Planning and Zoning Commission Approves Cherenzia Project

       On Tuesday, November 1, commissioners approved a special use permit to build 68 attached housing units on Mary Hall and Greenhaven roads.  The decision was unanimous.  
      Before announcing the decision, the chairman of the commission noted the amount of interest surrounding the project.  He then announced an opening on the commission and suggested that someone from the neighborhood might want to seek the appointment so they could "sit on this side of the desk and be present for the next big project."  He further noted that work will begin in early 2012 on Stonington's  new Plan of Conservation and Development.  Perhaps neighbors would like to join in this effort?
      Personally, I will not report for duty on either project.
      These past months have been a discouraging foray into civic practice.  I have watched the opinions of over 700 people dismissed as being unimportant.  I have watched attorneys strut and cajole and threaten.  I have watched the respect given to big interests and hollow expert testimony while honest concern about potential perils is discredited as being "something they'll get used to."
      "Occupy Wall Street" has identified the rift between the 1% and everyone else.  The same story has played out here in Stonington.  The people actually effected by the project, the 99%, appear to have a voice ... but they have no real influence.  A broken system is in place.  As Einstein said, it's a system where "reason conquers common sense."

Planning and Zoning Commission Meets to Decide 

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

7pm   Mystic Middle School 

       The Planning and Zoning Commission meets this Tuesday, October 18, to discuss whether or not to issue a Special Use Permit to build 68 attached housing units on Mary Hall and Greenhaven roads.  

       The issuance of a Special Use Permit requires a super majority. Four out of five voting members must agree on the Town's course of action. 

       Commission members have requested an opinion from the Town's attorney on two zoning matters.  As of Friday, October 14, Attorney Londragen had not submitted his opinion.  
       

        

This summer, I put in 105 days of continuous “civic service”

 to report discrepancies, inaccuracies, and missing documents 

in a local subdivision application. 

 As fall approached, I took a couple of days of vacation, 

purchased a new supply of #2 lead and 8.5” x 11” note pads. 

I’m back in the fray for the final count down.  

November 18, 2011 is the date to watch. 

Public Hearing ends. Deliberation begins.
       
        The public hearing on the proposed Cherenzia development on Greenhaven and Mary Hall roads ended just after mid-night on September 14. Ten hours of public comment on September 12 and September 14 preceeded the fall of the gavel to close the public comment period. 

       Both meetings were long and contentious. Attorney Mark Kepple, formally represented only a small group of Loop neighbors.  Informally, however, he gave great weight to the opposition voices of many.  

       More then 150 people attended the public hearing on Monday. Seventy-five hardy souls returned for the meeting on Wednesday. By the end of the public comment period, the signature count on petitions opposing the development reached 740.  Visitors to the lovetheloop website between June 15 and September 14 exceeded 2,600. 

             The decision to issue Cherenzia a special use permit to build 68-units of attached housing is in the hands of five Planning and Zoning Commissioners.  These men must decide within sixty-five days, a time period established under Connecticut State statutes. A commission decision will be made by November 18, 2011.  

Public Hearing 

proposed 68 attached housing units

 on Mary Hall and Greenhaven roads

 has been continued.

  Wednesday, September 14, 2011. 

  Mystic Middle School 

 7:30pm

    The meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight is the last opportunity to present public comments.  

         The meeting will open with Cherenzia explaining changes  dropped off at the Planning office on Friday, September 2. Since the applicant is presenting new information, the public will be allowed to comment -- even speakers who have spoken before.   

    I will present the following letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission this evening.

Planning and Zoning Commission

Stonington Town Hall

152 Elm Street

Stonington, CT  06378

ATT:  PZ1112SD & SUP Richard C. Panciera Remainder Trust II

Commissioners,

I will be brief. I want to bring only three points to your attention.

First, you have no Environmental Assessment on the proposed site.  The site is currently ledge rock and “swamp,” as one of my neighbors described it.  It is currently wooded.

Ledge blasting and filling will totally alter the current topography. Water that has flowed in natural patterns through the site for centuries will be disrupted and replaced by an intricate, difficult to manage ... and as currently designed, dangerous .... storm water system

Currently, you have no detailed, critical, independent review or analysis of the environmental situation. You have only a description, by the developer in their Environmental Impact Statement, of what the site will look like and how it will function after the project is complete. Currently, you have no way to connect the dots between before and after.

Second,  You have no Archeological Study, a document that is required in an application for a Special Use Permit.  A document that should have been presented during the public hearing for your review ... and for review and comments by interested residents.  

Instead of a full and complete study, you have a three page letter from a very reputable firm, Archeological and Historical Services, Inc. In the letter, the company designates approximately 6 acres (of the 25 acres to be developed) to be “of interest” for both Colonial and Native American presence. One mid-18th century artifact has already been found.

And you have a stipulation by the developer that essentially says “we’ll take care of everything.”

My final point is the Traffic Analysis. Mary Hall, Greenhaven and River roads are narrow, have minimal shoulders and no sidewalks. The neighbors call it “The Loop.” It is an area of much higher than normal pedestrian and bicycle activity.  Yet the Traffic Analysis, concentrates on car traffic alone. There is no mention of pedestrians and their safety. 

I ask you to reject this application because the Commission does not have sufficient information to make an informed decision on behalf of the citizens of Stonington. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

    SPECIAL USE PERMIT 

   FOR 68 ATTACHED UNITS

ON MARY HALL AND GREENHAVEN ROAD

    PZ 1112SD & SUP Richard C. Panciera Remainder Trust II 

Monday, September 12, 2011

7PM

Mystic Middle School, Cafeteria

Come!  It’s important to show up.  

The Planning and Zoning Commission

 is counting the number of neighbors who object to this project.

  Every person who shows up and vigorously opposes 

the project gives the commissioners another reason to turn the project down.

Sign up and Speak Out!

    Not a polished public speaker? 

No problem. 

Brief is better than long winded.

  Just say what you think. Pick a point, important to you,

 and state your case. 

Simpler still: say you agree with  

 someone else.  

Be brave! This is democracy in action. 

It’s going to be a long night so make yourself comfortable.

Bring a seat cushion and a bottle of water. 

  If it’s hot, bring a fan. 

 If it’s buggy, bring bug spray.  


Leave plenty of time to get to Mystic Middle School.
On Monday,
 bridge construction begins on Route 1
between North Main and the Shell Station.


Let us each be proud of everything 
we've done to object
to this project.


See you Monday!

STORM CHANGES HEARING DATE

Last Friday, Cherenzia delivered a pile of new information to the Planning Department. (New documents include a totally revised Traffic Study and a hydrogeology report.) Then Irene arrived along will wind, rain and power outages. Town Hall remained closed until Thursday. Since Town staff, as well as our experts, need time to review the new information, P & Z commissioners have postponed the public hearing until:

                      Monday, September 12. 

                  Mystic Middle School     7PM.  

Thoughts on wells and public water supplies

           As Town residents, we have a collective responsibility to speak out against incomplete applications, inaccurate reports and unanswered questions. This website has insisted on the need for full disclosure on important issues that may effect the entire town... issues such as water resources and their protection.

       Private wells, in a sense, are public assets.  If private wells fail because surface or ground water is disrupted, water supply to those families with failed wells becomes a public issue, a liabiltiy, an expense the entire community must share.  

       We already have an example on Mary Hall Road of private wells becoming public liabilities.  In l977, three wells went dry due to excavation at the waste water treatment plant.  The treatment plant and the three failed wells are situated just across Mary Hall Road from the proposed Cherenzia project.

      In the fall of 1977, the Town, at taxpayers’ expense, set up temporary water supplies to homes with failed wells.  Town taxpayers, with some help from State agencies, eventually paid to extend the Westerly public water line and to reestablish the supply of potable water to those homes with failed wells.  

       Do we want to repeat this experience on a grander scale?  Has the Town factored in costs of reestablishing water supplies disrupted by the Cherenzia project? What if thirty wells in the area -- at homes immediately adjacent to the project -- need public water because their wells fail?  This disaster will quickly cancel any benefit to the Town from increased property tax revenue. 

What We Don’t Know is Just as Important as What We Do Know -- Part Two

       As I stated last week, Stonington requires an Archeological Study when applying  for a Special Use Permit.  We have no such report in the Cherenzia file.  It’s missing because the developer never submitted one.  Granted, Cherenzia hired Archeological and Historical Services, Inc. That company completed an “Archeological Assessment Survey” and suggested next steps such as setting up test grids and digging shovel pits.

        But does this letter qualify as the Archeological Study? Such a study requires a report on “features and artifacts discovered.” Such a study is meant to be presented at a public hearing for discussion. 

        Cherenzia’s letter also ignores some possible results. It assumes that all artifacts found can be easily removed.  What if more permanent features are discovered?  How will they be protected? There is no mention of “redesign or reallocation of ... buildings to minimize adverse impact.”  The letter makes no mention of “time [or money] required for more extensive investigations.”  Does Cherenzia plan to devote two weeks to this exploration? Two months? Results depend heavily on time and money spent.

       The absence of an Environmental Assessment leads to a very different story, one that begins in the Town’s Planning Department. 

       In the summer of 2010, the Planning Department proposed 38 revisions to the Town’s zoning regulations. The revisions came, as an “omnibus text amendment,” to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 1, 2010. (A text amendment is a proposed word change. In some cases, new words are added.  In other places, words are taken out.  Omnibus means that many changes are considered at the same time.)

        The requirement to submit an Environmental Assessment when applying for a Special Use Permit disappeared with the stroke of a pen. It was simply crossed out. The official recommendation: “Eliminate ‘Environmental Assessment’ since its content is defined nowhere in the regulations.”