Stop Griswold OverDevelopment

Home

A Brief History

The Issues Today

Why This Fight Matters

What Others Are Saying

Expert Scientific Reports

Is This Fight Over?

What's New?

How You Can Help

Photo Gallery

Sign Our Online Petition

Contact Us

A BRIEF HISTORY

Griswold Airport opened for business in 1931 in its current location, between Route 1 and the Hammonasset River in Madison.  The property is situated directly adjacent to Hammonasset State Park, on the edge of the tidal wetlands.  In fact, the southern end of the runway (to your left, above) is frequently under water at high tide (see picture).

The Griswold family offered to sell the land to the town of Madison in 1985, and many were in favor of the purchase, but it never came to pass.  In November 2000, Leyland Development Corporation of New York obtained an option to purchase the land, and submitted plans for a 260-unit housing development on the 22 buildable acres of the 42 acre site.  Many citizens from Madison and other Connecticut towns were opposed to Leyland's proposal, and consequently SGOD was formed to fight it.

Among our earliest activities was bringing in experts to educate the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) regarding the environmental and economic problems that would result from the building of this massive housing project.  Despite our efforts, and the vigorous opposition from a majority of Madison's citizens, the PZC stunned many in the town by voting 5-4 to approve this ill-conceived zoning change, which allowed for the "Madison Landing" development to be built on the Griswold Airport site. 

After the initial zoning was approved, a group of local citizens entered a lawsuit against the Town of Madison, charging it with an illegal zoning change.  SGOD supported this admirable effort.  Unfortunately, the lawsuit ultimately failed not on the merits of the case, but because the courts ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit.  This contention was challenged all the way to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

At the same time, grassroots opposition to the development rapidly mounted, led by SGOD.  The opposition, from SGOD, the DEP, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, and numerous environmental groups, including the Audubon Society, Connecticut Fund for the Environment, the Madison Land Conservation Trust, and Save the Sound, Inc., was so strenuous that Leyland withdrew its original proposal.

The developer, newly renamed LeylandAlliance, returned in the fall of 2003 with a revised proposal, to build 131 units on the Griswold Airport site.  They had responded to some of the objections to the initial site plan, but still intended to cram an average of six housing units onto each acre of land, and use a massive wastewater disposal system that had never been tested on a similar flood plain, adjacent to sensitive tidal wetlands.

Public hearings on the new site plan began in January 2004, and were well attended by citizens and their representative experts.  On May 25, in a preliminary vote, the PZC voted 5-4 against the proposal.  Three days later, at a meeting announced with only 24 hours notice, scheduled at 4:30pm on the Friday afternoon of Memorial Day weekend, the PZC took their final vote and approved the plan by a 8-1 margin.  Many citizens were taken aback by the way the meeting was scheduled, and by the sudden change of heart of four members of the PZC.  The reversal was never adequately explained.

In June 2004, Leyland submitted its first application for its wastewater treatment plan to the DEP.  The report was prepared by Leyland's engineering firm, BL Companies of Meriden, CT.  The DEP subsequently raised many questions about the accuracy of this application, as did MIT-trained hydrogeologist Robert Schreiber, who had testified on behalf of SGOD during the zoning hearings. 

For the next two years, while experts at the DEP and those hired by SGOD continued to expose flaws in Leyland's proposed Amphidrome Plus wastewater treatment system, Leyland continued to sing the praises of the system, repeatedly emphasizing that it was the state-of-the-art, and that it was only a matter of time before the DEP would see the light and approve the application.  But the DEP never did.  In two years, despite its considerable financial resources, Leyland was not able to generate a credible proposal to support the safety of its wastewater plan.  Such a long delay at the DEP is unusual.

On May 31, 2006, Leyland Alliance announced that it had changed its application with the DEP, substituting a different wastewater system called the Zenon system in place of the Amphidrome Plus system.  In its announcement, Leyland insulted the DEP and the intelligence of all who have followed this issue, by stating: "The Amphidrome Plus system is a very good system, providing more than adequate protection and capability for a residential application like Madison Landing.  The Zenon system is even better."

If Amphidrome Plus was such a good system, why did the DEP withhold its approval for two entire years?

Needless to say, SGOD immediately had grave doubts about Leyland's claim that it had found a new "state-of-the-art" system to replace the woefully inadequate Amphidrome Plus system that it swore was state-of-the art for the prior two years.  Now we have data to prove that the Zenon system is no better.  Despite our advocacy, on December 14, 2006 the DEP issued a "tentative determination" to approve the Zenon wastewater permit.  This is not the final word, however.  SGOD immediately filed an appeal of the DEP's tentative approval of this permit.

The next step in the process was hearings conducted by the DEP to address SGOD's appeal.  These began April 11, 2007 with a public hearing in Madison, and continued with eight additional days of technical and legal testimony in May presented by SGOD, the developer, and the DEP.  See The Issues Today for a detailed discussion of the Zenon system, and the status of Leyland's wastewater permit application.

On February 9, 2007, LeylandAlliance exercised their option to purchase the Griswold Airport property.  We hope, of course, that this ownership will be temporary, and that eventually LeylandAlliance will sell the land for environmental conservation.  See the Is This Fight Over? page on the website for further details.

Return to Top of Page