Groton Open Space Association

Wal-Mart IWA Hearing To Resume May 14; Planning Likely May 13

By Joan Smith, GOSA Director

GROTON — The Inland Wetlands Agency is scheduled to continue its hearings May 14, 2008, on Konover Development Corp.’s request for changes in a previously approved plan to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 in the watershed of the Groton Utilities reservoir system.

Much controversy at the last meeting April 9, 2008, centered on the question of whether Konover’s request for what it called a small change could provide an opportunity for opponents to reopen hearings on the project as a whole.

The IWA approved the project April 26, 2006, after determining it was a “minor activity,” meaning one with minimal potential impacts on the town’s inland wetlands and watercourses. The Planning Commission, on the other hand, turned down the application early in the morning of Feb. 16, 2007, after a marathon meeting. The developer has appealed the Planning Commission decision and has filed a whole new application. The new application is expected to be heard by the Planning Commission May 13, 2008, though the agenda for that date has not yet been set.

Konover’s attorney, Diane Whitney, called the change that is now before the IWA a “very minor part of a minor activity.” Opponents at the hearing contended that the project never should have been classified as minor, that the information on which the IWA based its approval was flawed and that the original application ought to be reheard.

IWA Chairman David Scott argued that the hearing should consider only the changes proposed, which include reconfiguration of a stone wall between the proposed 37-acre Konover/Wal-Mart site and an adjacent office park, as well as a change in drainage of storm water. Mr. Scott said sentiment against Wal-Mart as a corporation appeared to play a part in opposition to the project and added that such feelings were irrelevant to the proceedings.

Marjorie Shansky, representing one intervener and filing intervention notices for two others, expressed “a certain degree of incredulity” at attempts to limit scope of IWA discussions. She said she has driven the perimeter of the reservoir and observed the fence that protects it from certain visible threats. She told the IWA:

“We are looking to you to protect it from the invisible threats.”

Steven Trinkaus, an engineer representing the interveners, told the IWA that the project’s planned storm water processors — hydrodynamic separators — do not remove 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) in water, as claimed, but average only 30% removal. The devices tend to become less efficient in cold weather, which increases the viscosity of water and reduces the centrifugal force of water swirling through the system.

Mr. Trinkaus added that water running off the roof is not planned to be treated, even though it can contain acids and particulates.

Elizabeth Raisbeck, of Noank, pointed out that Section 10.10a of the Inland Wetland Regulations allows the IWA to revoke a permit if it was granted on the basis of inaccurate information.

Mary Ellen Furlong, an alternate member of the IWA, said she believed the IWA had in fact acted on the mistaken information that swirl separators remove 80% of TSS and said she would not have voted for the project if she had known then what she knows now about swirl separators. She reminded Ms. Whitney that under terms of the IWA permit, storm water runoff would be tested following construction. If the water were found to be below standards set by Groton Utilities, then expensive remedial work would be required.

Ms. Furlong also noted testimony by Robert DeSantos, another consultant to the interveners, that the change being proposed would send an additional 365,000 gallons of water per year — well over 1,000 gallons a day — into a retention pond in the adjacent office park. She asked if this water — and far greater flows on rainy days — would then flow north under Route 184 and into Hempstead Brook, which flows into the reservoir and was informed this was the case.

Ms. Whitney told the IWA that Konover had offered to make changes in view of questions about the efficacy of swirl separators but had been told by the town that this was not necessary.

Joan Smith, a director of the Groton Open Space Association, raised the question of whether the applicant had authority to apply for a permit in the first place. She noted that a Konover option on one tract of land involved in the project was signed March 28, 2007, nearly a year after the permit was granted. Deb Jones, of the Town of Groton Office of Planning and Development Services, responded that the document involved was a new option with a new owner.

In continuing the session, Mr. Scott said that he would confer with the town attorney on this point and also would also look into a discrepancy between addresses of the project on the original application and the application for the changes.

Zell Steever, of Noank, who has a background as a wetlands ecologist and state water expert, told the IWA that the Wal-Mart application never was minor but rather was major. He urged that an independent expert be hired to determine the precise post-construction flow of water from the site with respect to wetlands, the Hempstead Brook and the Groton Utilities reservoir, which receives water from Hempstead Brook. He said the law allows the IWA to suspend hearings until it gets full information.