Groton Open Space Association

Groton Town Council To Get Report On Mystic Woods

GROTON — The Town Council turned down Aug. 15, 2006, a motion to bring the Department of Environmental Protection into the Mystic Woods situation as quickly as possible but decided to get a report within a week on the proposed 241-unit Active Senior Housing Community.

The council will hear the report from the Office of Planning and Development Services at the council’s Committee of the Whole meeting Aug. 22.

The council acted after Wendy MacFarland of Bel-Aire and five other citizens expressed their concerns about the massive project during the citizens petition segment of the council meeting. Ms. MacFarland — representing some residents of Mumford Cove, Fort Hill and Flanders Road — argued that the proposed project was too dense for the area.

Ms. MacFarland said the steep slopes and complex hydrology of the area, which includes Fort Hill Brook and 11 wetlands, pose water problems for residents. Other problems include noise and light pollution, as well as extensive planned tree-cutting that will result in loss of cover for homes.

“The crowning touch is a proposed absurd exit lane into Route 1, Fort Hill. Every day, we’d feel as though we’re stuck in traffic on the bridge in downtown Mystic,” she said.

Ms. MacFarland urged that the town ask for an Environmental Review Team to assess the environmental assets of the 105-acre tract that would be used for the project. The tract lies north and east of Route 1 and west of Flanders Road.

Councilor Paulann Sheets moved that in view of time pressures the council make an immediate request to the DEP for a team, and Councilor Elissa Wright seconded the motion. It was defeated 4-2, however, in favor of getting a report from the OPDS.

The project currently is before the Inland Wetlands Agency, which will hold its second hearing on it Aug. 23, one day after the OPDS report. The first meeting was held July 23.

Mark Oefinger, town manager, who appeared surprised that the matter had come up, said that requests for environmental review teams in the past have come from land use agencies. However, the mayor does have the power to request a team.

Mr. Oefinger conceded that the council does have a policy-making role but asserted that “you (the council) are not a super land-use agency.”

Councilor Sheets expressed amazement at Mr. Oefinger’s surprise at the emergence of the topic, given the magnitude of the project.

The Connecticut ERT website offers this description:

“The ERT is a group of environmental professionals drawn together from a variety of federal, state, regional and local agencies to form a multi-disciplinary environmental study team to assist municipalities in the review of sites proposed for development or to provide natural resource inventories for planning purposes.

“The ERT works under the guidance of the Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development Areas (RC&D’s). The RC&D’s are a federal and state sponsored program that encourages the blending of natural resource use with local economic and social values.”

Mayor Watson commented prior to adjourning the meeting, “I’m not sure we’re not overstepping our bounds.”

Earlier, Councilor Peter Bartinik asked for input from other councilors about the so-called Utopia theme park project planned for Preston by developer Joseph Gentile.

Ms. Sheets said, “Even before Utopia 1 has become a reality, Utopia 2 is being floated.” She apparently referred to Mr. Gentile’s recently announced plans for what he terms a revitalization of Norwich, including a theme park.

Ms. Sheets pointed out that the word “Utopia” in Greek means “no place.”

“We have been warned,” she said. “It’s right in the name.”