Groton Open Space Association

Hearings On Floating Zone Continued To Sept. 5

GROTON — Public hearings on a proposal to allow floating, mixed-use commercial/residential zones in four areas of Groton have been continued to Sept. 5, 2007.

The Zoning Commission decision to continue was taken at a contentious meeting Aug. 1, 2007, where the town planning staff urged that the hearings be closed on grounds that the panel had heard enough to make a decision.

A continuance had been urged by Zoning Commission Chairman Stephen Hudecek and Town Councilor Frank “Mick” O’Beirne. Michael J. Murphy, director of the Office of Planning and Development Services, in arguing for closure of the hearings, had remarked that the proposed zoning-regulation amendment that would allow floating zones would undergo revision based on public comment following the hearings.

Mr. O’Beirne said that if that was the case, then the revised application needed to be presented to the public at the next hearing. Responding to the pressure for a continuance, Atty. Timothy Bates, representing the applicant, granted an extension of the time period allowed to the commission to rule on the matter.

Mr. O’Beirne was critical of the proposal, while Mayor Harry Watson, who also attended the hearing, spoke in favor of it.

It was Mr. O’Beirne who had drawn the council’s attention to the amendment proposal by L&L Groton LLC, saying that it was of such overriding significance as to justify attention by the council, which normally stays out of such matters. Mr. O’Beirne, a former Groton mayor, flagged the proposal at a Town Council Committee of the Whole meeting July 24.

In his presentation at the latest Zoning Commission meeting, Atty. Bates said the Groton Open Space Association favors the proposal. Priscilla Pratt, president of GOSA, qualified that statement. She said that while GOSA does appreciate that Mr. Bates met with GOSA ahead of submission of the application, she said it was not accurate to characterize the organization as a supporter. She said GOSA does not oppose concentrating development, but added that concentration would only add to sprawl if it were not balanced by significant open space.

GOSA Director Joan Smith recommended that in exchange for heavy density allowances in the nodes, developers should either make a contribution to the town’s open space fund or, in the case of larger developments, set aside land for open space within nodes.

The heart of the proposal is to allow high-density commercial/residential developments in four areas, or “nodes,” designated for development by the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development. An earlier version of the proposal, strongly opposed by GOSA, would have allowed high-density development in the nearly 1,200 rugged acres of the town’s sparsely developed Industrial Park. The IP zones have been withdrawn from the proposal for the time being. The floating zone developments, as described by Mr. Bates, would be pedestrian-friendly and would have a “village” sense of place, in keeping with the principles of the “new urbanism.”

Ms. Smith said that if the floating zone concept were ever extended to the IP zones, GOSA would recommend:

–setasides of contiguous open space large enough (25 acres and much bigger). These should be sufficiently large and articulated to support diverse wildlife, animal corridors and hiking trails and to promote a sense of solitude and enjoyment of nature.

–language be adopted that would limit the amount of contour changes, blasting and the quantity of ground materials removed or filled.

–limits be adopted on the numbers of “villages” permitted in the beautiful IP zones, where intensive development never was foreseen.

She added that the floating zone proposal is symptomatic of the development pressure that exists on Groton. She said time is running out for the town to act on proposals by the Conservation Commission’s recommendation to protect 20 properties. She also called for action on the OPDS promise to hire a consultant to rewrite the town land-use regulations, a rewrite that would include a definition of buildable land.

Eric Knapp, a Glastonbury lawyer representing GOSA, urged again that the procedure for establishing a floating zone in a nodal area be broken into two separate parts: (1) designation of a tract as suitable for a floating zone and (2) approval of the master plan for the zone. As the application is now written, the decisions would be made in one process.

Zoning Commission member Richard Haviland argued that the nodes were too loosely drawn for regulatory purposes. The areas need to be defined down to street names and addresses, he said.

Fellow member Sue Sutherland suggested a fiscal impact study of the application.