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.