Groton Open Space Association

Superior Court Judge Studies Bonvie’s Proposed Appeal Drop

NEW LONDON — Superior Court Judge Joseph Purtill said March 27, 2007, that he will study Massachusetts Developer Ron Bonvie’s request to withdraw his appeal of environmental restrictions placed by the Town of Groton Inland Wetlands Agency on his proposed development of a “residential life care center” off Noank-Ledyard Road.

After hearing arguments by Atty. Thomas Londregan for Mr. Bonvie’s Mystic Active Adult LLC and Atty. Richard Dixon for the Groton Open Space Association, Judge Purtill said that Mr. Bonvie’s motion to withdraw appeared more complicated than is usual in such cases and the judge would need to review the matter.

He said he would make a decision as soon as possible. It was expected the decision would come within a month.

Mr. Bonvie’s proposed “Four Winds” development would sit on 105 acres of the 160-acre Watrous property. The site recently was placed on a list of 20 properties that the state would like to acquire for public open space.

GOSA, which has intervenor status in the dispute between Mr. Bonvie and the IWA, maintains the case should be remanded to the Inland Wetlands Agency. Judge Purtill had ordered such a remand April 13, 2005, when he ruled against the town on the appeal.

In the April 2005 decision, Judge Purtill struck down two restrictions by the IWA that were intended to protect salamanders. Judge Purtill said that the measures were unjustified in light of the State Supreme Court’s Oct. 14, 2003, AvalonBay decision, which sharply limited powers of wetlands agencies to protect wildlife. The judge also directed the IWA to reconsider its decision to disallow Wetlands Crossing C because he said the agency’s economically based argument against the crossing was not backed up. He said the crossing should be reconsidered “in light of” his denial of the two other restrictions–on construction phasing and closing of an interior road during salamander mating season.

Mr. Londregan said in court March 27 that Mr. Bonvie had wasted a lot of time and money on the appeal and had decided to drop the matter. He argued that a simple “withdrawal” of the appeal did not require the agreement of GOSA. The town has agreed to accept the withdrawal, though its attorney, Michael Carey, said it would have to made clear that Judge Purtill’s memorandum of decision in April 2005 was vacated and that Mr. Bonvie agreed to accept all restrictions placed on the development by the IWA.

Mr. Dixon argued for GOSA that the dropping of the appeal would be a “settlement,” rather than a “withdrawal,” and would require participation of GOSA in the process. He urged the judge to stand by his original decision and require remand to the agency.

GOSA, too, had appealed the IWA decision because it felt the decision didn’t adequately protect the site’s extraordinarily rich aquatic life. Judge Purtill ruled against GOSA, also on April 13, 2005, largely because of the AvalonBay decision. Mr. Dixon said March 27 that GOSA was deprived of its chance to frame its argument to the IWA in terms of the AvalonBay decision because the decision did not exist at the time of the IWA hearings, months earlier in 2003. Mr. Dixon said it was in the public interest that those arguments should now be heard, in connection with the remand.

The Appellate Court declined Dec. 13, 2006, to allow Mr. Bonvie in effect to drop his appeal, saying that the Superior Court’s judgment was not final but involved an order for remand that had not yet been complied with.

Mr. Carey said the Inland Wetlands Agency, rather than GOSA, represents the public interest. In response to Mr. Dixon’s argument that the public interest demanded review of the questions raised by the timing of the AvalonBay decision, he said, “You only get so many bites at the apple.” He indicated that if GOSA had possessed evidence relevant to the Supreme Court’s then-future decision on Avalon Bay, it should have presented that evidence.