From whom has M2 Partners purchased pieces of the tax-exempt burial ground on Maple Street?
Disturbing any part of an ancient burial ground is contrary to state statutes, the question of ownership is secondary. Both occupied and unoccupied plots are protected by law. It’s been suggested that an agreement between the town and M2 might make it legal for M2 to proceed but leave the town holding the bag for allowing a ‘taking’ of any part of the cemetery by a private entity under CGS 19a-295.
The likelihood of finding human remains, and strict cemetery laws, likely are why First American Title Insurance Company has noted exceptions to M2’s Owner’s Policy but agreed to an 11th hour amendment to their policy adding part of the cemetery, while, at the same time, denying this actually changes title.
Internal emails suggest members of the town Administration may be involved in legal decisions on P&Z matters—not to suggest this is improper, only that it is a fine line that should be set straight, to protect the town in future. Other questions raised by commissioners are: Why the town has not stepped in to conduct an independent title search, how much open space is left after increasing building footprints, why no cemetery setbacks, and why no 50-foot buffer as suggested by the state for protection during construction?
Many old maps identify the Burial Ground as a landlocked ‘intrusion’ into M2 property. Early on M2 needed 50 percent open space to balance building sizes. M2 has never paid tax on this ‘found’ cemetery property officially listed as town owned. Six other similar neglected burial places are taken care of by the town.
M2 is claiming five plots but says no actual burials. A red flag? Revolutionary War soldiers and founding families of our early shoe industry were buried here. The Historical Society has twice petitioned the selectmen to clean up Maple Street. Let’s hope no ancestors turn up to complain when the backhoe arrives and that the town is not the responsible party.
Terry C. Spring
Member, Historic District Commission
Important Press Release….Put Out By “Citizens For New Canaan.
I have also added a comment at the end.
PRESS RELEASE
CONNECTICUT STATE ARCHAEOLOGIST COMMENTS ON MAPLE STREET CEMETERY’S GROUND PENETRATING RADAR (GPR) SURVEY REPORT
A Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey was performed on March 10, 2016 at 17-21 Maple Street.
The purpose of this survey was to mark the location of existing, marked graves, as well as potentially unmarked graves.
During the October 4 final hearing, a representative from M2Partners informed the Planning and Zoning Commissioners that the survey was limited to the five plots at the top of the cemetery on which they planned to construct a building and underground parking garage.
On March 11, 2016 this report was prepared for and submitted to Karp Associates, Inc. by Underground Surveying, LLC of Brookfield, CT. On October 4, 2016, a copy of this report was submitted to Town Planner Steve Kleppin during the final public hearing on the application of M2Partners to construct 115 new condominium and rental units where there are currently 38 apartments.
Dr. Brian D. Jones, Connecticut State Archaeologist, noted that the report “certainly does not present enough information to make an adequate assessment of the property. Suggesting that the burials were ‘too old’ to detect is misleading and not really meaningful.”
“Soil conditions can make GPR results equivocal,” Jones observed, ”but this is based not on the age of the features one is attempting to detect, but on obstructions in the soil that may disturb the radar signal of subtle features – and burials can be quite subtle.”
“An appropriate GPR report should include images of the actual data, including both sample profiles (at least) of the transects taken during the survey and plan views (“time slices”) of the full area examined. The creation of the time slice views requires a systematic survey of the area, ideally done at 50cm intervals between transects. I have often seen engineering firms “prospect” for burials on random lines. While this can work for on-the-fly projects, it does not provide the type of map output that can be used as an overlay for planning purposes.”
Dr. Jones concluded that the GPR Survey Report “does not provide the type of map output that can be used as an overlay for planning purposes.”
Laszlo Papp, Acting Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission during the final hearing, requested that M2Partners conduct a more invasive survey of the area in question. The recommended method would involve the removal of one foot of soil to check for any unmarked graves. The procedure was to be conducted in the presence of the Office of State Archaeology.
Subsequent to our last press release M2Partners contacted Dr. Jones. According to Dr. Jones, M2Partners will hire an archaeological firm to monitor the top soil stripping.
…………………
It appears that there is Archeologist activity at the Maple Street Cemetery now. I hope we hear the results soon. Between the botched radar survey M2 finally handed over at the last meeting which they used to build their case to our Town’s outrageous lack of accepting the responsibility to get the facts up until this point and protect what is their ( our ) responsibility to do by law .
The public has been left with ever growing questions. Let’s hear some answers on this issue and the tittle issues with this attempted cemetery land grab.
Jack Trifero
Everyone should tour the property to see the over 50 orange flags where the radar detection survey identified possible burial sites. Plus another three orange spots on the pavement of the parking lot – yes, three possible grave sites have been paved over.
The easiest way is to park on Maple St (when school is not getting out) and walk up the driveway opposite St.A’s parking lot. Although the fallen leaves make it hard to see the flags, once you start to wander around the cemetery, they become visible. It is somewhat amazing to think there may be that many remains. The next step is for professionals to actually do a little digging at each site and perform further scans to determine if there is truly some evidence of remains all over the property.
REMEMBER we are talking about parcel P
Wow—if either of the three letter writers had the facts correct this would be of great interest. I have to believe that none of you want to believe the consultants, state officials, the recorded land records, the title report or the Town’s Attorney. Additionally, Mimi–that is not what the orange spots nor the flags indicate. What the orange paint and flags do show is an area that has been scanned by ground penetrating radar by the Federal Government. Any ground that has an abnormality–which can be rock, wood or even just soil disturbance gets an orange flag. One of the flags located a long ago headstone that was covered by grass –not on Parcel P. For the record, there is no difference if a grave site was on this property or any other piece in New Canaan or the State of Connecticut. What you see in the area flagged is not Parcel P but actually the cemetery where we know there are remains. Interesting that the heavily flagged area is where the known cemetery is.
Why don’t you kind folks put the time into getting the cemetery that we know has been desecrated to the east of our property restored? Why is that not a problem or priority–or are you just trying to stop Merritt Village.
Arnold, I just want to be clear on my and many New Canaanites’ position. If you go to Change.org and search for the “Preserve Our Village” petition you will find over 150 letters highly critical of your Zoning Regulation busting application. No one objects to you building on your property. The heart of the issue is that your application does not adhere to our current Town Zoning regulations.
As you are aware, we collected over 1,000 New Canaan citizens’ signatures on both our change.org and hard copy petitions. I can honestly tell you that vast majority of this Town’s residents do not want your proposal to pass as it was presented during the P+Z hearings.
As for your cemetery rhetoric. It was well stated at the public meetings by other citizens characterizing your company’s presentations…..”Garbage In, Garbage Out”. Your paid advisors and consultants raised more questions than they answered.
At the October 4th hearing our Town Attorney barely agreed with your facts. He just presented what your firm presented to him. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Regarding your remark about the “State Officials”. If you mean the State Archeologist you might refer to Citizens for New Canaan press release mentioned in the above comment. The Ground Penetrating Radar scan, which included meaningless maps of cemeteries from other towns, didn’t hold much water with anyone.
Once more….”Garbage In, Garbage Out”.