Although the popular Bennie’s Farm Market will remain, essentially, the same under its new ownership, some major changes are on the way. Located at 5 Main Street in the Centerbrook section of Essex, the new owners of Bennie’s are members of the Patel family, who were originally from India.

According to Sky Patel, the family member now in overall charge of Bennie’s, going forward Bennie’s will put an even greater emphasis on offering, top of the line, prime meats. “We do exceptionally well with our prime roast beef,” Patel noted in a recent interview.

Also, under Sky Patel’s direction the new Bennie’s will add a new home delivery services for area residents. Patel recognizes that during the winter months some of Bennie’s patrons, particularly seniors, have difficulty coming to the market. “So we’ll go to them, “is the way he puts it.

[The number to call for Bennie’s home delivery service is 860-767-8448.]

Also, under Bennie’s new management there will be a new emphasis in offering a wide range of catering services. Patel says that Bennie’s will now offer catering services for all occasions, such as weddings, corporate events and extended family get to gathers.

In addition to the market’s new catering services, Bennie’s will offer in its sales repertoire Italian gourmet food and Pasta Vista selections.

Former Owner Operated Bennie’s for 33 Years

The previous owner of Bennie’s, David Costa, operated Bennie’s Farm Market for over 33 years. The name “Bennie’s,” incidentally, comes from the first name of David’s father, who himself owned the market before his son.

David Costa then sold the market to the Patel family late, last November, and according to Sky Patel, the new owners have promised to retain all of the present senior staff at the market.

For example, Bennie’s Deli Manager Karl Kulisch, who himself has worked at Bennie’s for 13 years, will continue working behind the counter under the new management. As for the reasons for selling Bennie’s, according to Kulisch, “David wanted to retire, and he got a good offer. So he accepted it.”

New Owners Have Wide Experience in Running Food Markets

The new owners of Bennie’s are by no means strangers to operating retail food stores in Connecticut. In addition to their recent acquisition of Benny’s Farm Market, the Patel family owns the popular Bliss Market in Wethersfield, as well as a Krauszer’s Deli in East Hartford and the Dairy Farm in Glastonbury.

At the family’s “upscale” Bliss Market in Wethersfield, home delivery of food items has been a great success, according to Patel. He anticipates that such services will be a success as well at Bennie’s.

As time goes by, Patel says that he intends to give Bennie’s an evolving new look. Also, there will be an increase in Sunday hours, from the present 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., to 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday thru Saturday hours will remain the same, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

As for its operation of Bennie’s Farm Market, so far, according to chief owner, Sky Patel, “Customers have been really nice.” Also, he personally reaffirms, “The present staff is really good, and all of the senior staff is staying.”

Summing up his experience in Essex so far, Patel says with a smile, “Essex is a really great town.”

The Essex Planning Commission has decided to junk its original plan to create a “public access” pathway, running down from Foxboro Road to the waters of North Cove. The pathway plan was originally put forward as a condition for the Commission’s approval of the development of 11 plus acres at Foxboro Point by a private developer, Frank J. Sciame, Jr. This original plan had been challenged by developer Sciame, and, separately, by a group of Foxboro Point neighbors, in state Superior Court.

In place of the original plan, the Commission has now accepted a “compromise plan” with Sciame’s development company, which would create a new, small pocket park on Foxboro Road. The original “public access” walkway from Foxboro Road down to North Cove, once agreed to be the Commission, has now been completely abandoned.

At the Commission’s recent November 27 meeting, Sciame’s counsel, Terrance Lomme, offered the Commission the compromise proposal. This proposal eliminates, totally, the “public access” walkway to the water, and puts in its place a small, pocket park off Foxboro Road.

Final Approval of Compromise Plan at December Meeting

The final acceptance by the Commission of the roadside public park proposal is expected to take place at the Commission’s December meeting. The measurements of the small, pocket park are 75 feet by 80 feet, with an overall size of 6195 square feet.

In contrast, the square footage of the now junked, public pathway to the water from Foxboro Road to North Cove would have required 21,500 square feet on the development site.

Not a single member of the Planning Commission raised an objection to the complete scuttling of the Commission’s original “walk to the water” proposal at the November meeting, at least in the public portion of that meeting.                 

Secret Commission Discussions of Compromise Plan

The Commission made its decision to junk the original “walk to the water” plan, and to replace it with a small pocket park, at a two hour Executive Session at its November meeting. The general public is excluded from attending Executive Sessions of the Essex Planning Commission.

Ironically, when the Commission’s “walk to the water” plan was challenged in Superior Court by the developer, as well as by a group of neighbors in a separate action, one of the grounds for the challenges of both was that the Commission had made its approval of the original plan in a manner that “deprived the general public the opportunity in listening to its reasoning …”

On this ground alone the developer and neighbors’ counsel asked the Superior Court to throw out the Commission’s original walkway to the water plan in two separate lawsuits.

However, in presenting its compromise proposal at the November meeting the developer’s representatives, who included Sciame Vice President John Randolph, did not say a word about objecting to the Commission’s Executive Session that considered the compromise proposal.

“Executive Sessions” May Violate State Open Meetings Law

Many open meeting advocates are troubled by the practice of local regulatory bodies, such as the Essex Planning Commission, who hold their key discussions of applications before them in secret, Executive Sessions. Some charge that this practice violates the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act.

This Act, after all, provides that meetings of a “public agency … which is meeting “to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has jurisdiction” should be made at an open meeting. However, to date a legal challenge to the Essex Planning Commission’s practice of going into Executive Sessions to discuss important decisions has not been challenged in a court of law.

This issue aside, the Essex Planning Commission’s decision at its last meeting to join the developer in abandoning, completely, the Commission’s original decision to allow full “public access” to walkers to the waters of North Cove, and replace this extensive walkway with a crimped little park up along the road, is truly surprising.

How to Explain the Commission’s Retreat from Its Original Plan

One informed observer of the Commission’s evident determination to accept the developer’s compromise said that the Commission may have made such a decision, because it had doubts about the legal validity of the “public access” doctrine.

In fact, Essex Attorney John Bennet, who represents a group of neighbor interveners, has on a number occasions given impassioned speeches at Commission meetings, exhorting the Commission to accept the fact that “public access” has no legal validity.

If “public access” as a doctrine is on shaky legal ground, then recognizing a right of “public access” could be decided more on the basis of a developer’s civic generosity than on a firmly grounded, legal principle.

Other Elements of the Compromise Plan

In addition to retreating, radically, as to the reach of “public access,” the compromise plan of the developer was modified in a number of ways by the Commission.

One the developer’s suggestions called for the creation of new parking spaces for visitors along Foxboro Road. This proposal was totally rejected by the Commission. In fact, the elimination of new parking spaces on Foxboro Road might well have been welcomed by the developer, because it would mean fewer “public access” visitors at the proposed, pocket park viewing site.

Another restriction, insisted on by the Commission, was that the hedges around the small viewing area should not be higher than three feet. Also, no trees should be planted by neighboring land owners that would impede the visual sighting of the iconic Foxboro Point windmill from the viewing perch.

In addition, on the large conservation easement area that runs along the base of the development property, the Commission wanted no plantings or the setting up of lawn furniture and the like by adjoining property owners.

Finally, the developer is required to make a money payment of $120,270 to the town in connection with the development.

Future Looks Bright for Compromise Plan

It is widely expected that at its December meeting, the Essex Planning Commission will give its full approval of the compromise plan, as put forward by the developer, and modified in minor ways by the Commission.

Of course, Attorney Bennet’s lawsuit on behalf of the neighbors of the development would still be pending before the Superior Court, even after the Commission and the developer settled their dispute. However, since the neighbors are more spectators than principals in the actual development, it is questionable that they could hold up the entire project, just because they do not want any new neighbors.

A group of civically motivated citizens of the Town of Essex have embarked on a major effort to upgrade the Town of Essex’s gateway to visitors and residents alike, the town’s much loved Sunset Pond.

Over the years, unfortunately, this unique property has quite literally gone to seed. Along the north side of the pond, facing West Avenue, mud and debris was painfully prevalent. Also, invasive weeds were growing without control around the entire perimeter of the pond.

In addition, the west side of the pond was overgrown with weeds, and the existing paths along the pond’s edges were overgrown for lack of maintenance. Needing clearing as well was the heavy scrub overgrowth at the west side corner of the pond.

                        To the Rescue, “Friends of Sunset Pond”

As a result of these shameful conditions at the town’s major point of entry, a group of motivated citizens decided to do something about the situation. To do so they formed a group called the “Friends of Sunset Pond.”

Members of the “Friends” include Geoffrey Paul, the head the Paul Foundation;  Jim Godsman, who has assumed the role of the group’s spokesperson; Rick Audet, Director of Essex’s Parks and Recreation Department, as well as other concerned citizens.

To date the Friends of the Sunset Pond have raised $30,000 for pond improvements, according to Godsman. $20,000 of this amount has been given by the Paul Foundation, and $10, 000 has come from civic minded citizens and organizations. The Paul Foundation, incidentally, owns the property on which Sunset Pond is located, and it leases the pond and its surrounding shores to the Town of Essex for recreational purposes for $1.00 a year.

The First Phase of the Clean Up of Sunset Pond

At its March 13 meeting the Essex Wetlands and Watercourses Commission gave its final approval for the Friends of Sunset Pond to take steps to upgrade and renew Sunset Pond.

In response to this approval the Friends in a first phase addressed some long overdue maintenance issues, and to clean up generally the pond. As part of this phase, which is presently underway, steps are being taken to restore the banks of the pond to their original parameters.

Also, mud and debris along the northern shore of the pond, which is visible from West Avenue, have been stacked up along the pond’s banks and after drying and debris removal, will be graded, webbed and seeded. Then, next spring in March 2013 the soil will be placed along the banks of the pond.

The Second Phase of the Pond’s Renewal and Renovation

The second phase of the pond’s renewal has been called by the Friends of Sunset Pond, “The Vision.” Although at this point, The Vision “is a concept that is totally unfunded and speculative,” Godsman notes. However, this second phase of the Pond’s  future may include the construction of a walkway around the entire perimeter of the pond, as well as the introduction of new landscaping, plantings and other attractive amenities. “We are exploring The Vision both in terms of resources and plan options,” Godsman says.

However, under neither present nor future plans will the existing trees along the east side of the pond be removed.

The end result of the two phases, according to spokesperson Godsman, will be that, “visitors and residents will have a much improved visual entry to the town.” He adds pointedly, “This will require the development of a solid professional plan that is environmentally-friendly and attractive as an investment to external governmental and philanthropic institutions.”

In short, more fund raising efforts will be required to renew and maintain the pond in top condition.

A Late Arriving Crane Slowed the Effort    

In any construction project, no matter how worthy, and how much desired by the public, there always seems to be a glitch. The glitch in the case of the renovation of Sunset Pond was that the gigantic crane that was to lift the mucky soil along the north shore further upland was late in arrival. The crane was scheduled to appear in August, but it did not show up until October.

This meant in turn that drying mounds of earth are now visible along the north shore of the pond facing West Avenue.  Furthermore, although they may be trimmed a bit in height, these mounds of earth will remain visible throughout the winter months. However comes spring in 2013, the dried soil will be carefully placed along the very visible north shore of the pond.

Winter Activities to Continue During the Pond’s Renewal

Even though the pond’s north shore along West Avenue may visually leave something to be desired during the coming winter months, ice skating will be permitted off the pond’s south shore. Then, next spring more improvements will come into place, and down the line activities such as fishing, picnics, exercising, and even special fun events, such as regattas for children and fishing derbies will be the rule at “Sunset Pond.”

Five Foxboro neighbors have joined the cause of developer Frank J. Sciame, Jr. by filing their own Complaint and Appeal in Superior Court against the Essex Planning Commission’s approval of a “public access” corridor across Sciame’s development on Foxboro Road.  Sciame’s development is located on eleven plus acres that run along Foxboro Road and River Street overlooking the North Cove in Essex.

The protesting neighbors in this court action are Thomas D. Cunningham, III, Pamela H. Jones, Kathleen A. Maher, John N. Bauman and Jennifer W. Hunt. Their suit states that they all “are owners of real property which is located within 100 feet” of Sciame’s development.

The Foxboro property owners say in their suit that they are “aggrieved by the decision of the Essex Commission” to require a “public access” corridor to run across Sciame’s development. Their Complaint and Appeals track closely an earlier legal protest by Sciame, himself, in Superior Court.

Sciame filed his lawsuit on September 19, and the neighbors filed theirs two days later.  Both lawsuits are still pending before the court. The legal papers of the neighbors’ lawsuit were prepared by Attorney John S. Bennet, Esq.

The Measurements of the “Public Access” Corridor

The “public access” corridor approved by the Essex Planning Commission, and challenged by both appeals would run from Foxboro Road down to the waters of the North Cove. At Foxboro Road, the width of the corridor would be 150 feet. Then about half way down, the corridor would narrows to 75 feet until it reaches North Cove.

In its approval of the “public access” corridor across Sciame’s development, the Essex Planning Commission placed strict limits on the site’s use by the general public.  Specifically, the Commission required that there could be no “buildings, structures or other improvements on the property other than a bench or benches to allow visitors to view North Cove.” In addition, the Commission decreed that the use of the corridor could be limited to daylight hours.

The Arguments of the Neighbors’ Complaint

In their lawsuit the neighbors of the Foxboro Point development claim that the Essex Planning Commission’s order requiring a “public access” corridor across Sciame’s development “was arbitrary, illegal and an abuse of discretion.”

Furthermore, they specify nine reasons, most likely drafted by Attorney Benet, as to why the Superior Court should overrule the Essex Planning Commission decision on “public access.” The neighbors charge, referring specifically, to the Commission:

1. It has purported to require public access over private land, all beyond statutory authority of the Commission.

2. It has purported to take for public use an extremely valuable portion of the private Property which taking is beyond statutory authority.

(There is no number 3 listed in a lapse of draftsmanship.)

4. It has engaged in an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation and inverse taking of the property of the Plaintiffs. (Presumably, this “inverse taking” refers to the lowering of the real estate values of the neighbors’ properties.)

5. It is creating a sixty thousand square foot lot (in a town) zone which is nonconforming in several ways, contrary to the Essex Zoning regulations.

6. That the members of the Commission had predetermined this application, and were biased as to their consideration of the application. (This bias by Commission members was also charged in Sciame’s lawsuit.)

7. It has acted in violation of pursuant to (a provision of state law) by issuing its approval of the filed application as it failed to act within 65 days of the close of the public hearing as required by (state law.)

8. By requiring that Sciame deed the open space instead of restricting it by easement as allowed (in a section of town) regulations.

9. By requiring that the applicant provide over 31% of the property [to open space] when its regulations only call for 20%.

10. By deliberating and discussing the motion to approve in Executive Session, it  deprived the public the opportunity to listen to it reasoning, and there is no record of its reasons for the court to review and contrary to the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act.

The neighbors final charge regarding the Commission’s decision to go into a closed, Executive Session, when it discussed the merits of the application, could well be one of the arguments that could persuade the Superior Court to invalidate the Commission’s mandate for “public access” on the development site.

Many Other “Public Access” Sites Exist in Essex

The neighbors’ Complaint and Appeal also argues that there is already, “a 7.8 acre park located directly across from the [development] Property which has both public parking and access to the Falls River and the Connecticut River. This parcel is 70% of the size of the Property, and provides complete and adequate recreational and access facilities.”

However, Osage Trails, which is the town park referred to, does require a long walk before a visitor can reach the waters of the cove. Also, the view from the Osage Trails lacks the sweeping view of North Cove that would exist from the Commission’s “public access” corridor of the development.

Also, the neighbors’ argue in their lawsuit that, “Additionally, there are 12 Public access ways to the coves and rivers in Essex including four between the  Property and Main Street Essex, which is approximately one mile south of the Property.” Basically, the neighbors charge that the Town of Essex already has enough “public access” open spaces in town, and does not need another.

The Fully Equipped “Public Access” Site off Teal Lane

One of these existing “public access” sites is located just off Teal Lane in Essex. This truly excellent “public access” open space has a boat launch, boat racks and an elevated wooden sitting and viewing area. Also, there is plenty of room for parking, and there is a latrine on the site.

However, even this fully equipped, “public access” site does not offer  the sweeping views of North Cove, the Great Meadow and the Connecticut River that a “public access” corridor on the Sciame development would offer.

In the Commission’s approval hearings Sciame went so far as to offer a visual “public access” easement from Foxboro Road to the North Cove below and beyond. In short, the waters could be seen but not walked to. However, this alternative was rejected by the Commission.

Still, indisputably, the Commission’s “public access” corridor at Foxboro Point, would uniquely offer a visitor the joy being able to walk down and back to the waters North Cove. However, as is evident by this lawsuit, the neighbors would not like it.

A prominent New York City developer filed an appeal on September 19 in State Superior Court in Middletown challenging a recent decision by the Essex Planning Commission that mandated a “public access” walkway across his proposed luxury development at Foxboro Point in Essex.

Frank J. Sciame, Jr., the developer, who is a Connecticut resident, charged in his Complaint that the Planning Commission’s requirement that he grant a “public access” walkway across his development property was “arbitrary, illegal and an abuse of discretion.” The “public access” walkway in dispute would go from Foxboro Road down to the waters of North Cove between the two easternmost lots of the seven lot development.

Most importantly, Sciame’s eleven acre-plus development along Foxboro Road and River Street, would spread across one of the last remaining open spaces along the Essex shoreline. Also, the development would include the historic Croft estate as one of the development lots.

Sciame plans to acquire the land on which Foxboro Point’s iconic windmill is located, but the windmill is not part of his development plan.

Sciame Offered a “View Easement” to Look Down at the Windmill

At one point during the extensive Planning Commission’s proceedings, the developer offered to incorporate a “view easement” over his property. This would have enabled visitors walking or biking along Foxboro Road to look down from the road and see both the windmill and the waters of North Cove below.

However, creating a “view easement” is a very different proposition from creating a “public access” pathway that would permit visitors at the site to walk down from the road to the North Cove shore, and back again.

Developer Alleges Financial Loss from “Public Access”

In his court papers Sciame lists a whole litany of objections to the ordered “public access” pathway across his property. Most of them concern the financial loss that he would suffer, if he was required to incorporate a “public access” corridor slicing through his development.

In fact, Sciame’s very first argument in his Complaint is that the Essex Planning Commission “has engaged in an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation.” In addition, Sciame complains that requiring a pedestrian walkway across his development would entail taking from him, “an extremely valuable portion of the subject property.”

He also argues that the pedestrian corridor from the road down to the shore would lower the value of “the remaining lots” of his development. He objects as well that, “By requiring public access over lot 6, the Commission has isolated Lot 7 from the rest of the subdivision.”

Other Objections to the Commission’s Decision                    

In another challenge to the Commission’s ruling the developer charges that the Commission failed to vote on his application, “within 65 days of the closing of the public hearing,” as is required by Essex’s subdivision regulations. In fact, the Commission did take 70 days to render its decision, missing the mandatory deadline by five days.

Another charge by Sciame against the Commission was, “That the members of the Commission had predetermined, and/or were biased to modifying the application.” However, there was no elaboration of this charge against a group of Essex residents, who unless proved otherwise were simply exercising their civic duty by serving voluntarily on the town’s Planning Commission.

Perhaps the Most Serious Objection to the Commission Decision

The developer also charges in his appeal to the state court that the Essex Planning Commission, “By discussing the motion to approve in Executive Session, it deprived the public the opportunity to listen to its reasoning … .” Also, earlier in the Complaint Sciame charges that, “the Commission went into an Executive Session for approximately one and half hours” … where, “Apparently they also discussed … their decision on the application.”

The reason for the legal strength of this objection is that public bodies, such the Essex Planning Commission, in most cases are required to make their decisions in an open, public way. In fact, Connecticut’s Open Meetings Law is built on this precept.

Although there are certain instances when a public body like the Essex Planning Commission can keep the public out, and go into executive session, in this application this appears not to be the case.

In fact, a full and open discussion by the Commission on a controversial doctrine like “public access” is just the kind of question that the general public should be entitled to hear. In response to this argument in Sciame’s Complaint, the Superior Court might even decide to throw out the Commission’s entire decision, because the most crucial part of it was arrived at in a manner that violated state law.

The Complaint Is an Informative Summary of the Case    

Sciame’s Complaint is an eminently readable summary the developer’s argument against the actions of the Essex Planning Commission. The legal counsel who drafted the Complaint is Attorney Terrance D. Lomme, Esq., an Essex resident. In this proceeding Lomme was acting in his capacity as a private attorney. Lomme is also a sitting state Judge of Probate with offices in Old Saybrook.

Among the items noted in the Complaint is that there were no less than four public hearings by the Planning Commission on the developer’s application, as well as two site walks. Public hearings were held on March 8, April 17, May 10 and June 14, and the two site walks on March 3 and April 20, according to the Complaint.

Also, the Complaint notes that, “the issue of open space was the main focus of each hearing.” Noted as well is that at one point in the Commission’s hearings the developer considered allowing “public access” on the development site. However, “Mr. Sciame, based on his conversations with the neighbors stated that he was not in favor of allowing public access.”

The Question of Mandating “Public Access”

Discussed at length in the Complaint was whether a town regulatory body, such as the Essex Planning Commission, could legally mandate “public access” on a private owner’s property. Both Attorney Lomme, and another private attorney who was also representing an interested party in the Foxboro Point application, agreed that, “Neither the town nor the state could take an open space area for public access without compensating for it.”

In the Complaint the Essex Planning Commission’s attorney, David M. Royston, Esq., is quoted as saying as regards public access, “In summary, given the lack of case law on the point or even addressing the issue of public access to open space, it would be speculative to attempt to predict the prospect of the ultimate success if litigation were to occur.”

In short, imposing “public access” on privately owned developments is still an open question.

The Specifics of the Commission’s “Public Access” Directive

In this case the Essex Planning Commission approved a 150 foot easement along the North Cove boundary of the property, as well as a public access/open space, easement pathway running from Foxboro Point Road down to North Cove. As for the specifics of the pathway, it would begin at the road with a width of 75 feet running down for 200 feet. Then, it would narrow to a width to 25 feet and would continue downward for 260 feet, until it reached the shore of North Cove.

Specific restrictions on this easement were noted in the Complaint, which provided that there could be, “no buildings, structures, or other improvements on the property other than a bench or benches to allow visitors to view North Cove.” Also, “public access” to the pathway may be restricted “to daylight hours.”

Few Visitors Expected on Public Access” Pathway

There is a general consensus, that even if the Commission’s plan is ultimately put into effect, that there would be very few visitors trekking up and down the “public access” pathway. However, it cannot be gainsaid that even if there were only a few visitors using the pathway, the fact of its very existence could lower the value of the neighboring luxury housing lots.

This is, most likely, the main reason that developer Sciame is going to the expense of bringing his lawsuit.

Sciame Lost a Recent Case in Superior Court

Finally, it is of interest to note that in a case not related in any way to this appeal, that Sciame last August lost a lawsuit in State Superior Court because of his installation of two, “too large” entrance posts in front of the house that he purchased from the estate of Katherine Hepburn in Fenwick.

The judge in this case, in ruling against Sciame, wrote, “Apparently in certain neighborhoods, as in life, size does matter.” The judge then went on to enter an order that Sciame should shrink the size of his entrance posts, so that they were the proper size under local zoning regulations, and that he should do so within 45 days of the judgment.

A group of Ingham Hill Road residents testified at an Essex Planning Commission hearing on September 13 that they absolutely, positively, did not want the commission to approve a new housing development on the dead end road on which they live. They are perfectly happy with things just as they are, thank you.

Even though there is relatively little traffic on the dead end spur that is Ingham Hill Road, the Town of Essex faithfully maintains it, just as if were a two lane though fare. The road is plowed in the winter when it snows, and fully maintained year round. In fact, not too long ago the town straightened some curves in the road.

Then, along comes a developer who wants to build six new home sites on 36 acres on land that it owns, down near the end of the road. Even though Ingham Hill Road would stay a dead end, after the new development was build, the residents are still dead set against it. They simply don’t want it.

By way of background, Ingham Hill Road runs from Plains Road in Essex down to the boundary line of Essex and Old Saybrook. Vehicular traffic is permitted on the Essex section of the road; however, it is blocked by a fence and a stop sign when the road reaches Old Saybrook, although hikers are permitted to walk down the trail into Old Saybrook.

Lawyers and Consultants Hired to Halt the Project

To express their opposition, a group of Ingham Hill Road residents hired lawyers and environmental consultants to argue against the new project at earlier public hearings. At these proceedings these experts made much of the fact that in its present undeveloped state, the development property possesses a wealth of landmark trees, some over a hundred years old, as well as a plethora of spotted turtles, wood frogs and song birds on the site.

Also, the site possesses an undisturbed forest canopy, as well as a couple of iconic vernal pools, whose purity, the experts argued, would be compromised by the development of the site.

In sum, the present residents of Ingham Hill Road have gone to considerable expense to prevent having any new neighbors moving in along their precious road. They want to keep everything just as it is, as a paradise along the dead end road on which they live.

Commission Chairman Opens Hearing to Public Comment

Unlike the earlier hearings, when only the experts were heard, Planning Commission Chairman Tom Danyliw opened the September hearing to comments on the proposed development by private individuals.

First to speak from purely a personal perspective was Judith Bombaci of Essex, who is a resident of Ingham Hill Road. In her testimony she read word-for-word a number of impassioned personal letters from Ingham Hill Road residents, who were unanimously opposed to the new development.

At one point Ms. Bombaci got a bit mixed up during her testimony. Planning Commission Chairman Tom Danyliw assured her not to worry, “You are doing fine.”

Ms. Bombaci testimony was followed by that of her husband, Kenneth Bombaci. In his testimony he said that his principal objection to the new project was, “the water that will be going down in my lawn and threatening the historic trees on my property.” Bombaci also said that he wholeheartedly agreed with the Essex Tree Warden, Ahgie Pampel, who said in a comment from the audience, that it was his opinion that many of the large trees on the site would die, if the development went forward.

It’s the Preserve’s Developer, Who Is Behind it All

One of the impassioned speakers against the project said at the hearing, “This is a part of the Preserve, a three town development effort.” The three towns referred to by the speaker are Essex, Westbroook and Old Saybrook, and the speaker was making the point that in the future, the developer of the Preserve, River Sound Development LLC, would not only continue its efforts to develop the 1,000 acre Preserve property in Old Saybrook, but down the line it would want to develop the smaller parcels that it owns in Essex and Westbrook.

Of course River Sound has not been very successful to date in developing its property in Old Saybrook. 13 years ago the developer put forward an elaborate proposal to develop 1,000 acres of open land that it owns in Old Saybrook. However, because of neighborhood resistance, to date not a single improvement has been built on the property.

As noted, River Sound, the Preserve’s developer, also owns property located in Essex and Westbrook, and, in fact, the Ingham Hill Road proposal in Essex could perhaps someday be characterized as the Essex portion of the Preserve.

Other Preserve Developments Should Not Relate to Essex

However, at the recent hearing, River Sound’s attorney, Brian Smith of the law firm of Robinson & Cole, said, repeatedly, that the application before Essex Planning Commission should be judged solely as an Essex project. Trying to link it to other developments of River Sound he viewed as inappropriate and beyond the scope of the hearing.

Consistent with this position, later in the hearing, when a member of the Planning Commission suggested that approval of the Essex project might be linked to the River Sound development in Old Saybrook, Attorney Smith said again that such a linkage would be totally inappropriate.  This application relates solely to the Essex project, he said, and could not be linked to any other River Sound activity.

However, the fact that the developer of the Preserve in Old Saybrook was the same as the developer of the Ingham Hill Road project kept coming up in the remarks of speaker after speaker. One said, “Opening the Ingham Hill Road to development will be a disaster waiting to happen.”  Another speaker said flatly that it was imperative “not to let the developer of the Preserve to develop Ingham Hill Road.”

Yet another speaker said that the Essex parcel was “was part of the Preserve,” which was a “three town proposition.” One person even charged that River Sound developer was engaged “in a shell game.” “The applicant is trying to get a toe hold” by developing the Ingham Hill Road property, he said; “This is the start.”

Application Also Faulted for Other Reasons

Other critics of the Ingham Hill development raised concerns that related only to the specifics of the project, and not to other activities of the developer. There were concerns raised about the adequacy of the new septic systems at the development. Also, there were concerns about protecting the vernal pools and the canopy of trees above the site.

In addition, there was a last minute submission made by a traffic consultant, that the developer’s counsel said was introduced too late in proceeding to be properly considered. However, the issue of an adverse traffic impact on a dead end street did not turn out to be a major issue at the hearing.

The hearing finally came to an end, when the developer’s Engineer, Bob Doane, who, incidentally, also serves as the Engineer of the Town of Essex, summed up the case for developing the Ingham Hill Road parcel. As for the septic systems at the site, Engineer Doane said that they were standard to developments in this area.

Furthermore, he said that the location of the new houses portrayed on the site maps were not the final sites of the houses, but rather they were schematic drafts of where the houses might be placed. Doane’s remarks were a soothing presentation, articulated by a long time resident of Essex, who had been retained to be the Engineer for this particular project.

Doane was the last speaker to comment at the hearing, and after his remarks the   hearing was closed. The Essex Planning Commission now has 65 days, in effect two months, to accept, reject or approve with conditions the development.

If the commission decides to approve the project with conditions, some of these conditions the developer might not particularly like. However, it might have to accept them, if it wanted to move the project forward expeditiously.

Finally, in making their decision on the application, the commission will discuss the developer’s application extensively with its staff. However, it will not receive, or consider further comments from any of the private parties of interest, nor from the general public.

In many ways the Town of Essex is very fortunate to have two public libraries within its town boundaries. After all, Essex has only a population of 6,500. The two Essex-based libraries are of course: (1) the newly enlarged Essex Library, which is located across from Essex Town Hall in downtown Essex, and (2) the Ivoryton Library, which is located way out on the Main Street of Ivoryton, and which offers library services in a building that has been a library since 1889.

Elizabeth Alvord, the Librarian in charge of the Ivoryton Library, makes the point that the two Essex libraries are “very different places.” The Essex Library she views as a “more traditional” library, one that is conducive to studying on the library’s premises.

As for the Ivoryton Library she believes, ““We are more informal than the Essex Library. You can even come in here, just to shoot the breeze.” Also, Alvord says, “We are open to finding just what patrons are looking for, because we can take more time with patrons at our library.”

She also maintains, “The Ivoryton Library speaks to the residents of Ivoryton. We are truly a neighborhood library.” She continues, “A lot of young families use the library, as do lots of retirees.” Also, she says that many local children come to the library either on their bikes, or in their strollers. Sometimes whole families just come in to sit in the library, “which is perfectly fine with us,” she says.

A Look at the Inside the Ivoryton Library

As you come into the main room of the library, there is a display of the “Staff Picks” of the best books to read. “It is tough to keep the books there,” Alvord says, because the staff’s picks are so popular with the library’s patrons.

The main room of the library houses the collection of adult fiction and non-fiction books. To the left facing the main desk is in a separate room for the Young Adult books, and to the right is the Local History room, which contains materials on the Village of Ivoryton’s role in the making of pianos.

The Ivoryton Library also prides itself as having a very big selection of “take home” movies on DVD’s for both for adults and children. Also, it has many of the “best sellers” on hand.

The Ivoryton Library is a part of the Connecticut card system. This means that the library can borrow materials of all of the other public libraries in the state.   

Special Programs at the Ivoryton Library

The library offers a plethora of programs for its patrons. There are language courses in French and Spanish from Tuesdays through Thursdays. Also, the library’s Watercolor artists meet to paint on Wednesdays from 10am to noon.

More ominously, the library’s “Tea and Murder Club” meets every third Friday of the month, and the club has been doing so for the past five years. In addition, there is a Mah-jongg group that meets every Thursday at 6pm.

Incidentally, all of these programs are open to new members.                      

The Ivoryton Library also attracts many users, who come in after work to use the library. Since many of these patrons do not get off from work until five o’clock, Alvord recently extended the library’s hours from five to six on Fridays. The library was already open on Tuesdays and Thursdays until six, and on Wednesdays the library has been open until eight.

Also, the Ivoryton Library is open from one to four on Sundays, whereas the neighboring libraries in Essex, Deep River and Chester are not. The Ivoryton Library is closed Mondays.

The full schedule of when the library is open is as follows: Sunday 1-4; Monday closed; Tuesday 10-6; Wednesday 10-8, Thursday 10-6, Friday 2-6, Saturday 9-12.

Downstairs in the Children’s Section

It takes some careful maneuvering to go down the steep and narrow stairs that lead to the Children’s Section, which is located below the main floor of the library. However, the children’s section can also be reached by a ground floor entrance at the back of the library building.

The Ivoryton Library at one point considered putting in an elevator from the main floor down to the Children’s Section on the floor below. However, the cost of $15,000, or more, to install such an elevator was considered prohibitive.

The Children’s Section is open during the regular library hours, and it is where children can pick out just the right book to take home and read. Also, there are two children’s computers and an assortment of play desks and chairs on hand.

The Ivoryton Library also has an extensive schedule of children’s activities. For example, every Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. the library sponsors a “Drop-In Story Time.” All ages of children are welcome to join for the stories, as well as singing “silly songs” and doing small crafts.

Also, there is the “Afternoon at the Movies” program. It includes a movie showing and an afternoon snack. It is held every third Friday of the month from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.

There is also the “Homework Club” for children, which meets every Tuesday, after school, until 5:00 p.m. The club is designed to get young people ahead on their homework. Computers are available and printing is free during club time. Also, a snack is provided.

NO SCHOOL Day programs will also be held on Wednesday, September 26, and Monday, October 19, days when there is no school. The Children’s Room will be available for crafts both days, such as jewelry making, Lego building and painting pictures in a Young Artist Corner.

Finally, the month of September is “National Library Card Sign-Up Month,” which means that children who are residents of Ivoryton and nearby Centerbrook, who are five years and older, can sign up for a library card. If they do so, they are given a book to take home to read as a welcome present.

In addition to these children’s activities, the library has a special Junior Readers program. Junior Readers are library volunteers from ages 9 and up, who volunteer to help the library function. Among their duties, Junior Readers re-shelve books, help organize book sales and read out loud to younger children from favorite books.

Junior Readers meet every third Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. to discuss how they can help the library.

Background of Ivoryton Staff Librarians

Head Librarian Alvord at the Ivoryton Library holds a BA degree from the University of California (Berkley). She has spent 30 years in the book industry, as a buyer for book stores and as a publisher’s representative. She has also worked in other local libraries.

The Children’s Librarian at the Ivoryton Library is Elizabeth Bartlett. She has a BA from St. Joseph’s College in Hartford, and worked for many years in private industry. She also has three children ages, 1½, 9 and 11.

In conclusion the Ivoryton Library founded in 1889, is very much a going institution. Although some Essex residents may on occasion grouse about the expense of maintaining two town libraries, it is probably a safe bet that the Ivoryton Library, and the Essex Library as well, will be with us for many years to come.

The Essex Planning Commission at its recent August 23 meeting approved a New York City developer’s plan to develop seven new home sites on eleven acres of land at Foxboro Point in Essex. However, the Commission’s approval came with one big caveat.

That is, that the developer must acquiesce to a “public access” corridor running across his property, from Foxboro Point Road down to the North Cove below. Furthermore, this “public access” path would run between the sixth and seven housing sites of the luxury development.

“Public access” means what it says. In this case it would mean that the general public could traverse along a path from the road to the water without anyone shoeing them away.  Picnics, and, theoretically, canoe launchings, sun bathing and even swimming at the end of the access path would be permissible.

However, realistically, canoe launching or swimming from where the “public access” trail meets the waters of North Cove is unlikely, as the water at that point is far too shallow to swim in, or to launch a canoe from.

No Permanent Buildings Permitted on Corridor

Also, no permanent building structures would be permitted on the corridor, and public activity could be limited to the daylight hours. It is also envisioned that the developer might deed the “public access” portion of his property over to the Essex Land Trust, or other third party, to manager. This is, of course, all dependent on the developer agreeing to the “public access” component of the Commission’s approval.

The shape of the “public access” path in the Foxboro development is somewhat contorted, in that roughly the top half of the path is a generous 75 feet wide, whereas the bottom half of the corridor narrows to 25 feet in width until it reaches the waters of North Cover.

Putting it another way, starting at Foxboro Point Road, the access path would be 75 feet wide for a length of 200 feet. Then, at its roughly middle point, the path’s width would shrink to 25 feet for another 260 feet, until it reaches North Cove.

These dimensions of the access path from the road to the water were provided by John Guskowski , Essex Town Planner.

Developer Has Until September 21^st to Decide

New York City developer Frank Sciame has until September 21^st, according to Guskowski, to accept or reject the Planning Commission plan with its “public access” component. Should the developer not accept the Commission’s approved plan, he could challenge the “public access” portion of the plan on legal grounds in court, or he could simply walk away from the whole venture.

The Essex Planning Commission decision to attach a “public access” requirement to its approval of the developer’s plan appears to have been made pursuant to the Town of Essex Subdivision Regulations, including Sections 5.8 and 6.1.

Constitutionality of “Public Access”Questioned

 However, at one of the proceedings during the Commission consideration of the Foxboro development, an attorney hired by one of the development site’s surrounding home owners, vigorously challenged the constitutional authority of Essex’s Subdivision Regulations regarding “open space” dedicated to “public access.”

However, because of the time that it would take to challenge the Town’s “open space” regulations in the courts, this might not be a choice that developer Sciame would want to make.

The proceeding of the Essex Planning Commission on August 23, according to press reports, was five hours long and entailed a one hour of closed executive session. However, there remains one ancillary question related to this proceeding.

Attorney Terrance Lomme’s Advice Is Crucial

The advice that Attorney Terrance Lomme gives his client, Frank Sciame, as to how to proceed with his application is crucial. For one thing, Lomme might acquaint Sciame with the painful history of the nearby Preserve development in Old Saybrook.

The developers of the Preserve have been trying to get their development underway for well over a decade, and there is yet not a single spade in the ground for this ambitious 1,000 acre project. In fact, the Preserve developer has now been reduced to trying to develop a small portion of the property that it owns on Essex’s Ingham Hill Road, and even there, the developer is being rigorously challenged by a deep pocket Essex businessman and homeowner.

The point is that ultimately the wisest choice for developer Sciame might well be to make a virtue out of necessity and accept the Planning Commission’s decision. Certainly, there could be creative ways to shield the “public access” corridor from its luxury home neighbors, especially for those living on the two parcels that are next to the access corridor.

Dense flowering hedges might be one such option. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that there will be jostling crowds using the “public access” pathway. Most likely on weekends a few souls might want to walk down the hill from Foxboro Point Road to the waters of North Cove just to take a look, but that would be about the size of it.

Truthfully, there are many other, better places to see the water along the Essex shore than this.

Finally, Sciame, has said that he, himself, might want live in one of the new houses that he is developing on Foxboro Point. He might even want to take one of the properties beside the “public access” pathway, just to show that it is not so bad after all.