Groton Open Space Association

IWA Continues Mystic Woods Hearing

GROTON — The Inland Wetlands Agency has continued the long-running “Mystic Woods” hearings to mid-August so that the applicant, Hawthorne Development Partners LLC, can answer questions raised by an independent hydrological consultant.

At the latest hearing, July 11, 2007, agency members learned that the outside consultant, Camp Dresser and McKee, has asked Hawthorne for information concerning the predicted stability of two slopes at the building site.

Hawthorne has proposed to build a 211-unit Active Senior Housing community on Fort Hill. The project has generated substantial opposition, based on fears of flooding, harm to the 105-acre tract’s wetlands and vernal pools, destruction of wildlife, and pollution of Fort Hill Brook, which flows at the base of the hill and ultimately empties into Mumford Cove.

The hydrology consultant was hired by the IWA under a town ordinance that became effective early this year. It authorizes land-use commissions to employ experts to help evaluate complex applications, and then bill the developer for their services.

The two northern and western slopes, about which Camp Dresser and McKee wants to know more, are not scheduled to be developed, but questions were raised about their stability due to infiltration of storm water into the ground associated with the development.

Hearings on the Mystic Woods application began May 9. They were to be continued June 13 but were delayed by about a month at the request of the developer. This is the second round of IWA consideration of “Mystic Woods.” Hawthorne originally submitted an application May 10, 2006, to build 241 units. The application was withdrawn in October 2006.

Between the May 9 and July 11 meetings, the developer introduced into the plan what it said are improved methods of handling storm water runoff, including use of wetlands systems underlain by gravel.

Experts hired by GOSA and Fort Hill residents found the new plan inadequate.

In a letter to the commission, Atty. Peter B. Cooper cautioned the commission against “claimed technology solutions. This degree of technological reliance would not be required were the intensity of this project not so high. Your statutory responsibilities…extend as far out into the future so that you will be satisfied the project will avoid long-term degradation of the resource. This particularly applies to the areas known as Wetlands 7 and 11 of this site.” He said that the proposed storm water treatment technology is “interesting, but unproven for the long pull.”

Steven D. Trinkaus, of Trinkhaus Engineering LLC, of Southbury, said “many outstanding technical issues” remain in the revised plan. Among other things, he criticized the plan’s pollutant loading analysis as “badly flawed.” He questioned proposed control of erosion during construction. Mr. Trinkaus’s questions also included the impact of storm water flows on two large vernal pools near Flanders Road and the plan’s failure to consider pollution from snowmelt.

Certified Wetland Scientist Penelope C. Sharp of Northford said the “numerous internal roadways” proposed would carry automotive contaminants that could eventually reach wetlands. Even after treatment, these could harm sensitive areas, she said.

“In my opinion, the applicant could further amend the plans to eliminate building units and portions of the roadway network to design a plan that less interferes with the natural environment and works more closely with the constraints imposed by typography and wetlands,” she said.

Several Groton residents commented in opposition to the plan. Anna Sullivan of 81 Flanders Road expressed concern over potential destruction of wildlife habitat on Fort Hill. She said “the shoddy work on the plans, disrespect shown to the citizens at the [IWA] meetings, and lack of cooperation historically that Hawthorne has shown for the neighbors and community spoke volumes to me.”

Ms. Sullivan said that “when [Hawthorne Attorney] Harry Heller turned his back to us in one of the early meetings and reminded us he was ‘presenting to the commission’ it didn’t set well with me. With so little care shown to human inhabitants of the area, I have little hope that care would be taken with any other species.”

Sue Sutherland, of 32 Neptune Drive in the Mumford Cove neighborhood, asked that the application be denied and that a committee be formed between the applicant and other interested parties to recommend alternatives to the proposed plan.

Wendy MacFarland, of 48 Bel-Aire Drive, asked for a second evaluation of the area by the Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team. She said the Autumn, 2006, timing of the previous ERT review prevented the full wildlife evaluation that would be possible in the summer.

The hearing is scheduled to continue Aug. 15, 2007.