Groton Open Space Association

GOSA Withdraws Proposed Zoning Amendments

 

GROTON — The Groton Open Space Association withdrew its application for zoning amendments at a May 2, 2007, meeting of the Zoning Commission after the commission declined to consider changes GOSA had attempted to make in its application.

GOSA had proposed adoption of a definition of buildable land and a moratorium on new applications for Active Senior Housing complexes. After getting feedback from the Planning Commission and town Staff, it softened some of the buildable land elements of its proposal.

After a short presentation May 2 by GOSA’s attorney, Frank Cochran, and a brief discussion among commission members, Chairman Stephen Hudecek recommended that GOSA resubmit its proposals as a new application. He said the changes proposed by GOSA were too large to fall into the category of minor adjustments that could be made in the course of a hearing.

Michael J. Murphy, head of the town’s Office of Planning and Development Services, said that the alterations GOSA wanted to make in its original proposal had not been legally advertised ahead of the May 2 meeting.

Mr. Cochran asked that the proceedings be postponed so that the changed proposal could be advertised and so that he could work with the OPDS on integrating GOSA’s suggested zoning amendments into existing town regulations. However, Mr. Murphy insisted that the town was planning to hire a consultant to do a major rewrite of town land-use regulations and that he was not prepared to work with GOSA on a separate process.

Following the withdrawal, Mr. Hudecek told Mr. Murphy that he considered adoption of a buildable land definition a “high priority.” Mr. Murphy rejoined that this was considered a “moderate priority” in the 2002 Town of Groton Plan of Conservation and Development.

Mr. Hudecek said, “For the record, I feel it’s a high priority.” In a referral meeting on GOSA’s proposal, the Planning Commission also had identified a buildable land definition as a high priority, though it did not feel GOSA’s definition could be adopted as written.

Because the hearing was cut short by GOSA’s withdrawal of both its proposals, GOSA did not have an opportunity to elaborate on its attorney’s remarks. (Its planned statement follows.) Nor was that opportunity to speak given to the lawyers and numerous landowners who had shown up to oppose GOSA’s proposals. Mr. Murphy asked that they be allowed to address the commission, but Mr. Hudecek did not permit that, in light of GOSA’s withdrawal. Among those present was Atty. Harry Heller, who represents the potential developer of the “Mystic Woods” Active Senior Housing development on Fort Hill. Mr. Heller also is representing developers who seek to create a mixed-use transitional floating zone that ultimately would land on a tract adjoining the Golden Triangle in Stonington.

POST-PUBLICATION NOTE: Mr. Murphy said May 4 after reading a portion of this article that he wanted it made clear that he did not urge that people be permitted to speak after the official close of the hearing. While the article does not assert that he did so urge, we are glad to include his statement with this article. END NOTE

Mr. Hudecek indicated he would like to see a buildable land definition before completion of a rewrite of town land-use regulations, which he thought might take a couple of years.

Mr. Murphy said, “Well, maybe we can move certain things up.” Mr. Murphy expressed consternation at comments by the state Department of Environmental Protection on GOSA’s proposals. He noted that the DEP even advocated including [notable or specimen] “trees” in the definition. Mr. Murphy said that was “extreme, even for the state.” Earlier, Matt Davis, Planning Manager, had rebuked a DEP official who inquired as to whether the GOSA proposal had been referred to the town’s Conservation Commission for comment. Mr. Davis said in an April 23 e-mail to the official, David J. Kozak, Senior Coastal Planner:

“Your asking these questions within the context of a zoning regulation amendment is, frankly, very disconcerting.” He asked for a meeting with the official and “your supervisor.” The e-mail was copied to Groton Town Manager Mark Oefinger, among others.

Despite the evident upset of some in the Groton officialdom, Mr. Kozak produced an April 26 letter that included considerable backing of GOSA’s proposals, while recommending strengthening some of them, as well as a withdrawal in order to allow work to integrate the proposals with existing regulations. He made no reference to Mr. Davis’s e-mailed rebuke.

Following is the statement GOSA would have made to the commission, if the withdrawal had not prevented that:

As you know, GOSA has proposed amendments to the Groton Zoning Regulations. The amendments would implement the recommendation of the 2002 Groton Plan of Conservation and Development for a buildable land definition. (We have included copies of the POCD recommendation in your packet as Attachment No.l.)

The buildable land definition sets out criteria for determining how many units may be placed on a given tract of land.

It’s important to understand that our definition aims solely at preventing overcrowding of our still-unbuilt space in Groton. It is not a rule that tells you where you may build or not build. When our definition calls certain land “unbuildable,” the word means only that a developer may not count that land when computing the maximum number of units permitted on a given tract of land under zoning rules.

That is a little paradoxical, so we will repeat it. Calling steeply sloped land “unbuildable” does not mean by itself that the land may not be built on. If a landowner should want to build a house overhanging a cliff and support it from below with 40-foot lally columns, there is nothing in our definition to prevent him from doing that. If he wants to cluster houses on land, he certainly could do that. Our definition concerns density calculations only, not the location of buildings.

At present, without a buildable land definition, the maximum number of units that can be built on any tract is determined in large part by the total number of acres in a tract. That holds true regardless of the character of those acres. For example, the potential developers of Mystic Woods on Fort Hill applied last year to build 241 units of Active Senior Housing on a steeply sloped 105-acre tract containing 11 wetlands. The area drains into Fort Hill Brook, which runs into Mumford Cove.

Under existing zoning regulations, the developer was allowed to count each of those 105 acres in computing the number of units he could build. In that RU20 zone, multi-family dwellings require 15,000 square feet each. That meant that the developer actually could have asked for 305 units on the approximately 4,573,800 square feet contained in the tract. Instead, he asked for “only” four fifths of the total allowed number.

We should add that Chairman Hudecek anticipated problems like this oversized development when the Active Senior Housing amendment was passed in February 2005, with the chairman voting against passage.

Under our proposal, all acres that are wetlands or watercourses, or lie in floodplains, or are very steeply sloped would be discounted by 66% in computing the number of permitted units. Originally, we had proposed a 100% discount, but we reduced that percentage in a spirit of compromise after the Office of Planning and Development Services termed our plan too aggressive.

That 66% discount often would result in far fewer units than would be allowed under current rules. A specific study would be needed determine the exact number of units our definition would permit on the Mystic Woods tract. However, the number almost certainly would be significantly fewer than the 211 that are foreseen in a somewhat slimmed-down new proposal submitted by the developer. (The developer’s second plan was submitted after the first plan was withdrawn in the face of strong public opposition and studies that cited numerous plan deficiencies.)

Please note that our buildable land definition wouldn’t stop Active Senior Housing on Fort Hill. The definition would just reduce the number of units that could be built. Fewer units would soften the project’s impact on the landscape. The lower number would cut non-point source pollution of Fort Hill Brook and Mumford Cove during our increasingly frequent heavy rains. And it would ease the potential traffic impact on the existing quiet and pleasant residential neighborhood on Fort Hill.

Here is a related matter. As you know, the Zoning Commission is scheduled to begin consideration June 6 of a proposal for a floating zone in Groton, both in the nine nodes cited by the POCD and the big Industrial Park zones. The floating zone is supposed to define a neo-traditional “town” with mixed commercial and residential uses. The first landing of the zone is contemplated for the northwest corner of Route 117 and Route 184. (See enclosure No. 2.).

GOSA in principle endorses the idea of infill development in the existing nodes. A buildable land definition would not pose an immovable obstacle to elevated densities in certain areas where justified by considerations of all relevant factors.

We have made a standing offer to work with the OPDS to help integrate our proposal with existing Zoning Regulations. As you’ll note, the state Department of Environmental Protection in its April 26 letter to you is highly supportive of our original proposal but suggests cooperation between the OPDS and GOSA to overcome some potential administrative problems. The OPDS, however, is insisting on folding the buildable land definition into a much bigger rewrite of land use regulations. The OPDS estimates it could take another year to complete that, and we suspect that is optimistic.

In sum, GOSA believes, along with the writers of the Plan of Conservation and Development, that a buildable land definition would promote quality of life, sense of place, open space and community character in Groton. We urge with the Planning Commission that swift action be taken to adopt a buildable land definition. No further delays should be allowed in adoption of this long-overdue measure.