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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment