www.ctrivergateway.orgwww.ctrivergateway.org

CONNECTICUT RIVERGATEWAY COMMISSION

CONNECTICUT RIVERGATEWAY COMMISSION

“Acute” need in NE for type and magnitude of recreation opportunities provided by CRNRA

CT River National Recreation Area

National Park Service/U.S. Dept. of Interior

Appeal 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

HR 145 FEDERAL NATIONAL RECREATION AREAJanuary, 1971

HR 145 FEDERAL NATIONAL RECREATION AREAJanuary, 1971

• 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

HR 145HR 145

• 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”

CITED EXAMPLES of LOSS of SCENIC RESOURCES

CITED EXAMPLES of LOSS of SCENIC RESOURCES

• 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”

REACTION TO THECONNECTICUT RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION PARK

REACTION TO THECONNECTICUT RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION PARK

• 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.

• 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

Predecessor GATEWAY COMMITTEE and the GATEWAY COMMISSION

Predecessor GATEWAY COMMITTEE and the GATEWAY COMMISSION

GATEWAY CONSERVATION ZONEGATEWAY CONSERVATION ZONE

“...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 ....”

LEGISLATIVE FINDINGLEGISLATIVE FINDING

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

GATEWAY MISSIONGATEWAY MISSION

• Land AcquisitionLegislation provided for State funding of GW-recommended easement/development rights purchases in Conservation Zone

• Minimum Zoning StandardsGW has authority to adopt Minimum Zoning Standards that each member town “shall promptly adopt” into their local Zoning Regulations

• “Veto” PowerNo zoning, planning or subdivision regulation affecting land within the GW Conservation Zone can become “effective” without the approval of the GW Commission

• Review AuthorityAll applications proposing variances affecting properties located within the Conservation Zone must be referred to the GW Commission for comment

GATEWAY TOOLSGATEWAY TOOLS

• 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

LAND ACQUISITIONLAND ACQUISITION

SHALL:Regulate uses of property consistent with the GW mission;

Promote protection and development consistent with their mission according to:

(1) types of land usage, (2) land coverage, (3) frontage,(4) setbacks, (5) design and building height (6) 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)

MINIMUM ZONING STANDARDSMINIMUM ZONING STANDARDS

Long Island SoundLong Island Sound

SouthSouthCoveCove

North CoveNorth CoveSaybrookSaybrookPointPoint

Connecticut RiverConnecticut River

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

“VETO” POWER“VETO” POWER

Selden IslandIslandSelden IslandIsland

LymeLymeChesterChester

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

REVIEW AUTHORITY - VARIANCESREVIEW AUTHORITY - VARIANCES

Upper CT River AssemblyUpper 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.

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:•Minimize tree and vegetation removal•Request consistent construction materials•Request muted roof and siding colors•Minimize site 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

SPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEWSSPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEWS

LongLongIslandIslandSoundSound

Old Old LymeLyme

Great Island Great Island Wildlife Wildlife

Management Management AreaArea

Connecticut RiverConnecticut River

GriswoldGriswoldPointPoint

CONSERVATION ZONE and GRISWOLD POINTCONSERVATION ZONE and GRISWOLD POINT

Old LymeOld Lyme

Great IslandGreat IslandWildlife Management AreaWildlife Management Area

Griswold PointGriswold Point

Connecticut RiverConnecticut River

Old SaybrookOld Saybrook

Old LymeOld Lyme

Long Island SoundLong Island Sound

Building Height

Building Height

..... measuring from “existing natural grade”

..... measuring from “existing natural grade”

Site “platformming”

and ........

Site “platformming”

and ........

IMPORTANCE OF BUILDING HEIGHT.......

IMPORTANCE OF BUILDING HEIGHT.......

..... and ..... and muted colors muted colors in minimizing visual in minimizing visual intrusion…..intrusion…..

FIRST TROPHY HOUSE IN THE LOWER RIVER?FIRST TROPHY HOUSE IN THE LOWER RIVER?

Gillette’s Castle State ParkGillette’s Castle State Park

Built by William Gillette, 1919Built by William Gillette, 1919

• 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

TREE CUTTING

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENTHILLSIDE 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.

“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.

VISUAL BUFFERING OF TREESVISUAL BUFFERING OF TREESIn 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.

In any review of development performed by the GatewayCommission 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.

RIPARIAN BUFFERSRIPARIAN BUFFERSAlthough 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.

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.

Intact and enhanced protective riparian buffer; instead of being cut, the lower tree branches were removed to provide desired views

– “raising the canopy”

Intact and enhanced protective riparian buffer; instead of being cut, the lower tree branches were removed to provide desired views

– “raising the canopy”

INTACT RIPARIAN BUFFER andRAISING THE TREE CANOPY

INTACT RIPARIAN BUFFER andRAISING THE TREE CANOPY

50 Ft. RIPARIAN BUFFERS and100 Ft. STRUCTURE SETBACK50 Ft. RIPARIAN BUFFERS and100 Ft. STRUCTURE SETBACK

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.

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.

RIPARIAN BUFFERSRIPARIAN BUFFERS

Winter in the GW Conservation ZoneWinter in the GW Conservation Zone

American Bald Eagles can frequently American Bald Eagles can frequently be seen in the lower Connecticut River be seen in the lower Connecticut River during the winter months.....during the winter months.....

Conservation Zone at Lyme, Chester and Deep RiverConservation Zone at Lyme, Chester and Deep River

LookingLookingnorth....north....

LookingLookingsouth...south...

SeldenSeldenIslandIsland

EustasiaEustasiaIslandIsland

EssexEssex

Deep RiverDeep River

ChesterChester LymeLyme

“Bonanomi” property. Early Gateway easement acquisition.

“Garthwaite” property. Owned in fee by Gateway.

ChesterChester

Tree Clear CuttingTree Clear Cutting

Over-Engineering of a SiteOver-Engineering of a Site

CT YankeeNuclearPower Plant

CT YankeeNuclearPower Plant

East HaddamEast Haddam

Haddam NeckHaddam Neck

Salmon RiverSalmon River

Connecticut RiverConnecticut River

ConnecticutConnecticutRiverRiver

HaddamHaddamNeck

HaddamHaddamNeck

HaddamHaddam

Spent fuel rod Spent fuel rod storagestorage

Former plantFormer plantsitesite

Former CT Yankee Former CT Yankee power plant sitepower plant site

Spent fuel rod Spent fuel rod storagestorage

Salmon RiverSalmon River

Lord Cove, LymeLord Cove, LymeNottsIslandNottsIsland

EssexEssex LymeLyme

Marshes, Creeks and Covesof the Conservation Zone

Marshes, Creeks and Covesof the Conservation Zone

Looking south......Looking south......

Looking north....Looking north....

Connecticut RiverConnecticut River

Marsh Restoration on Lynde Point, FenwickMarsh Restoration on Lynde Point, Fenwick

Long Island SoundLong Island Sound

Connecticut RiverConnecticut River

NorthCoveNorthCove

Borough of Borough of FenwickFenwick

The Gateway Commission:The Gateway Commission:Almost 40 years of partnership inAlmost 40 years of partnership in

protecting the “protecting the “natural and traditional’natural and traditional’riverway sceneriverway scene” of the lower Connecticut ” of the lower Connecticut

River for the citizens of Connecticut.....River for the citizens of Connecticut.....