Protect the Partrick Wetlands
and our Community

Continued Arguments and Intervention to the proposal submitted to the Conservation Commission



In Re: Application of
ARS Partners, LLC for
The Reserve at Poplar Plains
#IWW, WPL 6874-02


This First Memorandum of Opposition dated December 2, 2002 is submitted on behalf of Intervenors Matthew Mandell and Bert Aber of 38 Partrick Road, Westport, Connecticut. The entire record of the original general proceeding #6678-01 has been incorporated into this proceeding and to the extent applicable any items should be referenced. The current proposed changes still have significant impact on wetlands and aquifers. While mitigative measures, engineering controls and management practices proposed by the applicant to address these impacts are insufficient to fully mitigate the potential impact.

We are in complete agreement with the first memorandum of Intervenors Arthur Cohen and Claudia Cohen dated November 13th, 2002. And would second their arguments.

We believe this application is a new application and not a modified one since numerous changes have occurred that were not in relation to conditions set by the prior decision. This being said a full denial of this application is possible as well as a partial denial and acceptance.

We believe the deed restrictions suggested to be imposed on the proposed home owners will be unworkable, unenforceable and legally abandoned. Since the restrictions imposed would be totally needed to protect the wetlands, habitats and aquifer, the resulting abandonment and disregard for the restrictions would be devastating.

We again reiterate our reasoning for houses 23 & 24 to be denied or approved with greater setbacks, 85' or 100' since they are above the aquifer and within proximity to a water course. The upland is not large enough to sustain these houses. The underlying upland is a critical habitat for all animals to the west of this upland. Destruction of the upland will result in harm to the surrounding species and habitat. This upland is needed to help sustain the habitats for all species to the South and East of Poplar Brook. There is substantial enough evidence in the record, by Mr. Rachovansky and Ms. Laurecella to prove this.

We find reason for the increased setback of 45' imposed by the commission, but we question the arbitrary use of it. We believe a global use of the 45' setback was warranted and 85' on all houses above the aquifer.

We further assert that disturbance of the soils and groundwater during construction of this development will adversely affect the aquifer and surrounding wells.

Matthew Mandell
38 Partrick Rd

Back to main page