Groton Open Space Association

Wal-Mart Talks With IWA: UPDATE 6-27-08: WAL-MART TO APPEAL

 

By Joan Smith, GOSA Board Member

UPDATE–Konover said June 27, 2008, that it will appeal the IWA’s denial June 11 of its application to change its original plan for a Wal-Mart Supercenter.

GROTON — Konover Development Corp. representatives appeared before the Town of Groton Inland Wetlands Agency June 25, 2008, to discuss issues involving its denied request to change its application to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter on Route 184 in the watershed of the Groton Utilities drinking water reservoir system.

The IWA denied the application for changes June 11, 2008. The original plan had received IWA approval in 2006.

Konover attorney Diane Whitney asked for a jurisdictional ruling to determine which activities require new permitting and to seek guidance as to what standards the IWA will want met to protect water quality.

Ms. Whitney said that there has been “some confusion on what had changed” after the IWA denied a second application, which sought permission for changes to the first approved plan. She asserted further that Deb Jones, the town’s environmental planner, had “said what we applied for is all that needed approval.”

The Konover attorney contended that the town hasn’t any objective standards, and that “we have met…[Department of Environmental Protection] standards.” Michelle Carson, an engineer and principal of Konover, presented the original, approved plan, superimposed by an acetate copy of the second, denied plan.

The IWA and Konover representatives then conducted a detailed discussion of the proposed changes and which of them should require permitting. Ms. Whitney’s questions were:

1. What do you think needs permitting?

2. What water quality standards will you expect to be met? She said Konover had used DEP standards as a proxy for town standards. She claimed that the DEP says roof water is clean.

Chairman David Scott summarized his remarks by saying “any time discharging of water is involved, whether in a wetland or not, we are involved.” He said further that “what was permitted 10 to 15 years ago is different. We have not recently had such a large project.”

When asked to choose one design change over another, he said, this was not an “either-or” discussion and “we are not playing that game.”

Agency member Mary Ellen Furlong said the IWA will look at whether the project meets the DEP and town standards of 80% removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) from stormwater discharge. Further, the IWA would want assurance that the water being discharged is getting cleaned as it should. The first plan featured infiltration of roofwater, and she questioned whether the replacement units in bedrock were getting the same cleansing quality.

Ms. Jones stated that the original permit is good for 5 years from the approval date. She then focused on the first approval and addressed proposed changes to each permitted activity.

The IWA and the applicant discussed possible design changes, such as a green roof; expanding the size, shape and design of the drainage basin; plants, check dams, water quality swales, pervious paving, an enhanced treatment train; and changes to the pond and discharge areas.

Ms. Furlong pointed out the sensitivity of the site — close to the Groton Utilities drinking water reservoir — and suggested that the applicant look at the alternative of renovating the existing Wal-Mart site.

Marjorie Shansky, attorney for interveners in the previous application, and representing Zell Steever, of Noank, as an intervener in the current proceedings, submitted a letter and expressed incredulity that the discussion was taking place in the absence of a new application, and was occurring while Konover could still appeal the previous denial. “You have armed the applicant for an appeal during the appeal period,” she said.

She cited regulations requiring a detailed application before discussion, and said that the regulated activity is an open question until a specific plan is submitted. She raised concerns about minutes and whether this discussion would generate a letter by the IWA. She summarized by saying, “This may be evidence that the building is too big.”

Mr. Steever, a water quality expert, said that the only reason in the regulations for a “pre-application” meeting is to decide whether an application involves “major” or “minor” activity. Where is the application, he asked. If the Agency schedules other such discussion, “I request proper notice to all parties… I am flabbergasted by the proceeding. We have entered into a discussion which appears to be…segmented. The applicant’s response is coming to you after…[the hearing was closed], not subject to judicial review.”

He urged the IWA to get back to process: have the applicant provide a plan. He said Wal-Mart is a well financed national organization, which has done green projects across the country. Wal-Mart does not need preliminary guidance, as might a homeowner who does not know about wetlands, he said.

He recommended that the IWA have Konover come in with a single application