Groton Open Space Association

IWA Continues Discussion of Mystic Woods to Sept. 12

By Joan Smith, GOSA Director

GROTON –The Inland Wetlands Agency began deliberations Aug. 22, 2007, on the proposed 211-unit Mystic Woods senior housing project on Fort Hill and decided to continue the discussion to its next meeting Sept. 12.

Agency members discussed stormwater runoff and treatment, as well as problems associated with building density on the 105-acre site.

Member Eunice Sutphen raised concerns about rainstorms flowing down Fort Hill, and cited the cautions raised at a public hearing Aug. 15 by James O’Donnell, professor of marine sciences at the University of Connecticut. Alternate Member Mary Ellen Furlong pointed out that a minimum of 45 acres of trees would be cleared. Fort Hill Brook flows by the bottom of Fort Hill, connecting with Mumford Cove, off Fisher’s Island Sound.

Chairman David Scott countered that density is “not anything we have any say about, but was put in place by political powers” and “is not our call.” Ms. Furlong responded that density causes the town to lose valuable wetlands, that paved surfaces are closer to wetlands, and that last year’s storms placed water “where I’ve never seen it before.” Member Barbara Block cited many unknowns about the new stormwater treatment techniques that are planned for Mystic Woods. She said it was desirable to discuss the “overall, before the pieces.”

Chairman Scott said, “We can’t hold one development hostage. Development has to have impacts on wetlands–a given–and we must balance development with inevitable changes and impacts.” He added that there is no answer to the long-term effectiveness of any engineered systems, and that maintenance and inspection procedures can be part of the Agency’s conditions. He also focused on the “purview of the regulations,” and said he does “not want a court case to happen.” Ms. Furlong responded, “We do not want a bad decision.”

Mr. Scott said emotion should not be brought into the discussion.

Ms Furlong responded: “Valuable resources are at risk.”

Scott said: “There are new uses in new situations, which no one can foresee. I don’t know if there is an answer.” He proposed to study one aspect of the project at a time, based on a list prepared by Deb Jones, environmental planner with the Office of Planning and Development Services, who was present advising the Agency. These were the areas and the direction of the discussion:

–Sewer built into Fort Hill roadway: tricky, steep, large amount of water flow: Only the roadbed will be impacted, and the area will be filled and rough-graded each day, and will be under constant observation.

–Sidewalks on Flanders Road: Ms. Block said she knows what the shoulder looks like now. However, a state Environmental Review Team that examined the proposed project mentioned that the intersection of Flanders Road and Route 1 would need to be widened and realigned. She said she doesn’t know where the sidewalk will be placed and who will clean it. Ms. Jones said the OPDS wants sidewalks on both sides, and the abutters would be responsible for maintenance. Ms. Sutphen said there would be too much impact to the nearby vernal pool.

–Wetland No. 4: Ms. Sutphen raised the issue of buildings and roads surrounding and isolating the wetland and suggested a “bendy road,” and a wider, undisturbed setback. Deb Jones pointed out that expert consultants had not raised serious concerns about the current plan for Wetland No. 4. Chairman Scott said he worried about impact from the placement of eight inches of topsoil near the wetland. He also expressed concern that the surrounding construction would isolate the wetland and provide habitat for humans, not wildlife.

He suggested that this might be a site to let the “axe fall.” Ms. Sutphen suggested a closer look at the road that is right on Wetland No. 4 at the grading near the wetland and at potential problems concerning the basements of surrounding buildings.

Ms. Furlong inquired about the impact of five inches of rain, such as recently fell, and Ms. Jones was instructed by the agency to “tease out” volume amounts for the next meeting, and to clarify issues regarding maintenance of the stormwater treatment system.

Member Robert Ashworth said he had searched the record and found no state Department of Transportation document indicating that full access to the property from Fort Hill Road was prohibited, as had been stated at the preceding IWA meeting by Atty. Harry Heller, representing the applicant, Hawthorne Development Partners LLC, of Woburn, MA. Ms. Jones read comments from the report of the state Environmental Review Team report saying that ingress and egress from Fort Hill could be a problem. Further discussion about Department of Transportation permitting will take place after other commissions have made decisions, if the project gets that far. Ms. Jones stressed that, at this stage, there is no official ruling, but only “comments.”

GOSA’s alternative plan for the site foresees elimination of an access road from Flanders Road, which could endanger valuable Wetland No. 11, and substitution for it of two-way access from Fort Hill Road.