Where Bokum Road ends within the Preserve
There is another hearing coming up on whether the Old Saybrook Planning Commission should approve a modification of its 2005 development plan for the Preserve. This latest hearing will be held at the Old Saybrook Middle School, on Wednesday, March 2 at 7:30 p.m.
However, unlike the previous four hearings, where the general public and interested parties were invited to testify before the Planning Commission, only the members of the Commission will be allowed to speak at the March 2 hearing. The general public will be permitted to listen to the Commissioners discussing among themselves whether to approve or disapprove the developer’s proposed modification of the Preserve’s original plan, but the time for a public voicing of opinions in these proceedings is over.
Also, unlike the four previous public hearings, during which many of the general public spoke out against the entire development plan approved back in 2005, Commission members are expected to concentrate entirely on approving or not the modifications proposed by the developer, and not stray to the larger issue.
The Commission has a number of choices in dealing with the modification application of the developer. First it can give its full approval to the modifications proposed by the developer. This would mean that going forward, the original plan would reflect these changes. Second, the Commission could vote to reject the proposed modifications, which would leave the original plan in place, as it has been since 2005.
Also, should the Commission approve the proposed modifications, it even might go a step further, and treat the adoption of the modifications as in themselves a first phase of a phased development. This in turn could trigger an obligation by the developer, as part of its first phase; to reserve all the open space in the original plan, as is required by the town’s land use regulations. The result would mean that 483 acres of the present site would be reserved in perpetuity as open space.
When it first proposed a modification of the original plan, the heart of the developer’s proposal was to build three stand-alone, housing clusters, which it called pods. However, on the day before the last hearing on February 16, the Attorney for the developer, David Royston, withdrew the request for permission to build the three, stand alone clusters of housing units. Attorney Royston also withdrew the developer’s earlier request for a deferral of roadway improvements in the 2005 plan.
However, even with these changes, the developer’s attorney left in place a request for a modification of the Bokum Road parcel so that it could contain 9 lots, as well as a request to install 30,000 gallon cisterns in each developed area for fire protection.
The Valley Railroad track within the Preserve
Also, Royston said the developer would assume responsibility for gaining approval for a crossing over the Valley Railroad State Park, even in the face of a written denial by the Department of Environmental Protection of such a crossing. The reason for taking this step, the developer’s attorney said, was because of ongoing discussions regarding the purchase of new property that will make the DEP denial of a park crossing a moot point.
It might be noted that Royston made no mention of gaining approvals by the Town of Westbrook, which the developer must obtain before it can construct a key access road to the project. Past and present First Selectmen of Westbrook have expressed their firm opposition to the entire Preserve project, and it is the developer’s full responsibility and not that of the Commission’s, to turn this attitude around in Westbrook, if indeed it can.
Finally, the developer’s Attorney Royston emphasized in his final memorandum to the Commission that the developer was not pursing a “phased development” by making its modification application. However, it could be argued that the Commission itself has the final say as to whether to characterize modifications requested by a developer as the first phase of a phased development, and not the developer.
In this case saying that the requested modifications do not constitute a first phase of a phased development does not necessarily make it so. Under this scenario the Commission would decide the question, if it chooses to consider it.
However, if the proposed changes in the developer’s modification application were indeed determined to be the first phase in a phased development, the developer might even decide to withdraw its entire modification application. If this were to happen, the original 2005 plan would remain intact, and the developer’s plans for the future would become an open question.
Another possible scenario is this. If the developer maintains that its proposed modifications are not the first phase of a phased development, a position with which the Commission disagrees, then the Commission could simply refuse to grant the developer’s application. Then, once again, it would be back to square one in the development of the Preserve.
PDF 
