Groton Open Space Association

GOSA Replies To Planning Commission

GROTON — GOSA has responded to complaints made by the Planning Commission Jan. 27, 2010, to the Department of Environmental Protection concerning a 2003 state open space grant award that helped GOSA purchase The Merritt Family Forest in 2008.

Below is the text of a letter by GOSA President Joan H. Smith to Amey W. Marrella, DEP commissioner, dated Feb. 12, 2010.

The Groton Open Space Association regrets that the Groton Planning Commission (PC) has chosen to draw you into a controversy with its Jan. 27 letter, which criticizes:

–the DEP’s 2003 award of a grant to GOSA

–the DEP’s grant application scoring system

–and GOSA’s stewardship of land purchased in 2008 with help of the grant.

Following is our response to the letter.

Overview:

It is easy to imagine that many towns would be grateful if a property as beautiful as The Merritt Family Forest (TMFF) were added as a gift to their stock of securely preserved open space. Someone viewing Groton from the outside could well be surprised by the PC’s derogation of the grant process and its insistence — nearly seven years after the April 2003 award — that the land should have been used for a residential subdivision.

The PC’s communication depicts the PC and the town planning process in general as forward-looking and environmentally friendly. The picture is painfully at odds with the reality; town planners have proven to be inadequate stewards of Groton’s rich natural heritage. In defiance of recommendations in the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development, they have produced no meaningful plan for open space acquisition and protection. Indeed, in recent times they displayed no interest in open space for passive recreation until GOSA bought a modestly sized piece of it.

The town last purchased open space about two decades ago with proceeds of an open space and recreation bond issue authorized in 1988. Except during that long-ago period, the burden of protecting open space has fallen on private citizens, such as those who formed GOSA in the late 1960s and helped save Bluff Point as a Coastal Reserve and Haley Farm as a State Park.

The Conservation Commission maintains a list of some 20 properties that should be protected, but the list has not been acted upon. The town in 2004 began a process of intermittently adding $25,000 annually to an open space fund. This currently totals approximately $111,000. A program of the Office of Planning and Development Services (OPDS) allowing developers to pay fees in lieu of open space dedication has raised $114,000. The total of $225,000 is not sufficient to make a meaningful purchase even in this real estate market. In addition, the town has not indicated when it might use the money for acquisition or any other form of land protection. As of this writing, none of this money has been spent.

The 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development says, “Now is the time for Groton to set up appropriate open space preservation programs, implement a measured plan for permanent protection of open space and avoid the ‘feast’ or ‘famine’ that has seemed to characterize past efforts.” The famine persists, and the PC should not be astonished that in the absence of official efforts to protect Groton’s heritage, others have stepped in.

Below is a work booklet table prepared for the 2002 POCD. It shows that only 11% of Groton’s land is securely protected by the state, land trusts, or the municipality. If water supply lands are added in, the total rises to about 17.7%. This is well below the state’s overall goal of 21%, even though Groton’s abundance of preservation-worthy land should put it above the average. [Table omitted.]

GOSA believes its acquisition of The Merritt Family Forest fully accords with the urging of the 2002 POCD for more open space and with the public policy aims of the Open Space and Watershed Land Acquisition Grant Program. The Merritt tract is worthy of preservation–75 acres of forest and wetlands draining via streams to the Long Island Sound. It is adjacent to publicly and privately protected lands. Roughly half the Merritt property was included among “proposed conservations lands” appearing on a Planning Department map published in A Conservation Plan for Groton, Connecticut 1990, a 27-page study produced by the Conservation Commission in June 1990. Smaller parts of the property show up on the 2002 conservation map. We are not aware of any law that would bar private conservation groups from receiving state aid to help acquire lands that are not specifically designated for conservation in a POCD.

Former DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy was a special guest and speaker at a GOSA fund-raising dinner in Groton on April 24, 2008, shortly before GOSA closed on the property. She strongly praised GOSA’s efforts to save the Merritt.

The PC complains that it should have been consulted on the 2003 grant, and it seeks mandated routine consultation in the future. GOSA contends that the PC could not have commented impartially in 2003 because the matter was in litigation; GOSA had mounted a court challenge to the PC’s approval of a subdivision for the land. Further, we believe — as will be explained — that routine input by the PC on grant requests would place it in conflict-of-interest situations. In the case of Groton, at least, the record of Groton planners strongly suggests that mandated PC involvement would hinder the land and water protection that are goals of the Open Space and Watershed Land Acquisition Grant Program.

Later in this letter, we will comment on each of the nine recommendations that the PC makes in its Addendum B. We feel that as a whole they represent a shortsighted and potentially dangerous attempt by Groton planners to interfere with a successful state program that has greatly benefited the cause of land and water protection in Connecticut.

Evaluating Addendum A:

The Commission’s letter contains important errors of fact and omission. The pattern is set in the opening statements of Addendum A. The letter claims that the town:

–is the “proud steward” of Bluff Point Coastal Reserve. Fact: Bluff Point is a state entity maintained by the state. The OPDS, when queried about this misleading statement, said, “It should be apparent that the Commission’s more inclusive and general notion of stewardship was offered within the context of community, not proprietary, legalistic or programmatic responsibilities.” The statement speaks for itself.

–used an $8 million open space bond referendum in 1988 to conserve land. Not mentioned: nearly $2 million of the bond authorization was allowed to lapse unused. With the unused money, the town could have purchased what is now called the Watrous property, the 160 acre site of significant archaeological findings and arguably the most biologically productive known vernal pool in Connecticut, based on amphibian egg mass counts. (See also below.)

–has preserved some 500 acres of open space since 1991 “through the land-permit process.” Fact: the preserved land consists of 56 scattered tracts totaling 473 acres set aside for open space in the subdivision process. The figure shows far more about the heavy building of subdivisions in Groton during the cited period than it does about open space preservation. When asked whether the acres are protected by easements, the OPDS told GOSA, “Some might have easements, others not.” No convincing guarantees are included that the open spaces will not wind up in the future as more development.

–was an early supporter of greenways or green breaks. However, the Conservation Commission wrote in an enthusiastic 2002 endorsement of a grant for the Merritt property: “Portions of this parcel have been identified as part of the Eastern Green Break System proposed by the Conservation Commission.” This is, of course, the tract that the Planning Commission now contends should have been turned into a subdivision. In the same 2002 letter, the Conservation unit said it “has been frustrated by the lack of the Town’s efforts to acquire additional open space, especially with the generous State open space matching grant.”

Among probable sources of the Conservation Commission’s frustration was the lack of official response to its strong written recommendation Dec. 11, 2001, to the Town Council to move quickly to apply for a state grant to acquire the Watrous property, valuable for its highly productive vernal pool and archaeological sites. The land was soon optioned to a Massachusetts builder of “active adult” communities. The DEP has expressed a high-priority interest in acquiring the property under the Recreational and Natural Heritage grant program if it should become available. A detailed report on GOSA’s efforts to protect this unusually valuable tract is posted on the GOSA website: www.gosaonline.org.

The PC’s discussion of GOSA’s rules for use of The Merritt Family Forest is equally shot through with important omissions. The original citizen complaint it cites about GOSA’s ban on horses, bikes and dogs came from an abutter, Brian Kent. Mr. Kent was the consultant who authored the town’s trail plan featuring wide multi-purpose trails. His wife, Deborah Finco-Kent, was planning a riding stable on the abutting property called Beech Brook Farm and thus had a professional interest in TMFF. The couple waged a spirited public relations campaign for their interests that targeted, among others, the Connecticut Horse Council, the Office of Planning and Development Services, and the Planning Commission. The Town Council also got involved but decided wisely in August 2009 to take no action.

GOSA has conceded publicly that it did mention possible horseback riding — it made no promises — in its grant application. It backed off this idea when it acquired the land and confronted the potential liability exposure and costs, both financial and environmental, of providing safe riding opportunities on the land’s steep rocky terrain, extensive wetlands and two stream crossings. We submit that our score on the grant application would not have changed if we had never mentioned riding. The property offers significant recreational opportunities–for walking, hiking and jogging.

Some dog owners have objected to our pet policy. One Planning Commission member in particular complained that although he was a conscientious dog walker who picked up after his pet, he was not allowed to walk his dog at TMFF. His passionate opinion neglected the bigger picture; by no means are all dog walkers as conscientious as he is. The ban on dogs has kept the paths clean and has reduced conflicts with other visitors and impacts on wildlife. The Grasso Tech high school cross country track team plans to switch to The Merritt Family Forest for their practice runs, in order to avoid the dog waste that has become a serious problem at Haley Farm (despite GOSA’s clean-up and free Mutt Mitt program.) Unleashed dogs at Haley Farm have been observed rolling among egg masses in vernal pools, chasing wildlife and jumping on visitors. Further, the eggs of ground-nesting birds can be easily crushed by off-trail use. GOSA is continuing to examine its policy on dog walking.

GOSA has proven to be a good steward of The Merritt Family Forest. We provide public access during daylight hours to walking, hiking, jogging, nature observation, photography and related activities. We have developed a system of paths throughout the property that link with the nearby Mortimer Wright Preserve and other protected lands. Prior to GOSA’s acquisition, the Merritt property was posted and not legally accessible to the public. We have invested in good-quality maintenance equipment and have embarked on a five-year program to clear invasive plants on a meadow near Fishtown Road, using proceeds of a U.S. Department of Agriculture WHIP grant (Wildlife Habitat Incentive [correct] Program). We have built up a fund of $52,350 to pay for insurance and future maintenance of the Forest. This fund is in addition to the $58,560 in an endowment account that we have used since 1985 to finance annual mowing of the fields at Haley Farm State Park.

Evaluating Addendum B:

These are our comments on the specific policy suggestions in Addendum B:

Recommendation 1. Require written notice to planning commissions and mandate an advisory opinion from the commissions.

As we wrote previously, a formal requirement giving the Groton PC an important role in the distribution of state money for open space would most likely impede the state’s grant program here. Planning departments around the state should have sufficient routine communication with conservation groups so that they will not be surprised when awards are made–delighted, but not surprised.

The DEP scoring sheet appropriately gives some weight to the opinion of local planning commissions, but the DEP must recognize the importance of maintaining its own right to make a final decision. The DEP must protect the grant programs for non-profit groups and land trusts from a potentially insurmountable veto by pro-development local authorities.

Here the problem of conflict of interest raises its head. Much land that is sought by private groups for conservation is targeted by developers, who may be already holding preliminary talks with planning departments or commissions. In fact, the state’s score sheet adds points to an open space grant application if a tract is targeted for development. How can planning authorities offer opinions in such situations without compromising the impartiality that is necessary to their quasi-judicial functions?

Recommendation 2. Conservation plans should be considered in a comprehensive manner not just with respect to natural resource and conservation policies.

This appears to be a call to de-emphasize conservation in an era where pressures on open space everywhere in the state threaten the quality of life.

Recommendation 3. Require a detailed management plan be submitted with grant applications.

Such a plan may be possible in rare instances. If so, it could be submitted. Typically, a full-scale open space management plan — as opposed to a real estate business plan — follows acquisition with a considerable lag. Time is needed to produce the topological studies and plant and animal inventories that inform such plans. In making this proposal, the Planning Commission ignores the nature of open space management plans and the realities of real estate acquisition. For example, GOSA submitted its application for the Merritt property before even having a purchase contract. It won its contract only after the grant was awarded and after intense competition with a well-financed building company. It had neither steady access to the land nor time to produce a management plan. GOSA now has a framework management plan for The Merritt Family Forest, but will need to conduct additional seasonal observations of species within TMFF before completing its document.

The initial absence of a detailed open space management plan at the time of application will do nothing to prevent The Merritt Family Forest from becoming a treasured Groton asset open to all citizens for passive recreation for countless generations into the future.

Recommendation 4. Applicants should be required to provide every possible use discussed in an application.

Such a requirement may have a chilling effect: applicants would become extremely conservative and unimaginative in what they discuss as possibilities in their grant applications. The crucial document in determining use is the conservation easement to the state. Allowed uses will be determined by subsequent and more complete scientific observation and testing of the site. Again, GOSA does not believe that its application score was affected one way or another by its tentative and admittedly naive mention of horseback riding.

Recommendation 5. Revise scoring system to eliminate “conflicts.”

This suggestion needs further explanation.

Recommendation 6. Grant applications from towns should take preference over those from other parties.

For the Groton Planning Commission, this would appear to be an academic point. However, GOSA would be gratified to see the Planning Commission submit an application for an open space grant, with the caveat that the state should judge applications on their merits.

Recommendation 7. Information in a grant application should be verified.

Documentation is required. GOSA submitted extensive documentation in support of its application. The Planning Commission has submitted no evidence of any accuracy problem that would justify a costly and time-consuming additional layer of scrutiny.

Recommendation 8. Require additional involvement by the Review Board because such involvement is inadequate at present.

No evidence was presented to support this statement.

Recommendation 9. The reason for purchase of the property should specify an allowed use under the required conservation easement.

It is hard to see how this recommendation arises from consideration of The Merritt Family Forest.

Conclusion:

GOSA emphatically believes the Open Space and Watershed Land Acquisition Grant Program is functioning well, to the great benefit of the state, and is not in need of repair. We believe other conservation groups around the state would agree. All land trusts could experience setbacks to their land conservation efforts if the proposed changes were adopted, and if pro-development municipalities were offered significant power over grant applications and DEP decision-making.

Please let us know if we can answer any questions.