future landowners if the high ground water, the soil types and structure, and the standard code requirements, based on state-wide averages for soil type, proved insufficient to prevent a public health disaster.
Another Intervenor and abutting landowner spoke next. He stated that the neighborhood is one-acre zoned and the proposed eight and nine acre lots are not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He pointed out the extensive and complicated conservation easements that the Developer points to as beneficial compromises. He concluded that a the formation of a single preserve by combining all of the conservation easements would be better for the neighborhood and any future residents, as well as good for the town as it would provide accessible open space and alleviate oft cited maintenance and enforcement concerns regarding the conservation easements. He further stated that the resulting, smaller lots would be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
The speaker submitted written testimony regarding the review letter of Brian Curtis: "The Intervenors wish to point out several key aspects of the letter of Brian Curtis of Nathan L. Jacobson & Associates, Inc., (NLJ) dated March 4, 2009. This letter provides a summary of NLJ's review of the Morgan Estates Subdivision plans with regard to the East Haddam Planning and Zoning Subdivision Regulations only. It is based on information received on January 13, 2009. The letter states on page 1, paragraph 1 that "The documents were reviewed for conformance with the engineering requirements of the East Haddam Subdivision Regulations."
#1 -The letter states "Our previous engineering reviews included consideration of comments provided by Meehan & Goodin, PC and comments provided by REMA Ecological Services, LLC." However, neither Meehan and Goodin nor REMA Ecological Services, LLC have as yet reviewed the plans
for conformance with subdivision regulations. This will happen when the Intervenors are given a set of valid plans that are not concurrently undergoing revision. Mr. Curtis' letter is specifically about a review with regard to the subdivision regulations. Therefore, the former comments of Meehan & Goodin, PC and REMA Ecological Services, LLC are not relevant to Mr. Curtis' letter.
#2 - Given its focus on the subdivision regulations, it seems fair to say Mr. Curtis' letter does not comment on general conformance with the East Haddam Planning and Zoning Regulations nor the Public Health Code.
#3 - At the previous public hearing on February 10, 2009, the Intervenors submitted evidence that the Morgan Estates Subdivision plans do not meet the public health code. At that time, the PZC had before it a letter from the Chatham Health District confirming the failure of the plans to meet the public health code. Given that Mr. Curtis' letter does not comment on public health code issues, and its focus on the
subdivision regulations, one would presume that he does not note the public health code issues because the subdivision regulations do not clearly articulate a requirement to meet the public health code. This
would obviously be provided elsewhere in the Planning and Zoning regulations.
#4 - However, NLJ's omission of the public health code issues is of concern. If Mr. Curtis' letter is strictly limited to a review of the plans conformance with the subdivision regulations, then there may be an acceptable reason for the omission of the public health code issues. However, given paragraph 2, page 2 stating consideration of Meehan & Goodin, PC comments, that we have already demonstrated raised examples of the plan's failure to meet the public health code that have been confirmed by the Chatham Health District, we find NLJ's omission deeply concerning. This omission does not serve the best interests of the Town of East Haddam.
#5 - We conclude that the information in paragraph 2, page 2 of Mr. Curtis' March 4, 2009 letter was provided in error - that its references to his consideration of Meehan & Goodin, PC and REMA
Ecological Services, LLC comments is out of context and not pertinent to a subdivision regulation review. Moreover, it is potentially misleading to this commission.
#6 - This commission should be uncomfortable with the NLJ letter of March 4, 2009 because of this clear conflict. The letter fails to properly treat the pertinent and valid comments made by a licensed
engineer with regard to the Public Health Code yet refers to consideration of these comments in an unrelated aside. This reference could easily be misinterpreted by the Commission to mean that NLJ has dismissed the Intervenors experts' comments despite that fact that a. the reference appears in a letter whose subject matter is unrelated and b. the issues in question are extremely relevant to the Town's interest.
#7 - NLJ has not yet had the opportunity to review Intevenor comments on the plan's conformance with any aspect of the Planning and Zoning Regulations, including the Subdivision Regulations, except, perhaps, where these regulations intersect with the Public Health Code. In that regard, the Intervenors ask the Commission to petition NLJ for their review of the plans with regard to its compliance with the public health code and to also consider advising NLJ that its omission of the public health code issues in its review letter of March 4, 2009 does not serve the best interests of the residents of East Haddam."
The speaker made additional points about the Curtis letter including pointing out the requirement to move footing drains. He stated that during the IWWC review, several footing drains were incorrectly shown on the plans and it was not clear if they had been corrected to reflect proper engineering, nor if the new changes would further impact there proper installation. He pointed out that at least one footing drain comes very close to emptying into a confirmed wetland.
The average speed on Orchard Road was also discussed with regard to sight distances. The speaker indicated that he routinely saw vehicles approaching 50 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, especially during drive times. It was asked of the Commission if the proposed sight lines accounted for the excessive speeds. No answer was offered.
The speaker commented on a proposed stockade fence proposed for along his property line, noting that this violated provisions of his deed as it may well violate the Developer's deed. He also asked if the removal of a swale in front of Lot #8 had any impact on the IWWC approval that was contingent on the plan as it was submitted prior to this revision. We note here that lot lines and house locations have also been changed subsequent to the IWWC approval. Curiously, no review by IWWC of all of the changes happening to the plan currently has been yet proposed. Staff member Jim Ventres offered to make the determination as to whether or not the IWWC should review the change to Lot #8.
The speaker addressed the high ground water issue stating he had submitted photographs into the record during the IWWC hearings showing the problem including volunteer fireman that were called in a few years prior to help with emergency flooding that occurred from water coming off the hill where Lot #4 is proposed. He clearly stated a concern for well contamination because of the proximity of his well to the proposed septic on Lot #4. He reminded the Commission that expert testimony submitted to them described the reasons why even the State's public health code was insufficient to protect his well and back yard from septic leachate contamination because of the soil structure and type in the area. Expert testimony described the Paxton/Montauk soils with under lying hard pan that resulted in water running horizontally rather than penetrating into the soil as is usually the case. He pointed out on the plans where the leachate would emerge under the scenario. He advised the Commission that the Town would be liable for contamination as they have been fully apprised of the risks.
The speaker also rebutted testimony from Mr. Nemergut in which it was stated that using a mottling line was the best method for determining ground water levels. Expert testimony submitted described the variability of the ground water levels in the soils found in the error. This testimony stated that mottling lines are not a good way to determine the range, frequency and duration of ground water levels. The speaker said the overall proposal is flawed in that it proposes more development on the land than the land can support. He pointed out that the Intervenors and the Commissions had been in effect helping the Developer engineer a bad initial plan, describing the process as putting 'perfume on a pig'. It was suggested that monitoring was needed to properly determine ground water levels.
A concerned resident next spoke, asking if questions he had posed at the prior public hearing had been answered as promised. The Developer's attorney stated that they had not been answered. The resident went on to question the engineer, through the Commission, about the heights of the various, proposed septic systems. The revised plans include a table indicating for which lots engineered septics are proposed.
During the comments of the town resident, the Developer's attorney interrupted and angrily told the Commission that they were doing everything they could to meet the regulations of the Town, but that they would not be responding to questions 'off-the-cuff'. The resident attempted to return to his comments and questions, but soon finished.
However, during his comments, the resident providing personal experience as a farmer that had, at one time, grown corn on the property in question. He attested to the extreme wetness of the land. He further commented on the need to provide for some safety factor with the proposed development noting that there was no cushion proposed in the plan that would protect the neighbors and future landowners if the high ground water, the soil types and structure, and the standard code requirements, based on state-wide averages for soil type, proved insufficient to prevent a public health disaster.
March 10 Hearing For Morgan Estates - Part I Presentation
The March 10 hearing for the Morgan Estates Subdivision (ME) took place at the East Haddam Grange building on March 10, 2009. This plan is vigorously opposed by a group of residents that have filed as intervenors (Intervenors) under state law. At the previous hearing it had been agreed that revisions to the plans discussed that night would be made available to the Town and the Intervenors prior to the March 10 hearing. As is the usual practice, the developer's engineer did not provide plans prior to the meeting, but showed up at 8 PM with revised drawings to present. The intervenors objected stating they felt Due Process was not being served. The following statement was submitted in writing to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC):
"DUE PROCESS
The Intervenors ask to be heard regarding Due Process and offer our opinion that the public hearing should be rescheduled to allow the Intervenors a timely review of the revised plans that are before the PZC tonight. The plans were not made available to the Intervenors prior to this meeting. We submit that it would be a violation of Due Process if the hearing were to be held tonight and, thus, respectfully request that it be rescheduled no sooner than 30 days from today.
This request is based on the fact that holding the public hearing tonight would create a situation in which the Intervenors are not able to comment on the plans in a contemporaneous manner; in other words, in a manner that is timely with the presentation of claims and assertions by the Developer. It is essential that this commission hear concurrent critique of the plans presented. If this critique is not allowed concurrently, then comments are made and revisions initiated and the Intervenors thus find themselves reviewing a prior iteration of the plans - always one step behind. This situation is inherently biased toward the Developer as the Intervenors comments on prior plans can appear to be rendered irrelevant by unconfirmed assertions made during the submission of subsequent, revised plans. This process prevents the PZC from effectively moving from one set of revisions to the next and would result in an unsupportable decision. Thus, it is in the best interest of the Town that we request the rescheduling of tonight's hearing."
The Town's attorney, Eric Knapp attempted to squelch the complaint at one point denying one of the Intervenors from responding to his explanation as to why the hearing would go forward regardless. At the Intervenors request, Attorney Knapp read the Intervenors statement into the record. Upon finishing, he stated that the Commission would be proceeding. Mr. Thomas, a member of PZC spoke up suggesting that perhaps the Commission should stop and think prior to rendering a decision about proceeding. After brief discussion, it was decided to proceed.
Prior to any presentation, new information received by the Town was read into the record including a letter from Town consultant Nathan L. Jacobson Associates, Inc. and their engineer, Brian Curtis. In the letter, Mr. Curtis outlined the results of his review of the plans, prior to the most recent revision, with regard to conformance with the town's subdivision regulations.
In that letter, Mr. Curtis also made statements with regard to prior reviews and site walks. He specifically states in the letter, "Our previous engineering reviews included consideration of comments provided by Meehan & Gooden [sic], PC and comments provided by REMA Ecological Services, LLC."
Developer's Attorney David Sherman then presented into the record a large stack of papers representing the return of record for the Intervenor's appeal of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses (IWWC) decision in favor of ME. Attorney Sherman submitted the record in response to the Intevenors submission into the record at the previous public hearing of the expert testimony provided by the Intevenor's experts.
The Developer's attorney and engineer proceeded to present the revised drawings and identified all items that had been changed. They stated that they had addressed most, but not all outstanding items. They further acknowledged that they had not yet had the review and comments or approval of the Chatham Health District.
Commissioner John Matthew asked the engineer about the complications that could arise from high ground water levels. He spoke from personal experience about the variability in ground water levels and the need, on occasion to provide a curtain drain as a safety precaution for allowing septic systems to operate properly if there are extended periods of high ground water. The Developer's engineer, Roger Nemergut, disagreed, saying there was seldom if ever a need for curtain drains and that he preferred not to use them. It was noted that there is little room for the addition of curtain drains; the layout of all of the various elements proposed on the lots is quite tight. Currently the plans do not meet the public health code because these elements can not be arranged with sufficient separating distances as required by both the Public Health Code and also Best Practice recommendations of the State.
"DUE PROCESS
The Intervenors ask to be heard regarding Due Process and offer our opinion that the public hearing should be rescheduled to allow the Intervenors a timely review of the revised plans that are before the PZC tonight. The plans were not made available to the Intervenors prior to this meeting. We submit that it would be a violation of Due Process if the hearing were to be held tonight and, thus, respectfully request that it be rescheduled no sooner than 30 days from today.
This request is based on the fact that holding the public hearing tonight would create a situation in which the Intervenors are not able to comment on the plans in a contemporaneous manner; in other words, in a manner that is timely with the presentation of claims and assertions by the Developer. It is essential that this commission hear concurrent critique of the plans presented. If this critique is not allowed concurrently, then comments are made and revisions initiated and the Intervenors thus find themselves reviewing a prior iteration of the plans - always one step behind. This situation is inherently biased toward the Developer as the Intervenors comments on prior plans can appear to be rendered irrelevant by unconfirmed assertions made during the submission of subsequent, revised plans. This process prevents the PZC from effectively moving from one set of revisions to the next and would result in an unsupportable decision. Thus, it is in the best interest of the Town that we request the rescheduling of tonight's hearing."
The Town's attorney, Eric Knapp attempted to squelch the complaint at one point denying one of the Intervenors from responding to his explanation as to why the hearing would go forward regardless. At the Intervenors request, Attorney Knapp read the Intervenors statement into the record. Upon finishing, he stated that the Commission would be proceeding. Mr. Thomas, a member of PZC spoke up suggesting that perhaps the Commission should stop and think prior to rendering a decision about proceeding. After brief discussion, it was decided to proceed.
Prior to any presentation, new information received by the Town was read into the record including a letter from Town consultant Nathan L. Jacobson Associates, Inc. and their engineer, Brian Curtis. In the letter, Mr. Curtis outlined the results of his review of the plans, prior to the most recent revision, with regard to conformance with the town's subdivision regulations.
In that letter, Mr. Curtis also made statements with regard to prior reviews and site walks. He specifically states in the letter, "Our previous engineering reviews included consideration of comments provided by Meehan & Gooden [sic], PC and comments provided by REMA Ecological Services, LLC."
Developer's Attorney David Sherman then presented into the record a large stack of papers representing the return of record for the Intervenor's appeal of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses (IWWC) decision in favor of ME. Attorney Sherman submitted the record in response to the Intevenors submission into the record at the previous public hearing of the expert testimony provided by the Intevenor's experts.
The Developer's attorney and engineer proceeded to present the revised drawings and identified all items that had been changed. They stated that they had addressed most, but not all outstanding items. They further acknowledged that they had not yet had the review and comments or approval of the Chatham Health District.
Commissioner John Matthew asked the engineer about the complications that could arise from high ground water levels. He spoke from personal experience about the variability in ground water levels and the need, on occasion to provide a curtain drain as a safety precaution for allowing septic systems to operate properly if there are extended periods of high ground water. The Developer's engineer, Roger Nemergut, disagreed, saying there was seldom if ever a need for curtain drains and that he preferred not to use them. It was noted that there is little room for the addition of curtain drains; the layout of all of the various elements proposed on the lots is quite tight. Currently the plans do not meet the public health code because these elements can not be arranged with sufficient separating distances as required by both the Public Health Code and also Best Practice recommendations of the State.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)