Don’t get caught napping on Seaside
O n July 31, 7 p.m., in Waterford Town Hall, there will be another round in the Seaside State Park Master Plan Shell Game. Although The Day article (July 4) reports that state officials are still accepting public comments on multiple possibilities for the park design, it would be a mistake to believe that the planning process is still in the Selection Phase. It is not.
When Gov. Dannel P. Malloy designated Seaside Regional Center as a state park in September 2014, he was credited with rescuing the property from an ambitious development plan, and a collective sigh of relief was heard from neighbors and conservationists. Following that, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) held Seaside State Park planning meetings, complete with slide shows, concept drawings, and group discussions. At two of the meetings, surveys were distributed. One of three plan designs included a “rustic lodge,” which was worrisome to neighbors, but well received by historic building fans.
In April 2016, DEEP unveiled a feasibility study specific to the Destination concept, and the Park Master Plan then morphed into an economic development plan in which the rustic lodge became a deluxe 100-room hotel/resort and event facility. Despite the fact that the word “hotel” had never been included in any survey question; that the public’s opinion of this Destination Park model was not canvassed; and that only 35 percent of previous respondents felt that a “small inn or bed and breakfast” was an appropriate activity in the park, the Destination concept was declared to be the model that best met the Master Plan goals. Thus ended the Public Planning Meeting Phase of Seaside Park and the Implementation Phase began.
The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) requires DEEP to perform an Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) disclosure because its park project will affect the environment. It began with a public “scoping” hearing to collect concerns and comments about the proposed actions, which the audience understood to be three plans, one of which had been “upgraded.” In the EIE report, there are suddenly four park proposals — Passive, Ecological, the Destination Park Plan from the feasibility study and the public meeting of May 2016, and a new model referred to as the Preferred Hybrid Alternative Park Plan. Clearly, the Preferred Hybrid Alternative is being promoted for implementation, and the alternate plans are included for comparison purposes, as required.
While DEEP officials are experts at navigating their way through the red-tape of an environmental action, the average citizen has very little understanding of how to participate in a meaningful way. At this point, DEEP has had nearly three years to compile expert testimony to endorse their vision for the Preferred Hybrid Park, while the public gets one public hearing and a few weeks of comment period to rebut the erroneous claim “that there would be no adverse impacts to land use/neighborhoods by the creation of a Destination or Hybrid Park.”
The public bears the burden of proof to argue that the EIE is not satisfactory. Some deficiencies in the EIE include:
The course change from three models to four was confusing and undermined the public’s responses to the scoping process;
The comparison of alternative impacts “does not include the employees or visitors to the lodging facilities...”;
The report contains no empirical data describing the intensity of use of a commercial activity such as a hotel/resort or its impacts when located in a residential neighborhood;
The economic data has no examination of the opportunity cost of speculating with taxpayers’ funds for a capital project for which there is no critical need.
Given these deficiencies, the Office of Policy and Management should determine the EIE to be incomplete.
Waterford residents and avid park goers need to voice their concerns at the July 31 meeting and during the comment period that ends Aug. 25. If the public is lulled into complacency due to the complexity of the Implementation Process, or the belief that a $45 million Hybrid Park Plan is too big to succeed, Seaside State Park could soon become the site of a luxury hotel resort and spa, and a “public park” in name only.