Dear fellow residents of Granby. The time has come for everyone to stand up for all that this town offers: open spaces, scenic rivers and streams, a park, lands for agricultural products, professional services, and lots of good restaurants, just to name a few.
Vessel Technologies, located in New York City, originally proposed a 48-unit prefabricated housing complex at 37 Hartford Ave., Route 189. Today, after many meetings with the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission, its original proposal continues but on a somewhat modified plan. There are many issues. Central to the main issue, in my opinion as well as other residents, is that they negate the importance of the federally recognized and protected Salmon Brook, which has an endangered species and two additional “species of concern.” Trust me that this is only one major issue; there are others.
At the last meeting held Feb. 14, Vessel’s attorney, Timothy Hollister, attempted to disregard this watercourse by focusing his attention on the “uplands.” He blatantly told the commission members that state statutes dictate that they concern themselves only with the uplands.
Why doesn’t he realize the totality of his project and that the entire site is of concern and well within the scope of this project? Is he applying state statutes as he interprets them to ONLY these uplands where the now-downsized 42 units will sit and there is no threat to the Salmon Brook? His many permits should also include a request to build a type of retaining wall, especially if it is on the site as it “may potentially” cause harm. A landscape team member described activities that are occurring along and below the cliff/slope. Those too are well within the “uplands area.”
Moving forward, initially Vessel indicated that they are 200 ft away from the federally protected brook and wetlands that run into the Farmington River; however, they are actually less than 72 ft and 151 ft from the running watercourse. After I descended the 32° cliff/slope to measure and report on my measurements, Vessel agreed with me at the Feb. 14 meeting.
The pristine and federally-protected brook, river and wetlands are protected by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Title XIV subchapter B, which was developed in 1972 and subsequently passed by the Connecticut General Assembly.
Another serious issue is that these 42 units ultimately will become franchised and sit on approximately 1.4 acres of sandy soil. After months of Vessel being less than consistent and transparent, its representative disclosed, at a Granby Development Commission meeting on Feb. 15, that the units would indeed become franchises. The meeting was not taped. This goal would give “these” people an opportunity to become more knowledgeable about investing and developing their own businesses! Keep in mind we are still under a state mandate to have 10 percent of our housing stock dedicated and deed-restricted as affordable housing—Vessel never even presented that “set asides” would be a part of this development.
One more important issue that plagues this proposed development is that Vessel Technologies continues to disregard and acknowledge that they could hook up to the town sewer system that extends to Rushford Mead. Why? Money. To do so would present a substantial cost to them. You read in between the lines. Using a dictatory tone of voice, Vessel’s Attorney Hollister told the commission members that they will vote to approve this proposal because they have made modifications, and that every facet has been approved or waiting for sign off. Not really, but that’s more information YOU as residents need to discover! They’ve even developed a schedule for when they’ll begin digging!
Other issues and problems worth noting regarding environmental impact continue to exist for this once-proposed two-office building site containing a three-sided foundation set in sand.
I urge you to view the video-taped programs on GCTV (see town website for link).
I acknowledge, as do many others, that our boards and commission consist primarily of volunteers who are doing the best they can. Some have jobs, others are retired. However, several members of the public have repeatedly spoken to and questioned based on their own expertise—in-depth investigations and working knowledge that members of the IWWC need to acknowledge and accept equally as much as those presented by a developer that wants to assuage their concerns or inevitably threaten going to court. What statute or regulation states that any developer’s “team” of professionals is always right or supersedes local intelligence?
I urge you to become involved. As with other local issues your presence at meetings, writing to town officials and members of boards and commissions, voting, and even speaking out help many causes. In today’s society, remaining silent and then complaining after the fact and shaking your heads and asking “how did this happen?” won’t do anymore.
Editor’s Note: The next IWWC public hearing on Vessel’s application is Wednesday, March 13, at 7 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room