ctrivergateway

1. CONNECTICUT RIVER GATEWAY COMMISSION www.ctrivergateway.org

2. HR 145 FEDERAL NATIONAL RECREATION AREA January, 1971 “Acute” need in NE for type and magnitude of recreation opportunities provided by CRNRACT River National Recreation AreaNational Park Service/U.S. Dept. of InteriorAppeal to people far beyond state boundaries (NH, VT, MA and CT)Three “Units”Coos Unit (NH and VT) Mount Holyoke Unit (Mass)Gateway Unit (Haddam to I-95)Preserve:Scenic character, retention of town charm, and provide “controlled public use” and access at suitable points along river

3. HR 145 • Gateway Unit “Conservation Zone” • “Minimum standards”, established by Secretary of Interior, must be included in local Zoning Regulations • States “encouraged” to transfer state-owned land to the Federal government • Secretary may acquire up to 5,000 acres privately owned lands “without owner’s consent” to meet purpose of the Act

4. CITED EXAMPLES of LOSS of SCENIC RESOURCES • Open-pit feldspar mine (Middletown) • Coal-burning power plant (Hartford) • Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant (East Haddam) • Essex and Old Saybrook already occupied by marinas • Such development “creeping” north • River banks could become “series of marinas”

5. REACTION TO THE CONNECTICUT RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION PARK • Residents in NH, VT, MA and CT each objected to Federal plan – “tough Yankees” • Local Lyme Resident’s Comments Typified Lower River Concern: Within the Park Area: • “Shocked unhappiness” of those whose land the Federal government takes • Lower river marshes, creeks would be flanked by Federal parkland • Around Lords Cove, LY/OL: provision for 200 “group campers” at night • During summer season, twenty times the existing population • Conservation/Recreation as contemplated – not compatible. • Desecration of priceless areas now protected Outside of the Park Area: • Cape Cod National Seashore – 4 million “visitor days” (3.7 persons per car) • In addition to rented cottages, hotels and motels within easy access to park, there were a total of 22 camp sites, tent site and trailer parks • Lack of consideration for impact on traffic, sanitation, pollution, policing • Cannot open lower valley area to a National Park without destroying the “priceless, natural beauty”to which Senator Ribicoff refers • Quiet communities cannot handle the problems that hordes of Park visitors would “throw upon us”

6. Gateway Advisory Committee met for 3 ½ years, reviewing various Federal bills introduced by US Senators Ribicoff and Kennedy and US Representatives Steele and Conte for CRNRA • Committee consistently pressed for two elements: • Maximum preservation of resources and present “way of life” • Strong LOCAL voice in determining boundaries, standards and policies for “park” • Committee rejected Federal plan and prepared an alternative plan: • Gateway Unit Plan for proposed Connecticut Historic Waterway, June, 1972 • “In recent years, too many of our National Parks have been subjected to the type of public exploitation which defeats the very premise upon which they were created – preservation of our national heritage.” • Residents expressed opposition to Federal CT River National Park Area • Fears of uncontrollable visitation to the area • Finally, state legislation sponsored by State Senator Peter Cashman was offered as an alternative, a.k.a. the “Cashman Bill”: Public Act No. 74-103, An Act Concerning the Connecticut River Gateway Zone.

7. Predecessor GATEWAY COMMITTEE and the GATEWAY COMMISSION • Old Saybrook, Old Lyme, Lyme, Essex, Deep River, Chester, Haddam, East Haddam • 21 members - two representatives from each town, two representatives from two Regional Planning Agencies and a representative of Commissioner of DEP • Uniform zoning standards to be adopted into local Zoning Regulations • Proposal of Gateway Conservation Zone along both banks of the lower river • Study and recommend areas that the DEP may purchase easements and development rights on up to 2,500 acres using a $5 million state bond authorization (in 1982, the $5 million amount was reduced to $750,000 due to budget constraints) • Gateway Committee would become the Gateway Commission if: 5 of 8 member towns, after studying the Committee’s recommendations, vote at town meeting to join the conservation compact. All 8 towns voted to join. • First Meeting of the Connecticut River Gateway Commission: July 23, 1974

8. GATEWAY CONSERVATION ZONE

9. LEGISLATIVE FINDING “...the lower Connecticut River and the towns abutting the river possess unique scenic, ecological, scientific and historic value contributing to public enjoyment, inspiration and scientific study, that it is in the public interest ........ to preserve such values and to prevent deterioration of the natural and traditional riverway scene for the enjoyment of present and future generations of Connecticut citizens ....”

10. GATEWAY MISSION “...to preserve the aesthetic and ecological natural beauty of the lower Connecticut River valley for present and future generations....”

11. GATEWAY TOOLS • Land Acquisition Legislation provided for State funding of GW-recommended easement/development rights purchases in Conservation Zone • Minimum Zoning Standards GW has authority to adopt Minimum Zoning Standards that each member town “shall promptly adopt” into their local Zoning Regulations • “Veto” Power No zoning, planning or subdivision regulation affecting land within the GW Conservation Zone can become “effective” without the approval of the GW Commission • Review Authority All applications proposing variances affecting properties located within the Conservation Zone must be referred to the GW Commission for comment

12. LAND ACQUISITION • Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Fund • Lawsuit over visually obtrusive Northeast Utilities power line towers, East Haddam to Haddam • Ongoing 16-year lawsuit brought by Haddam resident • GW chosen in 1982 to receive a $1,000,000 settlement to be used for “conservation and preservation projects” (Middletown Riverfront Trust received a $250,000 award) • Fund used for land acquisition and other conservation-related purposes • Since 1973: • Over $1,000,000 spent in partnership with other conservation groups (The Nature Conservancy, DEP, local Land Trusts and Conservation Commissions) • Over 1,000 acres preserved • Preservation in the form of conservation easements, acquisition of development rights and, to a limited extent, in simple fee • GW is the “middle man”; GW acquires and then transfers to the State of CT

13. MINIMUM ZONING STANDARDS • SHALL: • Regulate uses of property consistent with the GW mission; • Promote protection and development • consistent with their mission according to: • types of land usage, • land coverage, • frontage, • setbacks, • design and building height • and the regulation of the cutting of timber, • burning of undergrowth, removing soil or • other earth materials and dumping or • storing refuse • GW actions shall not discourage • constructive development and uses of • such property which are consistent with • the purposes of this chapter • Latest substantial modification of Standards • by GW occurred in 2004 (all GW towns have • adopted with the exception of the Town of Essex) Long Island Sound South Cove Saybrook Point North Cove Connecticut River

14. “VETO” POWER Although local P&Zs and the GW work in partnership, if a local regulation were to be approved by a member P&Z against the recommendations of the GW Commission, the GW could disapprove the regulation change “after the fact”. "No adoption, amendment or repeal of a local zoning, subdivision or planning regulation with respect to property within the conservation zone within [a member] town shall be effective which has not received the approval of the Connecticut River Gateway Commission.” - Section 25-102g CGS Chester Lyme Selden Island

15. REVIEW AUTHORITY - VARIANCES Development consistent with local regulations is presumed consistent with GW Standards VARIANCES of local regulation for properties in Conservation Zone must be referred for comment to the GW Commission On the basis of whether or not the development creates adverse “impact to the natural and traditional riverway scene”, GW will oppose, not oppose or not oppose if certain conditions applied Automatic “standing” in any lawsuit - In any case where a local ZBA approves a variance in opposition to GW recommendations, the GW has legal standing to appeal the action in Superior Court

16. Upper CT River Assembly • 13 towns, MA border to • Haddam/East Haddam • border (Hartford/East Hartford • are not members) • Minimum zoning standards • Review of development • on certain large applications • Comment and make recommendations on such applications • Recommendation for denial: • Local P&Z can override with 2/3 • vote of all members • No variance referral requirements • No “veto” power. Member towns aren’t even required to inform CRA of zoning changes within their area.

17. SPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEWS • Structures with Total Area > 4,000* sf • Special Exception Application submitted to local P&Z to be reviewed against specific design/environmental standards, increased authority on part of P&Z • Goal: • To minimize the visual “intrusion” of development on the view from the river • Local P&Z Commission can: • Minimizetree and vegetation removal • Request consistent construction materials • Request muted roof and siding colors • Minimizesite excavation and fill • Request planting of additional vegetation in “riparian buffer” and around foundation to “visually buffer” appearance from river • GW Staff: Courtesy review and report on consistency to P&Z as part of the review Long Island Sound Old Lyme Griswold Point Great Island Wildlife Management Area Connecticut River

18. CONSERVATION ZONE and GRISWOLD POINT Old Lyme Great Island Wildlife Management Area Griswold Point Connecticut River Old Saybrook Old Lyme Long Island Sound

19. Building Height Site “platformming” and ........ ..... measuring from “existing natural grade”

20. IMPORTANCE OF BUILDING HEIGHT....... ..... and muted colors in minimizing visual intrusion…..

21. FIRST TROPHY HOUSE IN THE LOWER RIVER? Built by William Gillette, 1919 Gillette’s Castle State Park

22. GW Standards address “timber harvesting”,e.g. commercial tree cutting • GW Standards don’t yet address residential tree removal • Cases of “clear cutting” for view enhancement TREE CUTTING

23. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT “Natural and traditional riverway scene”, as interpreted by the GW Commission, is that which existed at the time passing of the enabling legislation in 1973. At that time, large homes carved into the treed hillsides were largely absent.

24. VISUAL BUFFERING OF TREES In any review of development performed by the Gateway Commission or their staff, recommendations are often made regarding the retention of “visually buffering” trees, the planting of new visually “softening” vegetation, and enhancement of existing riparian buffers.

25. RIPARIAN BUFFERS Although beautiful to many, large expanses of manicured lawns are often maintained with fertilizers and pesticides which can, without a protective riverfront vegetative buffer, flow straight into the river.

26. INTACT RIPARIAN BUFFER and RAISING THE TREE CANOPY Intact and enhanced protective riparian buffer; instead of being cut, the lower tree branches were removed to provide desired views – “raising the canopy”

27. 50 Ft. RIPARIAN BUFFERS and100 Ft. STRUCTURE SETBACK

28. RIPARIAN BUFFERS When hillside vegetation is removed, the hill is more susceptible to erosion. Stormwater flow from above, sometimes containing fertilizers and pesticides, are less likely to be absorbed prior to entering the river. Additionally, important wildlife habitat can be lost in the process. Although the vegetation on the steep hillside below and right was originally removed, it has since been allowed to grown back.

29. Winter in the GW Conservation Zone American Bald Eagles can frequently be seen in the lower Connecticut River during the winter months.....

30. Conservation Zone at Lyme, Chester and Deep River Looking south... Essex Deep River Eustasia Island Selden Island Looking north.... Chester Lyme Chester “Bonanomi” property. Early Gateway easement acquisition. “Garthwaite” property. Owned in fee by Gateway.

31. Deep River above River Road Tree Clear Cutting Over-Engineering of a Site

32. CT Yankee Nuclear Power Plant East Haddam Haddam Connecticut River Salmon River Former plant site Spent fuel rod storage Haddam Neck Former CT Yankee power plant site Haddam Neck Spent fuel rod storage Connecticut River Salmon River

33. Marshes, Creeks and Coves of the Conservation Zone Essex Lyme Connecticut River Lord Cove, Lyme Notts Island Looking south...... Looking north....

34. Marsh Restoration on Lynde Point, Fenwick Long Island Sound Borough of Fenwick North Cove Connecticut River

35. The Gateway Commission: Almost 40 years of partnership in protecting the “natural and traditional’ riverway scene” of the lower Connecticut River for the citizens of Connecticut.....