Madison Landing, Sewage Treatment Data, and the Larger Issue

Residents of Madison and Guilford, along with some prominent environmentalists, are arguing that the Connecticut DEP shouldn’t approve the sewage treatment systems being proposed for two new developments, including Madison Landing. The data show that the sewage systems don’t work, they say.

Getting the right sewage treatment system is of course important. But there's a bigger issue too, particularly because sewage system problems can be solved by technology and money -- given enough money, a developer can find the right treatment system. So the bigger question is: Do we want innovative, attractive development, or do we want the Long Island Sound region to continue its trend of ugly, characterless sprawl?

First, the issue of whether the data are correct. Today’s Hartford Courant says the data were compiled by a summer intern who might not have been as careful as he or she should have been.

The sewage treatment system in question goes by the brand name Zenon. It’s in use at a number of places in the state. The opponents of Madison Landing, as well as other people, argue that it doesn’t work as well as developers claim, and so new projects shouldn’t be allowed to use it and therefore shouldn’t be built.

But David Funkhouser, advancing yesterday’s New Haven Register story, says in today’s Courant:

A state Department of Environmental Protection engineer said Tuesday that the data had been compiled by a summer intern at the DEP and "had some errors." Warren Herzig said the DEP is reviewing the numbers "to make sure that the data was accurate and that it paints an accurate picture of the performance of these facilities."

Herzig added: "We have had experience with the Zenon system in the past. There are many of them that function, and there are some that don't." He said the review should be complete within the next 10 days, and the DEP would then consider whether it needs to take enforcement action.

It’s obviously essential that new developments connect either to a well-run municipal sewage plant or to a private facility that everyone can feel confident about over the long haul. But there’s no question that LeylandAlliance, for example, can build a sewage system for Madison Landing that meets the state requirements; whether they can afford to do so is their problem.

The more important issue is one of land use planning, and it’s here that local opponents and even state environmentalists have missed the boat.

I’m not overly familiar with Guilford Commons, for example, but as someone who lived in Connecticut for 13 years and has visited much of the state, my feeling is that Connecticut needs another ordinary shopping center about as much as it needs more cars on the Merritt Parkway in the evening. To me it doesn’t matter what sewage treatment system they use. What matters is whether land use planning and the development that follows it meets the larger needs of the community and of the environment.

Those things are harder to judge than whether wastewater discharge meets state standards, and an environmentalist from New Haven or Greenwich may be reluctant to stick his or her nose into the long-term planning process in Madison or Guilford that led to a particular zoning designation and eventually to a particular proposal.

But to try to stop a particular development by arguing that its sewage treatment plan is inadequate is a short-term tactic, and it’s probably destined to fail. And if that’s your main argument against a project, you need to be willing to agree to let it go forward once the sewage treatment issue is solved.

Madison Landing isn’t perfect. For one thing, its 55-and-older rule means that children will not live there, which means it will never be a real community. That’s a serious flaw (but it’s one that local officials, wary of new school children, impose). But as a region we need to move beyond typical subdivisions, shopping centers and strip malls. Madison Landing would do that.

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: What Kind of Development is OK for the Long Island Sound Area?

What kind of development should be allowed near Long Island Sound? Does it matter if a project is a typical subdivision, with houses spread out on large lots, or a "new urbanist" development that tries to create a neighborhood that fits in with the larger community?

In Madison, Connecticut, a developer wants to build 127 houses on an old airport next to Hammonasset state park, and use a septic system to treat its sewage.

Madison Landing, as it's called, is different because it is new urbanist. It will have sidewalks, streets that lead somewhere rather than cul-de-sacs, front porches, houses and townhouses on relatively small lots, a community meeting place, a trail near the salt marsh. It was designed by Duany Plater-Zyberk, a firm that has made its reputation proselytizing for traditional neighborhoods and against commonplace subdivisions.

Has that won it good will among neighbors? Not much apparently.

More important, though, is that while the development company has gotten town approvals, it has yet to convince the Connecticut DEP that its sewage won't affect Hammonasset and the Sound. Last week the Hartford Courant reported:

Engineers at the DEP are scrutinizing the designs for Madison Landing's septic system, to make sure sewage and wastewater from the proposed development won't end up in the Hammonasset River and the sensitive salt marsh that surrounds the property.

The long delay has raised the hopes of residents in Clinton and Madison who have opposed the project for years.

I happen to be biased in favor of "new urbanist" projects, and I'm friends with a couple of the people who worked tangentially on Madison Landing, which might make me more biased. But this seems to be one of those situations where a piece of property -- in this case, the old airport -- is going to be developed one way or another, and probably should be developed. So do you want a typical large-lot subdivision? A mall? More suburban sprawl? Or is it worth trying something new?

One of the people I know who worked on it is John Massengale, an architect and new urbanist planner, who participated in a charette for the project in 2001 and 2002. Last week I asked John about it in an e-mail. Here's what he said:

My reaction to reading the story is that the residents of Madison don’t really know as much about sewage and septic as they pretend to, but that they are NIMBYs grasping at whatever environmental straw they can.

Should the project be stopped if it is doing environmental damage? Yes.

Is the motive of Madison residents saving the environment? I don’t think so.

Nobody is helped by NIMBYs who use whatever means they can to try to stop projects.

A review process intended to judge the quality of the project would be an entirely different project.

John says that a town in New York that he and I are familiar with "makes developers jump through environmental hoops and still ends up with BAD PLACES, because they are not judging the quality of the places they review." He adds:

Sometimes they think they are, but they have lawyers, engineers and non-visual planners advising them.

Do you know Dana Beach, the Director of the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (SCCCL)? Many years ago he commissioned Dover Kohl [a planning firm] to study the effects of concentrated development versus sprawl, and more recently he’s written a paper for the Pew Ocean Commission (which he’s on, I think).

One of Andres’s standard comments is that environmentalists won’t let us build Charleston today. Dana comments that we have to look at the big picture and make tradeoffs for the common good and the environment as a whole.

Nobody wants their hometown to change dramatically, and nobody wants development that's going to damage Long Island Sound. But the old airport is going to be built on, so let's move past suburban sprawl and get something better. Here's hoping the DEP scrutinizes it as closely as anything it's ever scrutinized, and finds that it's worthy of approving.

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 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.

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.

Do We Want Madison Landing or Do We Want Typical Suburban Development?

I drove up to Orange County, New York, last March to take a look at Warwick Grove, the so-called smart growth, TND ( for traditional neighborhood development) subdivision being built in Warwick by LeylandAlliance. It’s not utopia but, after having driven past mile after mile of shopping centers and tract houses built in what used to be farms, I thought it was a lot better than what we usually allow to disfigure the landscape.

LeylandAlliance wants to build a similar project, called Madison Landing, on the site of the old Clinton airport, next to Hammonasset State Park, in Madison, Connecticut. Naturally there’s a group of neighbors who oppose it.

In Warwick, Leyland had a legitimate environmental issue to solve – namely, the presence of bog turtles, a federally threatened species, in nearby wetlands – and apparently the company is in the process of doing so, to the satisfaction of everyone involved.

In Madison, the issue is sewage. Leyland wants to use a sewage treatment technology that it says is fine but that opponents say isn’t (this New Haven Register story is a classic example of the he said-she said kind of reporting that, rather than shining light on the issue, leaves the reader wondering what’s really going on).

Leyland needs a permit from the state to build its sewage treatment plant, and the opponents have written a letter to DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy asking her to deny Leyland’s application. Leah Schmalz, of Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound, and Tom Baptist, executive director of Audubon Connecticut, were among those who signed the letter.

One of the issues is whether the Xenon system that Leyland wants to use removes a sufficient amount of nitrogen, which is the nutrient that causes Long Island Sound’s dissolved oxygen problems.

The problem for Connecticut officials and for Long Island Sound advocates is that the state is committed to reducing nitrogen levels by 58.5 percent everywhere, at all sewage treatment plants.

But of course nobody truly believes that the relatively small amount of nitrogen that one 127-house development will put into the Sound in Madison will have any affect whatsoever on the Sound’s dissolved oxygen problem, which is and always has been limited to the western half of the Sound. Click through these DEP hypoxia maps, and you’ll see that that’s true.

But for political reasons (which I agree with), the 58.5 percent reduction was applied across the board, and so now the state and Leyland Alliance is stuck with it.

The other issue is that if the state and the environmentalists and the neighbors can’t see a way to approve projects like Leyland’s, we’ll be stuck with the kind of typical suburban development that is just as bad in terms of sewage and stormwater runoff, and is uglier by far, but which is easier to approve because it’s what we’re used to.

Connecticut Approves Madison Landing Project Near Hammonasset

Catching up on news that happened when I wasn't paying attention, the Madison Landing housing development, proposed for a defunct airport next to Hammonasset State Park, got its final approval from the state last week for the use of a sewage treatment system that some people say is great while others revile.

The developers want to build 127 houses on 42 acres. Lots of people, including friends of mine in the environmental community, think it's a horror show. Others, including friends and acquaintances who worked on the project, think it's a good project because it represents a break from the kind of sprawling, single-family development that has scarred Connecticut's landscape.

My opinion is that if the property is so crucial for environmental protection, the neighbors and the environmentalists who oppose it should start a campaign to persuade the town and the state to buy it. Here's the Courant's story, from last week.

Connecticut Made a Bad Deal When It Traded Land To Allow Denser Development in Madison Next to Hammonasset

The head of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection was apparently so eager to see an old airport next to the state's busiest park developed into offices or houses that he pretty much gave away state land to allow access to the site, despite a state policy against doing so. So says the Hartford Courant, in an example of first-rate reporting aided by first-rate digging on the part of environmentalists who don't want to see the land developed.

The land that the state gave away opened the former Griswold Airport, which is 42 acres and is next to Hammonasset State Park in Madison, to the potential for much more intensive development than otherwise would have been allowed. In exchange for the access, the state received a conservation easement on one-fifth of an acre.

The property is now being considered for a 127-unit housing development, called Madison Landing, proposed by Leyland Alliance. I've praised it in the past, here, because it represents a break from the suburban sprawl that I think has marred much of the landscape in Connecticut and beyond. I've also said that if it would damage Hammonasset, opponents should concentrate on persuading the state to buy it rather than in reducing the density of the development. I don't think the news about the land swap changes my opinion of the development but it does strengthen the argument for state acquisition.

Here's what Kim Martineau of the Courant reports about the land swap:

The former DEP commissioner, Arthur Rocque Jr., had approved the easement exchange without public notification, appraisals or justifying its compatibility with park purposes, the council found. Rocque, it turns out, had ignored a policy crafted by the DEP and the Council on Environmental Quality in 1990.

Although Rocque approved the land swap, he did so despite hearing strong opposition based on sound reasoning from his staff. From the Courant

A Branford developer in 1996 proposed building a golf course on the site. To acquire the needed frontage on Route 1, the developer asked the DEP for a land swap that internally drew condemnation.

Roger Kinderman, supervisor of Hammonasset, estimated that the state land was worth "hundreds of thousands of dollars," and suggested that the state buy the airport.

"Perhaps since we already own the only access to this airport, we should buy the airport and develop an expanded, modern campground which could also be Connecticut's only salt water boating access," he proposed.

The wildlife division worried that development might degrade the state nature preserve nearby. "Exchanging road frontage owned by DEP would only help facilitate the encroachment on the natural area preserve," wrote Peter Bogue, assistant director.

"I do not see the benefit to the state on this one," echoed James Moulton, an inland fisheries director. "But it might be worth it if the trade includes all the marsh/wetland abutting the Hammonasset River."

If I were the guys at Leyland Alliance, I might have my attorney make a call today to see if the state is interested in buying the old airport, for a fair price. And the people in Madison who think the development, and who no doubt support the concept of private property and private property rights, ought to follow that with calls to the governor and their state representatives to come up with the money.

Federal Money Might Be Coming Toward the Sound, and Other News

$25 million for land stewardship ... Rep. Steve Israel, of Long Island, held a press conference yesterday to tell reporters the news that he supports the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act, which is a huge surprise since he’s sponsoring it. The two co-chairs of the Long Island Sound Study’s Citizens Advisory – Nancy Seligson, who lives in Westchester County, and John Atkin, who lives in Connecticut – joined him. Here, in a nutshell, is what the act would do, according to Newsday:

The legislation would authorize up to $25 million a year to protect sites along the Sound. Some of the sites will be open spaces that the funding would help preserve. Others would be private property that owners voluntarily sell …

It didn’t pass last year – Tom DeLay’s anti-environmentalist protégé, Richard Pombo, killed it – but Israel thinks it has a good shot this year.

People love this statistic, by the way:

He pointed out that 10 percent of the people in the United States live within 50 miles of the Sound.

The truth is though that it’s meaningless. Ten percent of the population lives within 50 miles of, say, the Hackensack River too, but so what?

Broadwater update … There’s been little Broadwater news lately, so yesterday Adrienne Esposito, of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, sent out this e-mail:

I thought you all would like an update on the Broadwater process. Here's the most up to date information regarding the timelines and hearings.

The US Coast Guard is predicting that they will release the safety and security report in the middle of June. This report will go to FERC and will be part of the Draft EIS. I spoke with FERC and they are currently planning to release the Draft EIS in August. They are also in the process of scheduling public hearings, most likely in September, but they are not yet scheduled.

The NYS Department of State has sent the Broadwater application back as incomplete. Broadwater is expected to resubmit their application to the state by the end of June. This means that, in accordance with the new energy act of 2006, the Consistency Ruling will need to be issued from DOS by December 2006.

Two new developments … Kyle Raban, at Friends of the Bay, is working to stop a big housing project by Avalon, in Oyster Bay. Their plans include a protest march on Sunday. More information is here and here.

Another big development is being planned for Storrs, by LeylandAlliance, a company I happen to know about and like. Basically, they’ve been hired to create a downtown for the University of Connecticut. Leyland is the developer for the Madison Landing project, which a lot of shoreline Connecticut residents don’t love. Here’s what I wrote about it last summer.


Geography lesson ... Where exactly is Winged Foot, the golf course where the U.S. Open is being held again this year?

This historic course lies across Long Island Sound from Manhattan Island.

That eyebrow-raising geographical description comes from a newspaper called the Daily Times, of Maryville, Tennessee:

Of course you could get in a boat on the East River, sail through Hell Gate and past Throgs Neck, and dock at Harbor Island (if Jim Mancusi, Mamaroneck’s harbor master lets you), and then get a taxi to Winged Foot, so I guess technically it is across the Sound from Manhattan. But it takes a different geographical perspective, I guess, to describe it that way.