CONNECTICUT RIVERGATEWAY COMMISSION

CONNECTICUT RIVERGATEWAY COMMISSION

“Acute” need in NE for recreation opportunities

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

CT River National Recreation Area

Three “Units”: Coos Unit (NH and VT) Mount Holyoke Unit (Mass) Gateway Unit (Haddam to I-95)

Preservation of scenic character, town charm, and provision for “controlled public use”

HR 145 FEDERAL NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

January, 1971

HR 145 FEDERAL NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

January, 1971

• Gateway Unit “Conservation Zone”

• “Minimum standards”, established by U. S. Secretary of Interior, must be included in local Zoning Regulations

• States “encouraged” to transfer state-owned land to the Federal government

• Federal Government may acquire up to 5,000 acres privately owned lands “without owner’s consent” to meet purpose of the Act

• Residents in NH, VT, MA and CT each objected to Federal plan

• Cannot open lower valley area to a National Park without destroying the “priceless, natural beauty” to which Senators Ribicoff and Kennedy refer

• Quiet river communities cannot handle the challenges that hordes of park visitors would “throw upon us”

REACTION TO THECONNECTICUT RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION PARK PROPOSAL

REACTION TO THECONNECTICUT RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION PARK PROPOSAL

• To review and comment upon Federal proposals

• Committee pressed for two main elements:• Preservation of resources and present “way of life”• Strong LOCAL voice in determining boundaries, standards and

policies for park

• Committee finally rejected Federal plan and prepared an alternative plan:

• State legislation sponsored by Senator Peter Cashman proposed:

Public Act No. 74-103An Act Concerning the Connecticut River Gateway Zone

LOCAL REACTION: LOCAL REACTION: Formation of the Gateway Advisory CommitteeFormation of the Gateway Advisory Committee

• Old Saybrook, Old Lyme, Lyme, Essex, Deep River, Chester, Haddam and East Haddam

• 21 members

• Uniform zoning standards to be adopted into local town Zoning Regulations

• Gateway Conservation Zone

• Recommendation for areas where the DEP should purchase easements and development rights

• Gateway Committee would become the Gateway COMMISSION if: 5 of 8 member towns vote at town meeting to join the conservation compact. All 8 towns voted at individual Town Meetings to join.

• July 23, 1974: First Meeting of the Connecticut River Gateway Commission

Predecessor GATEWAY COMMITTEE and the GATEWAY COMMISSION

Predecessor GATEWAY COMMITTEE and the GATEWAY COMMISSION

“...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 ....”

Section 25-102a CGS

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

“NATURAL and TRADITIONAL”“NATURAL and TRADITIONAL”The “natural and traditional riverway scene”, as historically

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.

The “natural and traditional riverway scene”, as historically 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.

o Land Acquisition

o Minimum Zoning Standard

o Regulatory “Veto” Power

o Variance Review Authority

o Special Exception Reviews for Structures in excess of 4,000 Square Feet

GATEWAY TOOLSGATEWAY TOOLS

• Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Fundo Lawsuit over visually obtrusive Northeast Utilities power line towers,

East Haddam to Haddamo GW chosen in 1982 to receive a $1,000,000 settlement to be used for

“conservation and preservation projects”o Fund used for land acquisition and other conservation-related purposes

• Since 1973:o Over $1,000,000 spent in partnership with other conservation groups

(TNC, DEP, local land trusts and conservation commissions)o Over 1,000 acres preservedo Preservation in the form of conservation easements, acquisition of

development rights and, to a limited extent, in simple feeo GW is the “middle man”; GW acquires and then transfers to the State of CT

Tool #1: LAND ACQUISITION

Tool #1: LAND ACQUISITION

Regulate uses of property consistent with the GW mission

Promote protection and development consistent with GW mission according to:

oUsesoFrontageoBuilding coverageoSetbacks from the river and associated wetlandsoDesign and building height maximums oTree cutting

GW Standards last revised and adopted in 2004

Tool #2: MINIMUM ZONING STANDARDS

Tool #2: MINIMUM ZONING STANDARDS

"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.”

Tool #3:“VETO” POWER

Tool #3:“VETO” POWER

VARIANCES of local regulations for properties in Conservation Zone must be referred to the GW Commission for comment

GW Commission will oppose, not oppose or not oppose if certain conditions are applied

GW Commission has automatic legal standing in any case where variances of GW standards are involved

Tool #4: VARIANCE REVIEW AUTHORITY

Tool #4: VARIANCE REVIEW AUTHORITY

Goal: To minimize the visual “bulk” of development as viewed from the river and to minimize tree removal

Zoning Commission conducts Special Exception Review using Gateway Standards

GW Provides: Courtesy review by Staff with report of findings submitted to P&Z at Gateway’s cost

Tool #5:SPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEWS

for Structures > 4,000 SF

Tool #5:SPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEWS

for Structures > 4,000 SF

CHALLENGES LEADING TO THE CHALLENGES LEADING TO THE NECESSITY FOR NEW STANDARDSNECESSITY FOR NEW STANDARDS

o Site platforming and height measurement from “existing natural grade”

o Clear cutting and removal of visually-buffering trees and other vegetation

o Riparian buffers and protection of water quality

SitePlatforming

SitePlatforming

..... vs. height measured from

“existing natural grade”

..... vs. height measured from

“existing natural grade”

MINIMIZING VISUAL INTRUSIONMINIMIZING VISUAL INTRUSION

“Timber harvesting”, e.g. commercial tree cutting

Residential tree removal

Cases of “clear cutting”for view enhancement

TREE CUTTING

TREE CUTTING

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 BUFFERSErosion Prevention Stormwater Infiltration

Wildlife Habitat

50 ft RIPARIAN BUFFER and100 ft STRUCTURE SETBACK50 ft RIPARIAN BUFFER and

100 ft STRUCTURE SETBACK

CONNECTICUT RIVER GATEWAY COMMISSIONCONNECTICUT RIVER GATEWAY COMMISSION40 years of partnership with member towns in the 40 years of partnership with member towns in the

protection of the protection of the ““natural and traditional riverway scenenatural and traditional riverway scene” ” of the lower Connecticut River.....of the lower Connecticut River.....

www.ctrivergateway.org