The fourth and final public hearing was held on Wednesday night from 8:00 to 11:15 p.m.  While the majority of the evening was dedicated to the developer's rebuttal of the public comment heard in previous nights, Chairman Gelfman graciously granted members of the public time to speak as well.

Additional support from out of town was received via letters which were read into the record.  These letters included comments from:

Robert Sanders, Jr., Chairman of the Wilton Conservation Commission who expressed the Commission's concern with the additional 125,000 gallons per day discharge of treated sewage into the Norwalk River.  The letter states "despite the high utilization of the river, [from three existing sewage treatment plants] crucial studies regarding maximum daily loads and an instream flow analysis were not provided to substantiate the applicant's conclusion that the river could sustain the substantial increase in sewage disposal.  Without these studies, the basic feasibility of the proposed zoning amendments cannot be determined".

Robert H. Russell, First Selectman of Wilton, who reminded the P&Z of Ridgefield's commitment as part of the Norwalk River Watershed Initiative "to make municipal decisions that would not further damage the river, but instead would advance its recovery".   He also expressed his concern about the traffic impact on Route 7, and stated that "the proposed zoning amendments are contrary to the goals of Wilton and are seen as detrimental".

Christie Coon, Senior Environmental Officer, City of Norwalk, requesting the public hearing be continued so that the Norwalk Conservation Commission could review the proposal in more detail, and commented that the proposal threatens natural resources including drinking water, wildlife and the Long Island Sound.

[The following summary represents my own thoughts and reactions to the Eureka presentations.  For a more unbiased report, please read the Ridgefield Press's article next week.]

The Eureka rebuttal took about 90 minutes, and included six speakers.  Highlights (low points?) were as follows:

Michael Fishman, a wildlife biologist, confirmed much of what Redding resident Victor DeMasi had reported regarding the presence of species of special concern on the property.  He indicated that he is conducting a natural resource inventory for the developers which will continue for one year.  In addition, he reported that a Stage I Historic/Archeological review was conducted by Historical Perspectives, Inc. which identified several sites of significance on the property requiring further investigation.  Mr. Fishman spent a good deal of time ridiculing the public's use of the word "pristine" to describe the property, and claimed that its value is diminished due to the fact that there was human habitation on the property in this century, and because the forest is primarily second growth.  When questioned as to whether or not by Fairfield County standards it is pristine, he admitted that some of the property might meet that definition.  Mr. Fishman provided the audience with an unintended laugh when he stated that mute swans (which nested on Bennetts Ponds) are nuisance waterfowl because they chase away Canada geese.

Elizabeth Moran, a water quality expert and limnologist, reported that erosion and sedimentation problems associated with golf course development would be alleviated by the use of "Best Management Practices".  We know from experiences elsewhere that this is simply not true.  She claimed that the migration of pesticides and fertilizers simply won't happen, and that the Connecticut DEP will ensure that the water supply is adequate(!)

Robert Good, a hydrogeologist with Leggette, Brashears & Graham, reported that he had apparently done nothing on the project to date [my editorial comment].  His presentation addressed what would be done (water supply feasibility assessment, etc.) if the MUCD zone is approved.  He took issue with our position that drinking water quality water should not be used for industrial or non-essential uses, pointing out that 94% of the water in Connecticut is rated as GA (drinking water quality) and therefore it must be used for non-consumptive purposes such as irrigating golf courses.  He indicated that in addition to the estimated water use of the project (previously reported) of 133,000 gallons per day, an additional "seasonal demand" of 121,000 gallons per day would be needed in the dry summer months.

Michael Petti, an Engineer with Stearns & Wheeler, claimed that MUCD is better than the current zoning, that concerns about the Norwalk River would be taken care of later (they would pay for a facilities plan required for the expansion of the plan - gee, thanks!), and that the DEP memo indicating that the extension of sewer lines into watershed property for new development is contrary to State policy was "taken out of context."  We disagree.

Martin Petrovic, a Professor from Cornell and apparent specialist in golf course "turf", covered the same material as he did on June 8, and basically just repeated himself.

David Portman of Frederick P. Clark & Associates defended their MUCD text change amendment from accusations that it would allow any mix of the proposed allowed uses (i.e. all residential) by stating that they certainly intend to create a mixed use development as described in their "concept plan".  His assurances didn't make us feel any better.  He also claimed that they didn't intend to circumvent the special permit process by allowing the town planner to review and approve the details without further examination by the P&Z.  His protestations rang hollow.  He offered to re-word the amendment in any way the Commissioners would prefer, but ROSA Attorney Peter Cooper objected to this, saying the P&Z must vote on the amendments as submitted.

Following their presentations, Dr. Gelfman asked some very pointed questions regarding the wording of the text amendments and the lack of consideration given to wetlands (which they, by their own description, have mapped and flagged carefully) in the siting of the golf course in the concept plan.  Evasive answers were provided by David Portman and Michael Petti.

Overall, we feel that their rebuttal achieved nothing other than to further alienate the public (if that is actually possible).  The Commissioners, by their demeanor, did not appear to be convinced by Eureka's arguments.  We feel that Eureka's final statement, presented by Jim Smith of Roseland Property Co., was both threatening and condescending.  We hope that the Commissioners agree, and vote the petitions down in a unanimous vote in support of Ridgefield's best interests over those of the developers.

The public hearing was closed by Dr. Gelfman at 11:15 p.m.  A discussion session by the P&Z, followed by a vote, must occur within 65 days of July 7.  We will keep you advised.

Ellen Burns,
President
Ridgefield Open Space Association