With Chair Ron Clark saying it was likely there would still be questions concerning the project going forward, the public hearing period for a proposed marina and associated development on the East River has been extended again after another approximately two-hour presentation in front of members of the public and the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC).

The project as proposed would include a restaurant or retail space, a two-bedroom residential area, a boardwalk, and parking lots, along with infrastructure associated with the water-based part of the project.

Disputes over the project, which mostly center around its environmental impact, are complex and stretch back at least six years, according to public documents and town officials, with some residents and experts continuing to say it will cause irreparable damage to protected wetlands.

The property, 3.35 acres of land south of Boston Post Road abutting the river, once housed a similar development, according to representatives of Yarde Realty Company, which is behind the proposed development, but has sat vacant for several decades. It has been endorsed by the Madison Economic Development Commission.

The project would sit on or near marshland that is sensitive and likely to be affected by any significant development, and requires review through the state Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP).

The property’s owner, Michael Barnes, was issued a cease and desist by Madison’s zoning enforcement officer in 2013 for illegally dumping fill material on the site, according to public documents. That decision was upheld on appeal.

Since then, Barnes has received approval from DEEP and the Army Corps of Engineers for the marina portion of the project with approximately 45 floating boat slips. Yarde Realty also restored tidal wetlands to the satisfaction of DEEP to make up for the previous violation.

At a public hearing last month, the Madison Land Conservation Trust (MLCT) filed a legal petition to intervene on the project, which is something state law specifically allows a third party to do when there are potential environmental impacts to a project. MLCT cited specific issues with the project, including “threat of increased erosion and sedimentation of wetlands,” impairing the migration of salt marshes in the area, and harm to endangered species.

MLCT withdrew the petition at the beginning of the most recent public hearing session on Feb. 20 and allowed it to be struck from the record, though MLCT President Ben Diebold told The Source that the organization was still opposed to the project and planned to stay involved.

At the Feb. 20 hearing, Joe Wren, an engineer working on the project, presented changes to the project in response to concerns raised by residents at the last public hearing in January, including increasing the buffer zone significantly between the development and nearby tidal wetlands, and decreasing the amount of fill used by 20 percent.

Diebold said he saw a clear effort by the applicant to listen to what people had to say, calling them “steps in a positive direction,” but said the project continued to pose a danger to the marshland when the fill or other runoff spreads.

“The area is going to flood—everybody understands. That’s the part that I don’t get. It already floods at high tide. It’s going to flood, it’s going to get topped with water when a Hurricane Sandy event comes along...It feels like it’s a short-term solution, but it will be permanent damage to the marsh,” he said.

Wren disputed that the area would be regularly flooded at the hearing in January, and outlined ways the project aimed to mitigate any potential for polluting the river, including permeable services to stop runoff, and finer gravel-like fill and a vegetative buffer around the property, something recommended by DEEP.

More to Discuss

Members of PZC brought up a handful of other issues with the project, specifically with boat storage and parking, and also the fact that some documentation had only been provided to them that day, meaning it could not be properly reviewed before the hearing.

Clark said he had hoped to end the public hearing on Feb. 20, putting the PZC on an approximately two-month timeline to make a ruling on the proposed project and barring it from considering any new materials or information. But he said there were enough questions and changes to the project to warrant extending the hearing.

“We’ve gotten a lot of information here that was submitted that we haven’t even seen...If we close it tonight, we can’t ask about it,” he said.

Clark specifically cited boat storage and parking when extending the hearing. He had pressed Barnes several times during the meeting on specifics, including whether parking space would be adequate, how many boats would be stored at the marina in the water and on land, and how they would be effectively moved in and out of the river.

“I’m becoming more uncomfortable with some of the information I’m gathering,” Clark said.

Barnes said he was using a common ratio used by other marinas based off the peak seasonal use to determine what would be adequate for parking, a method Town Planner Dave Anderson said the town has approved in the past.

Both Clinton and Guilford use similar, but not identical calculations, according to Barnes.

Wren also said that even when the marina might be used at peak capacity, there was other parking designated for restaurant or retail space that could be used.

More than a few environmental issues were raised as well during the Feb. 20 meeting, despite changes to the project in response to previous concerns, with questions over the inherent dangers of flooding to the area as well as the continued potential of destroying or damaging the habitats of endangered species.

Marjorie Shansky, an attorney representing Yarde Realty, opened the meeting by providing a memo from DEEP Deputy Commissioner Betsey Wingfield stating that revisions to the project have “satisfied” their concerns.

Yarde Realty had also previously committed to hiring a mammalogist and an ornithologist to examine the property and determine potential disruption to the habitats of two species posited to live on the property: the least shrew and the salt marsh sparrow, whose conservation status in the state are endangered and vulnerable, respectively.

At the February hearing, Yarde Realty presented Michael Klein, who introduced himself at the meeting as a biologist and soil scientist, to examine the property.

Klein said that he had determined that there was no chance that these two animals actually exist there, though this was disputed by Dr. Kealoha Freidenburg, a member of the MLCT and Yale University faculty member whose areas of expertise include conservation, ecology, and suburban wetlands, according to her university biography.

“I’m not sure we can definitely say without actually looking for it that [the shrew] is not there...I’m not clear why we’re all the sudden dismissing the least shrew,” Freidenburg said at the meeting. “I know the salt marsh sparrow isn’t here because it’s migratory, but we haven’t discussed that either. And so [we are] kind of dismissing things that no one looked for, and that DEEP hasn’t responded to yet.”

Klein reiterated that there was no potential for these species to live there due to a lack of suitable habitat, and cited his master’s degree in environmental science, as well as the experience of another member of his firm that walked the site, whom Klein said has a bachelor’s degree in wildlife management.

Freidenburg told The Source via email that she did not think Klein could definitively say there were no shrews living on the property, and cited a 2016 letter from DEEP that stated that there are extant populations in the area.

The letter, which Freidenburg provided to The Source, also says that “site specific surveys...may be required for environmental assessments” and cannot be replaced by consultation with DEEP’s Wildlife Division.

Freidenburg also pointed out that Klein is neither an ornithologist, mammalogist, or wildlife biologist, as promised by Yarde Realty.

As far as the salt marsh sparrow, Freidenburg referred to a letter from UConn conservation biology professor Chris Elphick, who has specifically studied birds in the marsh, she said, and wrote to the PZC concerning the project.

Elphick laid out the dire status of the sparrow in his letter, saying that it was likely to be extinct in Connecticut “by mid-century.” He described the marshland along the East River as a “last bastion” for these kinds of birds, and said it has been specifically identified as a potential area for marsh restoration.

Diebold also told The Source he did not think Klein’s work was a sufficient step to determine the impact on the endangered species.

“He thought he didn’t see the kind of sandy soil that is typically associated with least shrew habitats, but we don’t know what his work actually entailed—we didn’t see a sampling plan, we didn’t see test pits, we didn’t see any test results, any measurements he took. I don’t know what he did,” Diebold said.

As far as flooding, Freidenburg said she “suspect[s] that without extraordinary measures (e.g., sea walls or other shoreline hardening, increased fill) much of the site will be inundated in 20 to 50 years.” She cited a UConn model that shows the site being partially inundated by projected sea level rise in 30 years, and totally inundated by any “100 year flood event,” as defined by the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Anderson told The Source that the town has not done any specific studies of the site for flooding, but that it does lie in a FEMA flood zone.

The next public hearing on the project will be the final hearing before the PZC renders a decision on the project, Anderson said. The hearing date has not been announced.