CONNECTICUT RIVER GATEWAY COMMISSION CONNECTICUT RIVER GATEWAY 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 THE CONNECTICUT RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION PARK PROPOSAL REACTION TO THE CONNECTICUT 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 An Act Concerning the Connecticut River Gateway Zone LOCAL REACTION: Formation 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 a CGS LEGISLATIVE FINDING

“...to preserve the aesthetic and ecological natural beauty of the lower Connecticut River valley for present and future generations....” GATEWAY MISSION

“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 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 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 TOOLS

Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Fund o Lawsuit over visually obtrusive Northeast Utilities power line towers, East Haddam to Haddam o 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 preserved o Preservation in the form of conservation easements, acquisition of development rights and, to a limited extent, in simple fee o 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: o Uses o Frontage o Building coverage o Setbacks from the river and associated wetlands o Design and building height maximums o Tree 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 NECESSITY 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

Site Platforming Site Platforming..... vs. height measured from “existing natural grade”..... vs. height measured from “existing natural grade”

MINIMIZING 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 TREES In 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 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.

RIPARIAN BUFFERS Erosion Prevention Stormwater Infiltration Wildlife Habitat

50 ft RIPARIAN BUFFER and 100 ft STRUCTURE SETBACK