Groton Open Space Association

Planning To Draft Letter To State In Merritt Matter

The Planning Commission has decided to draft a letter to the state Department of Environmental Protection because of the PC’s frustration with GOSA’s rules of use for The Merritt Family Forest and the process by which GOSA obtained a DEP grant to help buy the property last year.

The commission’s decision came at a regular meeting Oct. 27, 2009. GOSA was allowed to comment only in the “public communications” section of the meeting. While GOSA often takes part in meetings as a member of “the public,” it was the subject of discussion in this case.

UPDATE: Asked to outline what comes next, Planning Manager Matthew Davis said Nov. 4, 2009, that the Planning Commission has “directed me to work with Commissioner [Peter] Roper to develop drafts of two communications, one to GOSA and another to DEP. They also directed us to have those drafts available for review and possible action at the 11/10/09 meeting. At the 11/10 meeting the members are obviously free to do or not do whatever they deem appropriate or necessary with respect to the drafts, or more generally with respect to communications on behalf of the planning commission.”

The runup to the decision was tense.

Jeffrey Pritchard, chairing the meeting in the absence of Chairman James Sherrard, refused to allow GOSA to comment during the board’s discussion of GOSA policy, which does not permit horses, bikes and dogs on the property. Nor did he or the board ask GOSA questions about matters of fact pertinent to the discussion.

When GOSA directors attempted to make points of information during the discussion, Mr. Pritchard said on one occasion, “You can either keep your mouth shut or leave.” He repeated the directive shortly afterward with a terse command that sounded like “shut up.”

Earlier, when Genevieve Cerf, a GOSA director, raised her hand to ask permission to speak during public communications, Mr. Pritchard replied that she could speak as long as she did not give a “history lesson,” an apparent sarcastic reference to the contribution of Sidney Van Zandt, another GOSA director who had spoken previously and had presented some background.

Mr. Pritchard’s rulings and his definition of GOSA as the public and — at one point — “the audience” prevented GOSA from responding to issues raised by panel members. For example, GOSA was unable to reply to Mr. Pritchard’s expressed fears about the condition of the land decades hence. Had GOSA been allowed to speak, it would have explained that its bylaws provide for an orderly transfer of the land to another non-profit in the event of GOSA’s dissolution and for permanent protection of the tract as open space for passive recreation. GOSA also would have replied to the acting chair’s assertions that GOSA had no management plan after a year and a half of ownership and that it lacks the resources needed to maintain the land.

Another commission member, amplifying on Mr. Pritchard’s remarks regarding maintenance, worried that invasive plants could threaten the property. When GOSA Director Jim Furlong pointed out that GOSA has won a federal grant to deal with invasives, Mr. Pritchard cut him off.

The packet sent to commissioners ahead of the meeting contained information on the opinions of the Town’s Parks and Recreation Commission and the Conservation Commission, but these opinions played little to no part in the Planning Commission’s latest discussion.

The question of GOSA’s Merritt policy and the state’s grant award to GOSA to help pay for the property had come up at Planning Commission meetings June 23 and July 14, 2009. Mr. Davis, contended in a June 9 memo to the commission that the state should require GOSA to comply with the town’s Trails Master Plan, which envisions a multipurpose trail through the land. He told the commission on July 14 that he had visited the Department of Environmental Protection in Hartford and complained of allegedly incorrect state scoring of GOSA’s grant request and of lack of coordination on the grant between the town and state.

The Planning Commission decided at its July 28, 2009, meeting to refer the matter to the Conservation Commission for an opinion. The Conservation unit recommended Oct. 21, 2009, that GOSA think again about its policy when it completed an ongoing inventory of resources on the site. However, it declined to endorse OPDS efforts to force GOSA to cut a multi-use trail through the property. The Parks & Recreation Commission has decided to monitor the situation, according to Mr. Davis.

The decision to draft a letter came on an informal poll of members present. Favoring a letter were members Peter Roper, Hank Steinford, Mr. Pritchard and alternate member Richard Fitzgerald.

Michael Kane, an alternate member, opposed a letter, saying he didn’t know what the town’s specific complaint would be. He said no additional “layer of review” was necessary on state grants. He said the state should review grants of state tax dollars.

Member Ray Munn said he didn’t believe the Planning Commission has the standing to complain about GOSA’s use of its property. Alternate Hal Zod expressed doubt about a letter.

Mr. Kane, Mr. Munn and Mr. Zod all said they believed responsible dog walking should be allowed on the property.

Mr. Davis, the town planning manager and a proponent of a letter, said the state should review grant applications “with some degree of focus on what other parties think.” At present, the state does consider whether a grant has approval of planners, but this is not a strongly weighted factor.

In his public-communications commentary, Mr. Furlong said the Office of Planning and Development Services should not have sole responsibility for open space acquisition and preservation because the OPDS is subject to development pressure from above and because it has no track record of open space preservation, “much less a record of excellence in this area.” He urged the Planning Commission to take no action and noted that the Town Council had decided formally not to act.

Ms. Cerf, of GOSA, said that if the OPDS had a veto, “We would never get another grant.”

Ms. Van Zandt reviewed GOSA’s seven-year campaign in public meetings and in the courts to save the property, as well as the important role of GOSA members in saving Haley Farm and Bluff Point. GOSA began on October 11, 2000, taking part in public hearings on a scheduled residential development for the Merritt parcel; won a state grant April 8, 2003, toward future purchase; contracted April 14, 2003, to buy the land; and finally closed on the tract May 16, 2008, after a nearly five-year court fight with the would-be developer.

She said: “I would urge you to discourage the OPDS from pressuring the DEP not to give land trusts funds for future open space acquisitions unless they go through the OPDS… Town planning staff have failed to protect any open space in the Town of Groton. There was none before the Haley Farm battle. Planners turned down any support for Haley Farm, and for Bluff Point. The land was better saved for development, they said. There was none up to the 1988 bond issue. The town government failed there because it let an authorized $2 million [of an $8 million total] lapse, despite the electorate’s mandate.”

Brian Kent, a partner of the landscape design firm of Kent + Frost, spoke in the public communications segment of the meeting. He said the town’s Trails Master Plan, which he designed and presented to the Town Council Nov. 6, 2003, was based on public input. He said that not all multi-use trails need to be paved, and he said that GOSA’s expressed fears about the dangers of horseback riding are exaggerated. Mr. Kent resides on a tract that abuts The Merritt Family Forest. His wife, Deborah Finco-Kent, operates a horse rescue service on the parcel, which she owns. The Kents, the OPDS, Connecticut Horse Council, and Planning Commissioner Peter Roper have campaigned vigorously to force GOSA to cut a multiple use trail through the property.

GOSA has resisted these pressures for reasons of public safety, organizational liability, and environmental protection. In addition, GOSA believes it must uphold its right to manage the property, so long as it observes state guidelines.