Connecticut Appears Ready to Approve Madison Landing, Next to Hammonasset

Good news for a big new development next to Hammonasset State Park in Madison, bad news for the people who want to stop it: a hearing officer for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection has decided that a new-fangled sewage treatment system will be adequate to handle the waste of 127 new houses.

The project is called Madison Landing. It's proposed for the old Griswold Airport. The reason it's different and imporant is that the developer -- Leyland Alliance -- wants to build in a relatively dense, "traditional" development rather than a less dense sprawl-type development. And they want to build it next to the state's busiest park, which happens to be on Long Island Sound.

Lots of people who I respect, including my friends at Audubon Connecticut, think it's a bad idea. The fellow who writes the Connecticut Smart Growth blog, up in northwestern Connecticut, thinks it's a bad idea too. My opinion is that Connecticut needs to do something to counter prevailing development practices, which have turned much of the state into indistinguishable strips. So if Griswold Airport is going to be developed, then Leyland's plan should get a shot.
But I also agree that the state and the town of Madison should start to talk to Leyland about a sale for preservation. The Courant today says (here) that Leyland isn't interested in selling, but as someone who is in the land preservation business, I can say confidently that what developers say in public isn't always what they say in private. And money talks.

Speaking of which, the Madison residents who are opposing Madison Landing need to put their money where their mouths are, in the form of a local bond issue to raise acquisition funds and also in the form of private donations from their own bank accounts. If protecting Griswold Airport is that important, make a commitment to it.

Here's what I've had to say about Madison Landing in the past.

Madison Landing, Development and Alternative Sewage Treatment

A few people were unhappy that I endorsed the use of alternative sewage systems for projects such as Madison Landing. The details are in the comments to yesterday's post, here.

What I should make clear -- and what I thought went without saying -- is that I endorse the use of alternative sewage technologies if they work. I endorse the use of alternative sewage technologies for projects that make sense. I do not endorse them for typical suburban sprawl subdivisions or shopping centers, and I do not endorse them for projects that couldn't otherwise be built because the land on which they are proposed has true environmental constraints.

One of the things I said yesterday to a fellow from Madison who is leading the opposition to Madison Landing is that I would no sooner take his word on the effectiveness of alternative sewage technologies than I would take the developer's word. As if on cue, Sally Harold, of the Nature Conservancy's Saugatuck Forest Lands Project (in the Saugatuck River watershed) sent me a link to a study, with lots of good recommendations, that the Nature Conservancy did on alternative sewage technology after a number of questionable developments were proposed for the watershed.

The paper is here and is worth reading.

Sprawl, Sewage, and Madison Landing

There’s an old saying among land use planning types: zoning is your destiny. If you zone for strip and sprawl development, you’ll get strip and sprawl development. Which is why much of Connecticut has turned into hideous, characterless strips and suburban sprawl.

So if you live in a town whose zoning calls for sprawl-type development and you try to fight it by arguing against improved sewage treatment technology, you’re either being disingenuous or ignorant. But that’s what’s happening among people in Connecticut who call themselves environmentalists. What’s more, they’re using that argument to try to stop projects (Madison Landing, a new urbanist development proposed for an old airport in Madison, near Hammonasset State Park) that are not suburban sprawl.

I’ve written about Madison Landing here, here and here. And here’s a New Haven Register story about the issue. Typically though it asserts that some people think that the improved sewage treatment system is flawed but never actually discusses whether it is or not. It shouldn’t be that hard to gather the evidence, should it?

(Environmentalists in Connecticut, by the way, have argued to me that Madison Landing is a bad idea because it’s next to Hammonasset, which has a great public beach on Long Island Sound and a big salt marsh. That might be so but if it is, the solution is to buy the land from the Madison Landing people; by arguing that the sewage system is inadequate the only result will be 30 typical McMansions with individual septic systems rather than 127 houses in a traditional neighborhood design. So by all means, persuade the state to buy it. But don’t settle for more suburban sprawl.)

Madison Landing Gets a Tentative OK From The Connecticut DEP

The state of Connecticut appears ready to give its approval to the proposed Madison Landing development, next to Hammonnasset State Park, a project that some environmentalists and smart growth proponents (like Audubon Connecticut and Connecticut Fund for the Environment) oppose and some environmentalists and smart growth proponents (like me) think is a good idea.

Last week the state issued a tentative permit that would allow the developers, Leland Alliance, to build a sewage treatment plant to serve 127 new houses and discharge 52,500 gallons a wastewater a day. The requirements for the treatment plant seem both strict and completely reasonable:

* Limit the total amount of potential pollutants, including nitrogen, that may be discharged into groundwater. DEP is requiring an advanced level of treatment to minimize pollutant loading to enhance and maintain the long-term health of the Long Island Sound. Nitrogen, which is contained in domestic sewage and other discharges, was closely evaluated because of the negative impact it has on water quality, natural resources and aquatic life.
* Require that a state-certified wastewater treatment operator be responsible for the operation, maintenance and monitoring of the system to assure compliance with the discharge permit. The Department has already obtained certification from the Town of Madison that it will ensure the effective management of the system through the establishment of financial and institutional controls to be negotiated by the applicant and the Town.
* Require that the design engineer, wastewater treatment operator, and Zenon system representative provide written confirmation that the Zenon system is operating within design specifications and permit conditions within three months of startup.
* Require that a state-licensed professional engineer perform an audit every two years to evaluate compliance with the permit and ensure the proper operation of the Zenon system. The results of the audit will be reported to the DEP, the Madison Water Pollution Control Authority and the Madison Health Department.

The permit is tentative to allow for a public comment period:

The tentative decision on the permit triggers a 30-day public comment period, which ends January 16, 2007, during which comments on the recommended action can be submitted to DEP for consideration. The agency will also schedule a public hearing on the proposed permit if it receives a formal request to do so. After reviewing public comments – and the finding of the hearing officer if there is a public hearing - DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy will make a final decision on the permit.

I think the Madison Landing project is a good because it’s compact, it’s built on a site that was already developed and therefore it isn’t gobbling up valuable open space, and because if it works it might encourage other communities to rethink their development policies, which have done nothing but turn Connecticut into endless subdivisions connected by ugly strip malls. I wish it weren’t next to Hammonasset, but that’s life.

If you’re interested in a longer discussion of why I like Madison Landing, I wrote about it here and here and here.