Pool, Clubhouse For High-End Guilford Condo Back For 2nd Try

GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT – A controversial plan to add a pool and a clubhouse to the 66 High Street condominium project is back for a second try in front of Guilford zoners.

The plan was tried once before for the 66 High Street condo complex with those living at the luxury condo complex said the amenity is part of why they bought at the award-winning project.

But those who live in the surrounding neighborhood near the condos were worried about whether the pool would cause and parking and other problems in the surrounding neighborhood and the plan was pulled.

The pool, as proposed, was slated to be 20-by-40 feet. The plan got as far as a hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Well it's back.

At the most recent PZC meeting, developers for the project were back seeking a special permit modification for site work including Shoreline stabilization in compliance with a CTDEEP Consent Order to remove a portion of a site wall installed with the Coastal Jurisdiction line and construction of in-ground pool and support facilities.

Ron Nault of Luchs Engineering presented on behalf of 66 High Street.

He noted that the construction of 66 High Street is around 50% complete. They are working to resolve a DEEP violation to remove a portion of the wall that was inadvertently installed within the Coastal Jurisdiction line.

Nault shared plans for the proposed 20’ x 40’ pool and bathroom facilities. The pool would only be visible to the residents of 66 High Street. There will be no filling of the tidal wetlands and no change to the driveway or site access. The pool and bathroom facility are in full compliance with DEEP.

The commission heard a letter from Kevin Magee, environmental planner, which said:

"The applicant is applying for a Coastal Area Management review for the ability to keep several sections of an erosion control structure that was installed without Planning and Zoning Commission approval and Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT-DEEP) review.

"Portions of the erosion control wall were installed within tidal wetlands and below the coastal jurisdiction line. The CT- DEEP has submitted a Notice of Violation to 66 High Street LLC for the work conducted with their jurisdiction and has issued a consent order on February 23, 2018. The consent order notes that no CT-DEEP permits were issued for the wall; the retaining wall did not receive coastal site plan approval; and the retaining wall has resulted in the creation of a public nuisance pursuant to Section 22a-108 of the General Statutes.

"The proposed plans submitted show the removal of a portion of the non approved erosion control structure which calls for the installation of a living shoreline structure. Carol Szymanski, Environmental Analyst II with the CT-DEEP Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse has requested that the commission hold off on acting on the application until the Structures, Dredging and Fill permit has been issued by CT —DEEP.

"Also as part of the application 66 High Street LLC would like to install a swimming pool adjacent to the tidal wetlands. The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) regulates the discharge of pool water and requires pool contractors to be registered under the general permit for the "Discharge of Swimming Pool Wastewater." The general permit provides standards that the contractors must follow while working on pools which include limits on chemicals being discharged and the requirement to discharge to subsurface infiltration system.

"Since this application is dependent on CT-DEEP approval which could change the proposed plans. I recommend that the application be tabled until CT-DEEP issues a permit for the erosion control structure and the living shoreline which are constructed in areas of shared jurisdiction.”

Following the reading of the letter several residents stood up and reiterated their objections to the plans, expressing concerns from noise levels, to whether proper permitting was being followed.

The commission didn't take any action on the application, instead deciding to continue the public hearing to a later date.

Photo by Jack Kramer