ASaP

THIS WEEK  on Comcast’s Public Access Channel 19 show ShoreTalk will be State Representative Phil Miller and Attorney Charles Rothenberger from Connecticut Fund for the Environment, talking about the most recent exciting activities involving the coastal 1,000 Acre Forest in Old Saybrook, Essex, and Westbrook. Host Kathleen Skoczen, Ph.D., interviews the pair, and it will air on Wednesday, February 15th at 4pm and 7:30pm, and on Friday, February 17th at 2pm and 7:30 pm. For ShoreTalk schedules go to http://www.shoretalk.org/ .  Connecticut Fund for the Environment, the long standing intervenor against the development of “The Preserve”, can be seen at:http://ctenvironment.org/

Phil Miller,  former first selectman of Essex, has been a long-time opponent of the development of the 1,000-acre forest. Miller says, “What I am most proud of is that all along, we have made a principled case for why this property is not suitable for what had been proposed. The land is a giant wet, rocky sponge, the source of three separate watersheds; the Oyster River of Old Saybrook, the Trout Brook watershed of Westbrook, and the Mud River watershed of Essex.”

Charles Rothenberger of Connecticut Fund for the Environment,  stated in November 2011 when asked if there was any benefit to River Sound [the developer] in drawing out this proposal indefinitely, he responded that he didn’t think there was any benefit to them, but summarized River Sound’s seemingly tireless quest to develop the property as “how long do you keep rolling that rock up the hill?”

This month a new update of the history and timeline of the 1,000-Acre Forest was completed.  You can read the report and download a copy by going to the tab: The Preserve: A Timeline or you can simply download the history & timeline report here.

Wetlands Complex in the 1,000 Acre Forest Where the Oyster River Begins

By Janice Holland, Old Saybrook

A bi-partisan group of concerned citizens, known as Friends in the Fight to Save the 1,000 Acre Forest, banded together out of indignation that public sentiment had not been taken into consideration by the Old Saybrook Planning Commission during deliberations on the recent application by River Sound LLC to modify the 2005 special exception for the development ironically called “The Preserve.” At public hearings in the spring of 2011, Old Saybrook residents, along with expert witnesses, raised issues of increased taxes, of roadways that could not safely accommodate increased traffic, of water and septic system concerns, of loss of precious habitat. A past and a current Selectman reminded commissioners that this development is not in keeping with the town’s own Plan of Conservation and Development and spoke out against allowing the River Sound LLC plan to move forward. Yet the Chairman of the Planning Commission, Bob McIntyre, stated that he had not heard any testimony that the development would cause any irreversible damage to the environment nor that it “could not be built.” Mark Branse, attorney for the Planning Commission, posed the key question that was in the hearts and minds of the public. It is not whether The Preserve could feasibly be built but “should The Preserve be built?”

This commission could have ruled against the developers but rather has put the onus once again on the Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission to do the right thing. Friends in the Fight to Save the 1,000 Acre Forest took action to ensure that Bob McIntyre not have the opportunity to vote again, as he did in 2006, in favor of The Preserve when the current modified plan next comes before the Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission. Friends in the Fight to Save the 1,000 Acre Forest believed that if McIntyre would not listen to public sentiment as a Planning Commissioner, then he would hear it through the ballot box. Dozens of committed citizens knocked on over 600 doors, talking to neighbors in the impacted area and distributed flyers throughout town highlighting McIntyre’s voting record on The Preserve.

In the end, public sentiment was indeed heard. Bob McIntyre was the only Republican defeated in Nov. 8 election. He lost by only 20 votes but he received 300-400 less votes than the other two Republican candidates for Planning Commission, Robert Missel and David Shearer, who along with Democrat Cathyrn Flanagan, were endorsed by Friends in the Fight to Save the 1,000 Acre Forest.

( Editor’s Note: ASaP would like to congratulate the Friends in the Fight to Save the 1,000 acre Forest in their amazing and successful campaign! Janice Holland’s article was, in part, written in response to an erroneous article published in The Day, which said the “Friends” had targeted all Republicans on the Planning Commission. To see the erroneous article go to http://www.theday.com/article/20111110/NWS01/111119995/-1/zip06&town=Old-Saybrook&template=zip06art )

Aerial of the 1,000 Acre Forest with One-Of-A-Kind Pequot Swamp Shown

November 16, 2011     By Ann Gamble

OLD SAYBROOK – When it comes to the controversial Preserve development, voters let their pens do the talking Nov. 8 when they chose members of the Planning Commission.

They marked the circles on the ballot sheet for Robert Missel (R), Cathryn Flanagan (D) and David Shearer (R), but left the one for 12-year incumbent Planning Commission member and current chairman, Robert McIntyre (R), blank.

The Planning Commission in March, led by McIntyre, voted to approve River Sound Development, LLC’s application for a Modification to a Special Exception to develop the 1,000 acre preserve property. This decision was made despite a torrent of testimony from former town leaders, citizens, neighbors and scientific experts who came out against the plan on economic, environmental and quality of life grounds. The original plan was approved by the Planning Commission in 2005, but denied by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission in 2006.

River Sound Development’s attorney, David Royston, declined to comment on the change in Planning Commission membership.

Many citizens had complained that their voices were not heard during the public hearings, which were continued several times. The Feb. 19 hearing netted only nine minutes of public comments out of a five-hour meeting. According to member Janice Holland, the citizens group, Friends in the Fight to Save the 1,000-Acre Forest, was formed this fall out of frustration, the desire to have a more responsive commission, and to prevent McIntyre from fulfilling his role as Planning Commission Representative to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission (IWWC) which is the next town stop for the Preserve Development application. The new group is in addition to the Alliance for Sound Area Planning (ASaP), which is a citizen’s group that has long fought the development of the uninterrupted 1,000 acre forest.

Although McIntyre lost to Flanagan, the only Democratic candidate, by only a few dozen votes, he trailed his fellow Republican party members by hundreds of votes.

“I was a little bit surprised, I knew there was something going on in the background.” McIntyre said. “I have no regrets, I did everything that I thought was right. I would like to be back on the Planning Commission sometime, and may run for another office eventually. It was a concerted effort to unseat me, by the people who live up and around Ingham Hill, obviously they were very effective.”

It was undoubtedly the Preserve issue that cost him the election, McIntyre said. As for the views of the Pace administration, McIntyre said, “Mike was like the rest of us, the best thing for the property is not to have it developed, but the property is privately owned and they have the right to develop their property based on state statutes.” As for the commission’s job, “It’s in the best interest of the town to make sure we don’t put them in a position that’s not defensible.”

Incoming First Selectman and member of the Board of Finance, Carl Fortuna, during a phone interview, indicated his position, as well as his predecessor’s is that “the property is currently privately owned, the town would prefer the property be kept as open space, but no one has put money on the table.”

However, on the The Old Saybrook Republicans’ website, oldsaybrookrepublicans.org, Fortuna makes more pointed remarks: “To develop the property will place a financial burden on the town,” because of “the infrastructure requirements” that would be “onerous to the town.”

“I think we need to cause a ruckus to oppose this development,” Fortuna says on the site. “We need to make it a statewide, even national cause.”

The 1,000 acre preserve lies mostly in Old Saybrook, with some acres in Westbrook and Essex. The plan includes 224 houses, roads, ball fields, walking trails and a golf course. Westbrook and Essex have each come out against developing the property. The DEEP is also against the development, and would have to grant Bokum Road access to the property over state-owned land, which they have repeatedly said they would not grant.

State Rep. and former Essex First Selectman Phil Miller, a vocal opponent to the project, had strong words about McIntyre and the developers.

“He’s made it clear he is not listening to his own constituents. I think the voters did well to unite against him, and for someone who will be differently pre-disposed. There is such a thing as property rights, but equally important is public trust,” Miller said.

Miller called the people behind River Sound Development “profit hungry privateers, and they have not convinced me otherwise,” Miller said.

Of the new Selectmen in Essex and Old Saybrook, Miller said “Carl Fortuna is very well versed in the issue, and (Norman) Needleman (newly-elected first selectman in Essex) also knows the issue very well. They understand that the people want the property permanently preserved.”

“This is a giant, wet, rocky sponge,” Miller says, “home to three separate watersheds. There is nothing to the benefit of the public by the development of the property.” A strong opponent of the Preserve Development while first selectman, Miller continues to work on behalf of the preserve property by keeping it in the minds of fellow legislators.

“It’s the last 1,000 acre maritime forest. It’s a statewide treasure. If an issue comes before us, it won’t be the first time the legislators have heard of it.”

Since the Planning Commission’s approval of River Sound’s development plan in March, Robert Lorenz, an abutting property owner, filed an appeal in Middlesex Judicial Court in an attempt to overturn the commission’s decision.

According to River Sound Development attorney Royston, a motion was made to dismiss the appeal because Lorenz is only a co-owner of the abutting property, and the modification that was approved concerned acres a distance away from the Lorenz property. The court decided that the development should be considered as a whole, and that a co-owner is entitled to bring suit individually, and therefore denied the motion to dismiss. Attorney Royston declined to comment on the change in Planning Commission membership.

The next step is for River Sound to go before the IWWC which can consider River Sound’s application while the appeal is still in process.

Charles Rothenberger, Connecticut Fund for the Environment attorney, has been very involved over the past year or more in the meetings and fight against the development. He is skeptical that the development would pass the IWWC.

“They would have to do a lot of work, including “dramatically scaling back” the project, especially with regard to the golf course. They are trying to overlay a golf course on top of wetlands, trying to fit in a fairway unacceptably close to wetlands. It’s a rocky, sloping site, the blasting and earth moving required would just be remarkable.”

With the new administration and new commission members, Rothenberger is encouraged as to the future of the property. “People are having conversations, talking about the issues,” he said. When asked if there was any benefit to River Sound in drawing out this proposal indefinitely, he responded that he didn’t think there was any benefit to them, but summarized River Sound’s seemingly tireless quest to develop the property as “how long do you keep rolling that rock up the hill?”

http://www.shorelinetimes.com/articles/2011/11/16/news/doc4ec3cf9e872d3991289110.txt

Chairman Bob McIntyre Debates with Janis Esty

By Ann Gamble
Special to the Times

OLD SAYBROOK – After months before the Planning Commission, River Sound Development, LLC’s application to modify the 2005 special exception for the 1,000 acre Preserve development is on its way to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission.

The Planning Commission met March 16 and voted 3 to 2 in favor of the modifications to the development plan for the uninterrupted section of coastal forest located largely in Old Saybrook with smaller parcels in Essex and Westbrook.

After a period of discussion, Planning Commission Chairman Robert McIntyre made the motion to approve the proposal, seconded by Donald Ranaudo, followed by more discussion.

During deliberations McIntyre stated that he had not heard any testimony that the proposed development could not be done, nor that it would cause “irreversible damage” to the environment.

“I have heard enough testimony that it could be done,” McIntyre added.

In response to McIntyre’s repeated phrase that the project “could be done,” Planning Commission attorney Mark Branse pointed out, “You are a policy commission.”

Branse said, ”There is a feasibility element, but you are not engineers… Perhaps the more central question is whether it should be built.” He added that the commission was charged with whether the modifications made the plan “as good, better, or worse” than the original plan approved in 2005.

“Your regulations provide criteria, but this is your town, you are the policy makers,” he added.

Vice Chairman Janis Esty voiced concern about the Ingham Hill Road parcel’s steep, rocky terrain and wetlands which in the 2005 plan was designated mostly as open space. Building roads, homes, driveways and septic systems in that area would require large amounts of blasting and fill, she said.

McIntyre responded that “the applicant has taken it upon themselves that they think they can do this, they’re betting that they can.” To which Esty responded “If the applicant thinks they can go to the moon, I’m not going to tell them to go…We have to use common sense.

“We are considering three distinct areas, but we have to consider them as one,” she said of her discomfort with the Ingham Hill Road piece of the development, but not the Bokum Road or Route 153 sections.

The commission members voting in favor of the plan modifications said that they had not heard conclusive grounds for denial, and that this is a preliminary application which makes it largely theoretical. If it is later determined that certain lots cannot support septic systems, or access to the Bokum Road property is not granted by the DEP, or the Town of Westbrook denies access via 153, the development cannot be built as planned. The applicant will have to come back with greater detail during the final subdivision application period.

The lots under the current proposal number 224 with roughly 557 acres of open space. The modifications center around three areas while the plan for developing the core remains as approved by the Planning Commission in 2005 and subsequently denied by the Inland Wetlands and Waterways Commission in 2006. The golf course and 10-acre recreation fields, which were part of the Planning Commission’s initial approval, also remain.

Because River Sound Development withdrew the “pod” or phased development aspect of the modification during the last public hearing, if final subdivision approval is granted, the project will have to be built in its entirety with bonding for any incomplete improvements.

A vote was taken shortly after 10 p.m. The outcome remained in limbo for several minutes while one commission member tried to come to a decision, asked Attorney Branse what would happen if he abstained, and ultimately voted in favor of River Sound’s plan.

Charles Rothenberger, staff attorney for intervener Connecticut Fund for the Environment, released a statement following the vote which reads in part: “Last night, the Planning Commission missed an opportunity to have a real, positive impact on the Preserve development…. Essentially, last night’s vote leaves the status quo in place….This is still a fundamentally flawed plan that has already been denied once by the local wetlands commission, which is charged with looking at environmental impacts.”

The proposed development which the Planning Commission approved by a 4 to 1 vote in 2005, was denied by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission in 2006, 4 to 3. The courts upheld the IWWC’s denial. Two members of the 2006 IWWC who voted in favor of the development are still members of the IWWC, as are two who voted against it. There are three new IWWC members, and according to March 17 IWWC meeting minutes, Chairman Paul Smith expressed his intent to ask First Selectman Pace to add an Economic Development representative to the IWWC to make a full complement of IWWC members.

http://www.shorelinetimes.com/articles/2011/03/24/news/doc4d8b5060c26a4166808460.txt

One of 38 Vernal Pools in the 1,000 acre Forest

From the Editor:  At the last hearing we learned in this modification request, the Planning Commission is legally authorized to reexamine and reverse its previous approval because of the change in facts regarding access over the DEP property to Bokum Road (there is case law that would support that action by the Commission). The applicant originally reported to the Planning Commission during the first application that DEP’s grant of access over the Valley Railroad to Bokum Road was “probable.” Subsequently the DEP commissioner issued a letter saying no access through the state property. Access has gone from “probable” to “non-existent.

•  the Planning Commission is authorized by law to reexamine and reverse its prior decision when there is a change in facts;
  the access over the DEP controlled Valley Railroad was reported in the original application as “probable”
  the DEP commissioner issued a letter denying permission for the applicant to cross state property (the state acts as a property owner in this case whereby their is no appeal possibility for the applicant.
• the facts regarding access, which the applicant submitted and on which the Planning Commission relied, don’t exist.
• The Planning Commission must have the applicant complete a thorough biological assessment of the 3 pods in the spring of 2011.
• The Planning Commission must consider all the reasons for the Inland Wetlands Commission’s previous denial in their decision making.