Groton Open Space Association

GOSA Comments On Strategic Economic Development Plan

GROTON — The Groton Open Space Association has submitted to the Office of Planning and Development Services comments on the draft Strategic Economic Development Plan. GOSA praises some aspects of the plan but concludes that it shortchanges open space.

In an April 26, 2006, letter to Barbara Strother, OPDS Economic and Community Development Specialist, GOSA President Priscilla Pratt said:

Our organization finds considerable merit in the plan, including ideas to improve the aesthetics of the so-called 1950s-style downtown, as well as to improve the accessibility to walkers and bikers. On the other hand, however, we are not satisfied with the draft in its treatment of land preservation and the significant role open space must play in Groton’s future economic growth if the town’s quality of life is to be maintained.

Specifically, we find fault with:

The report’s assertion that the town should “continue to concentrate” land preservation north of I-95.
While we strongly back preservation efforts north of I-95, additional land acquisition is also needed south of I-95, as well, where Groton still possesses some undeveloped and spectacular near-coastal landscapes. Moreover, we do not agree with the implication in the draft that efforts to preserve land to date have been vigorous. We believe that open space acquisition should not be limited to any one part of Groton. Recently, GOSA found it necessary to defend Great Brook, a major link in the Groton Utilities reservoir system, from planned heavy nearby development that would have involved sewering in an area designated as sewer avoidance. Clearly, one cannot rely on the designation as “sewer avoidance” in Groton to protect open land. On-site sewering is allowed in sewer avoidance land. The designation of “sewer avoidance” has already been changed in one area off Route 184. It was changed from “rural land” to “growth” and from “sewer avoidance” to “sewer service” to allow sewers in that particular parcel.

The proposal to investigate converting the nearly 100-acre Mystic Education Center (also known as the Oral School), currently state-owned, into a presumably private hotel/conference center.
This beautiful property now is a publicly owned asset. In the conceivable event that the state should decide to abandon the facility, privatization would be one option but not necessarily the best one in terms of the public interest. GOSA firmly believes that a full range of possible future uses ought to be considered. We also believe that consideration ought to be weighted to continued public ownership. I hasten to remind you that the Groton Conservation Commission recognized the special environmental features of the Mystic Education Center’s undeveloped property when the Commission recommended the pursuit of a trail system on this property to link up with trails on adjacent town owned open space land (the former Mystic Community Center property) near the Mystic River in the Commission’s December 11, 2001 recommendations to the Town Council.

The idea of creating an Economic Development Corporation to buy and sell land and make physical changes to it.
Surely New London’s recent experience at Fort Trumbull must give the town pause. The potential is great for creating an 800-pound gorilla, sowing discord and laying waste to much of what makes Groton livable.

The idea that the town’s virtually powerless Conservation Commission can lead the town’s land acquisition efforts.
The Conservation Commission has been blatantly ignored, most spectacularly when it recommended to the Town Council on December 11, 2001, that the 160-acre Watrous property on Noank-Ledyard Road be preserved as open space utilizing the state open space grant opportunity. A little more than three months later, the land was optioned to a developer. The Commission needs to be given the authority, and access to funds – local and state – if its recommendations are to become meaningful.

Lack of a credible vision and suggested means of balancing future economic growth with open space acquisition.
The plan drafters recognize that outdoor recreation opportunities are “especially important to the next generation of talented workers.” In other words, the town’s quality of life can promote economic development. Significantly, drafters also classify natural assets like Haley Farm State Park and Bluff Point State Park and Coastal Reserve, as important to tourism. Let me remind you that not one of these assets was purchased with the help of any town funds; Haley Farm with private, state and federal funds, and Bluff Point with state funds, suggesting that the town has been remiss in valuing the importance of open space to the town’s future.

While promoting a balance between open space and economic development, the draft seems to recommend, and to emphasize, land development at the expense of open space preservation. In this regard, drafters see Groton’s rugged, hard-to-develop land as a challenge to economic growth, calling for “rezoning or public sector intervention,” rather than as an aesthetic, biological and recreational treasure—significant portions of which should be preserved through acquisition and easements.

This evident attitude is reminiscent of the 1950s that yielded some of Groton’s auto-oriented strip malls. To try, Midas-like, to turn much of Groton’s remaining vacant land to gold through irresponsible and short-sighted development would diminish Groton’s desirability as a place to live. We hope that the town will come to recognize that the laudable goals of economic growth and development are not the same as maximizing real estate development, with complete land buildout.

Among other issues we find objectionable from an environmental point of view, are the recommendations regarding initiatives endorsing roadways outside of Groton, including the completion of Route 11 with its major and federally recognized environmental problems and severe environmental impact; the suggestion of revisiting the connector road (a proposal repeatedly turned down in the town) or other east-west highway to be located parallel to and south of I-95 and north of Route 1 between Route 117 and Flanders Road; and the lack of recognition of the importance of acquiring and preserving key watershed properties to protect the Groton reservoir system which is crucial to any economic development in the future. We would also ask for more information and discussion about the proposed “floating zone”and what it would mean than is given in the report.
The Groton 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development on page 97 makes the following observation about balance:

“In the long term business development for the sake of business development has the potential to detract from Groton’s character and erode the overall quality of life.”

And under “Recommendations” the POCD includes the following: “Continue to ensure that business development supports the overall business structure and complements the character and quality of life in Groton.”

It is in that spirit that we submit our comments. The 2002 POCD also advises, page 39, that “Now is the time for Groton to set up appropriate open space preservation programs, to implement a measured plan for permanent protection of open space, and avoid the ‘feast’ or ‘famine’ that has seemed to characterize past efforts.” We urge that the Strategic Economic Development Plan emphasize strongly the acquiring and preservation of open space in its recommendations for Groton. Balance is the key to the beautiful, livable and prosperous Groton of the future.

The letter supplemented earlier comments from GOSA.