Groton Open Space Association

Court Hears GOSA Appeals In Mystic Woods Case

NEW LONDON — The New London Superior Court heard arguments Oct. 26, 2010, in GOSA’s appeals against decisions by the Groton Inland Wetlands Agency and Zoning Commission authorizing construction of “Mystic Woods,” a large senior housing complex atop Fort Hill between Flanders Road and Route 1.

Judge Joseph Purtill presided in the trial, which began in the morning and ended early in the afternoon. His decision on the case is expected early in the new year. GOSA was joined in its appeals by some neighbors of the planned development, which has not begun and does not yet have Planning Commission approval.

Attorney Harry Heller of Uncasville appeared for the applicant, Hawthorne Development Partners LLC, of Woburn, MA, and the current owner, Colebrook Financial Co., of Middletown. Colebrook is successor to Glemacy Builders LLC, of Griswold. Attorney Michael Carey represented the Inland Wetlands Agency and sat with Mr. Heller in the courtroom.

GOSA was represented for the IWA appeal by Atty. Frank Cochran and for the Zoning Commission appeal by Atty. Peter Cooper. They are partners in the New Haven firm of Cooper, Whitney, Cochran and Francois.

Mr. Cochran contended that the IWA should have considered but did not consider the most feasible and prudent alternative to protect the wetlands that ring the base of Fort Hill–a development smaller than the 200+ unit project proposed. For his part, Mr. Heller said the record is “replete” with evidence that the project complied with applicable regulations.

David Wrinn, an assistant attorney general specializing in environmental cases, was present at the trial. He took note of the recent River Sound Development v. Old Saybrook case. In a July 27, 2010, decision,  the Appellate Court  reinforced the idea that inland wetlands agencies may look beyond “upland review areas” in determining what activities may be regulated. Mr. Wrinn said the decision also showed that the Appellate Court “seems to be at ease with arguments that reductions in numbers of amphibians can hurt the physical quality of water.” The state Supreme Court on Sept. 27, 2010, declined to review the Appellate Court decision, in effect upholding it.

Mr. Cooper argued that the Zoning Commission did not give adequate consideration to evidence concerning the main criteria for issuance of the required special permit for Mystic Woods: harmony with orderly development of surroundings, absence of adverse traffic impacts, and lack of negative environmental effects. In addition, he said that town staff  “overstepped” by “actively participating” in the commission’s deliberations. Mr. Heller said the plan did meet criteria and that “the staff did what staff should do.”

The IWA’s conditional approval of Mystic Woods came Sept. 12, 2007. The Zoning Commission approved the development Dec. 5, 2007. Both decisions came on split votes.