ctrivergateway
DESCRIPTION
CONNECTICUT RIVER GATEWAY COMMISSION. www.ctrivergateway.org. HR 145 FEDERAL NATIONAL RECREATION AREA January, 1971. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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