Town Engineer John Jacobson at the maps
Only seventeen members of the public attended the March 2 hearing on whether to permit a private developer to modify the town’s original 2005 plan to develop the Preserve. One hint that the hearing might not be too significant was the fact that the Counsel to the town Planning Commission, Mark Branse, did not attend.
In contacting Branse’s office as to why he did not attend the hearing, or even send a back up attorney, Eric Knapp, an attorney at Branse’s firm, said that he himself had been planning to attend the hearing. However, Old Saybrook Town Planner Christine Nelson told him that it was not necessary for him to attend. So, Knapp said, he took the meeting off his calendar.
When questioned, Nelson acknowledged that she had told Knapp that it was not necessary for him to attend the hearing. She also said that she had conferred with Commission Chairman Robert McIntyre, who had said that it was not necessary for an attorney from Branse’s firm to attend the hearing.
Town Planner Christine Nelson (l)and Enviornmental Planner Sandy Prisloe (r)
Nelson also said that on February 25 Attorney Branse had sent a list of outstanding of issues to the Chairman and herself that might be discussed at the March 2 hearing. This February 25 memorandum, evidently, was not sent to the other members of the Commission. It turned out that Branse was vacationing in Florida.
Even without its counsel guidance, the Commission did decide that the nine lots of housing sites, contained in the developer’s proposed modifications, were “reasonably likely” to be approved as a conventional land use development. That was it; the Commission decided little else, after close to three hours of deliberations.
Still, the Commission should be credited with undertaking an exhaustive examination of the developer’s proposed, new nine lots from virtually every angle. Discussed were the impact on the vernal pools, roadway accessibility, roadway improvements, flood prevention, adequate septic and water systems, and other impacts on the original general plan for the development of the Preserve.
One member of the Commissioner, Robert D. Missel, however, was restive. He complained that he had not heard from the Commission’s counsel, since a memorandum by Attorney Branse dated January 13. Most especially, Missel said, “We need additional information on the February 16 memorandum of the developer’s counsel.”
Commissioner Robert Missel
In that February 16 memorandum, the developer’s counsel, David Royston, dramatically withdrew from the developer’s original modification proposal the plan to construct over 200 new homes on the site. Missel wanted to take up this overarching issue before going into the details of other land use questions.
Commission Chairman Robert McIntyre tried to sooth the dissident member. McIntyre said that perhaps the dramatic withdrawal of the new houses from the proposed modification should have been the first question considered at the
hearing. The Chairman went on to assure Commissioner Missel that Attorney Branse would be present at the next Commission hearing. He also told Missel that there were other questions that could the resolved by the Commission without the attendance of counsel.
The Commission concluded the hearing with a discussion of when and where to hold the next meeting. It will be on Tuesday, March 8, in the first floor conference room in the Old Saybrook Town Hall.
Chairman McIntyre said that the Commission must complete its deliberations by April 22, adding that if possible he would like to schedule committee meetings once a week, so as to make this deadline.
There was one final point that was made a number of times by Chairman McIntyre at the hearing. He said that when the Commission approves a particular element of the developer’s proposed modifications based on a condition, the Commission will rigorously demand that these conditions be met before final approval of the modifications will be granted.
PDF 
