Love the Loop

2011-11-04T07:25:00.000-07:00

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."

2011-10-16T10:27:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-09-24T07:43:00.000-07:00

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.

At the regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held September 19, the commissioners made several decisions about the Cherenzia discussion and decision process.

1. Commissioners sitting to decide the matter will be: Ben Tamsky, John Prue, Robert Marseglia, Curtis Lynch and A. Gardner Young.

2. Discussions about issuing or denying the special use permit will begin at the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 18. (Commissioners chose to postpone discussion at their October 3 meeting to give all commissioners a chance to review the mounds of information presented by the applicant and the objectors.)

3. Deliberation on the merits of the Cherenzia project will continue at regular Planning and Zoning meetings scheduled for November 1 and November 15.

4. Commissioners requested an opinion from the Town’s attorney on the zoning regulation 6.6.7, Excavation and Filling. (See Loop Links for a copy of this section of the zoning code.) Commissioners requested answers to the following questions:

Does 6.6.7 apply to subdivisions?
Can the Planning and Zoning Commission enforce 6.6.7.2.1?
Can the Commission enforce 6.6.7.3?
Can the Commission enforce 6.6.7.6?

5. Commissioners also requested staff to review the September 14 hearing and provide a written recap of Cherenzia's proposed stipulations.

6. The Commission will begin deliberation on October 18 with the zoning issues.

2011-09-13T09:46:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-09-10T10:24:00.000-07:00

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!

2011-09-01T10:10:00.000-07:00

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.

According to Stonington Zoning regulations (6.3.6.4), Planning and Zoning commissioners must take into account the burden of future expenses that a development project may pose. They must determine whether “the Town’s Capital Expenditure Plan is adequate to handle future demands from the proposal.”

Myself and my neighbors love the Loop but we are not just selfishly interested in what’s happening in our own backyards. We feel the Cherenzia project could pose a problem to taxpayers throughout the Town.

We want our neighborhood to remain an asset to this Town. We do not want to recreate a situation this neighborhood has already experienced -- failed wells and forced conversion to a public water supply. We want to alert Town residents that we have a huge potential problem here. A problem that could only be corrected with substantial expense, a capital expense that would be shared, town-wide, with other taxpayers.

2011-08-25T07:50:00.000-07:00

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.”

I find it interesting that several years earlier, the Planning Department went to great lengths to describe the contents of an Archeological Study. I regret they did not take the same approach with the Environmental Assessment, describe and define rather than eliminate.

Without an Environmental Assessment the Planning and Zoning Commissioners are stripped of valuable information. They are denied answers to basic questions. What environmental value does a particular site offer as it stands? How will proposed development alter the current balance?

Without an Environmental Assessment, commissioners are blind. They have received no baseline information on water resources. They have no knowledge of how surface and ground water interact. They have little understanding of wildlife currently occupying the space and how displacement will effect the area. They have no list of plants and trees that now hold sway and what changes will occur if the land is clear cut and grubbed. They have no description of endangered species or an endangered vernal pool or endangered wetlands.

Luckily, the Commission might still has a chance to read an Environmental Assessment for the Cherenzia project.

An organization that serves 86 towns in eastern Connecticut provides municipalities an Environmental Assessment free of charge. The Connecticut Environmental Review Team is supported by fees paid to the Town when residents submit a land use application. The Team is staffed by seasoned professionals and has reviewed projects in Stonington for the past twenty years. According to their website (www.ctert.org) they want to help municipalities, such as Stonigton, “meet the challenge of development through knowledge of the land, its resources and the probable effects of development.”

The The Environmental Review Team is ready to help Stonington. The Town just has to ask. That is, First Selectman, Ed Haberek just has to ask. Call (860 535 5050) or email (ehaberek@stonington-ct.gov) to show your support. Tell Mr. Haberek you want the commissioners to have an Environmental Assessment of the Cherenzia project available for their review.

2011-08-17T08:12:00.000-07:00

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

Yesterday, I checked with the Planning Department for any new information in the Cherenzia file. A letter arrived on August 15. Cherenzia has begun an archeological study on the proposed site at Greenhaven and Mary Hall roads. It's not yet a report ... but it is an exciting beginning. Connect to the documents under Loop Links.

Two reports are missing from the Cherenzia application. One is an Archeological Study. The second is an Environmental Assessment. Each is missing for a different reason and the lack of these reports leaves us in the dark on two important topics.

First, are there important historic and archeological features on the Cherenzia site that should be considered before development goes forward? Will the disturbance of the site lead to losses in endangered plant or animal species or put in danger such important natural capital, such as aquifers? I contend that Planning and Zoning commissioners cannot make an informed decision on behalf of Town residents if they lack such important information.

Today, I will discuss the Archeological Study. Later this week, I will comment on the Environmental Assessment.

According the Stonington Zoning Regulations (6.6.24), an Archeological Study is a required document. Such a study must be included in an application for a Special Use Permit. The regs are very detailed and outline how to determine the need for such a study, how to conduct such a study, who is qualified to do such a review, and who, besides the Planning and Zoning Commission, needs to see the report.

Let’s start with “determination of need.” The Zoning code states that an archeological report is needed if there are proximate “archeological or historical sites.” Or if the “natural terrain features ... proximity to wetlands ...[or] rock shelters... [or] scientifically documented settlement patterns.”

The property proposed for development by Cherenzia is adjacent to wetlands. It is at a crossroad that connects a seasonal Indian fishing site along the Pawcatuck River (Stanton Weir Park) and an upland Indian deer hunting site at Barn Island. The site also contains a southeastern facing ledge favored by Indians for winter villages. A similarly situated ledge farther south on River Road has been documented as an Indian village site.

Other village sites and burial grounds have been identified on the Davis Farm. None of these “areas of interest” is more than two miles from the corner of Greenhaven and Mary Hall roads.

On a walk around the Loop, you can easily identify these sites. Stanton Weir is the small parking lot and adjacent land on the left, just south of Mary Hall Road. The Indian village site is on the right as you walk farther south along River Road. Current owners place Adirondack chairs on the top of the ledge to get a better view over a small river cove. The Davis Homestead sits on a rise where the road name changes to Greenhaven.
According to the regs, archeological reports should be “prepared by a professional archeologist.” A list of accredited professionals is maintained by the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office.

The regs go on to explain that an Archeological Study should contain “an evaluation of impact ... on archeological sites and historic sites” along with a “description of measures ... to mitigate adverse impacts” that may include “open space dedication, conservation easements ... relocation of buildings.”

Copies of Archeological Studies shall be submitted to the Office of Connecticut State Archeology and the State Historic Preservation Office “for review and comment prior to close of any public hearing. Comments received from state officials shall be incorporated into the public hearing records.”

At the public hearing in June, a Commissioner asked Mr. Ligouri if Cherenzia had completed a study for the entire 58-acre site. Mr. Ligouri seemed to admit that the current study was based on “only paper research” and that “no test pits” had been dug. He also stated that Cherenzia was “willing to pay” and that the company “expects to do a survey.”

And yet ... there is still no required Archeological Study in the file.

2011-08-02T13:50:00.000-07:00

Who's Gonna Buy These Places?

That's the first question I am asked when I describe the 68 attached housing units proposed by Cherenzia on Mary Hall and Greenhaven roads. The question carries an air of disbelief as well a practical assessment of the local real estate situation.

A Harvard study published on June 12, 2011, reports that “the U.S. housing market has a very bumpy road to travel ....with millions of owners stuck in homes ... and existing home sales remain[ing] depressed while new home sales continue near record lows.”

The article goes on to state that “total housing construction starts were well below 1 million for the third consecutive year in 2010, while completion of single- and multi-family houses was down to 652,000 .... New home sales dropped another 14 percent in 2010 to a low of 323,000, marking the fifth consecutive year of double-digit declines.”

Local new reflects national news stories. Patch.com reported July 12, 2011, that there “is currently 18 months of inventory on the ... Stonington market.” And a headline from The Day in a July 17, 2011, story said: “Region’s home prices stay stuck on low.” The piece reports that “the bulk of sales consists of foreclosures, short sales and home under $200,000 for first-time buyers.”

Broker Peter A. Harvey wrote a “Feasibility Market Study” for the Cherenzia project in November 2010. He identified three market segments as potential buyers.

The first is described as “older step-down buyers from within the local community who are selling an existing larger home” or “current owners of older condominium units in the area desiring something new...”

Tim Bray of Sotheby’s International Realty describes this segment. “It used to be a trend that people who owned larger homes as they got older would want to sell and they could sell. Today, that isn’t so easy.” In other words, if you can’t sell, you can’t buy.

Harvey’s choice for a second market segment is “buyers presently living and working outside the area, particularly in the metro New York and western Connecticut areas ... for weekend and vacation use.” Bray describes this type of buyer as “calling but not buying,” while another local realtor has declared the previously robust Stonington second-home/vacation-home market now dead.

That leaves the third segment in Harvey’s report: “(Y)ounger single and married couples without children, making a first purchase to build equity.” The New York Times on May 30, 2011, reported that the luster once associated with home ownership is wearing thin. “The emotional scars left by the collapse are changing the American psyche. There was a time when owning a home was a symbol that you had made it. Now it’s O.K. not to own.” A man’s home may still be his castle but it is no longer his investment portfolio.

So, it seems that each of Harvey’s market segments is having a hard slog these days. But what about price? Will the Cherenzia units be offered at such an attractive price that price becomes the magic wand to promotes sales?

Bray explains that the median household income for Stonington is $71,000. By tripling that income, you arrive at the median price of a home here. Bray establishes that price as $214,000.

According to Harvey’s “Feasibility Market Study,” “The target price points for Cherenzia units are $315,000 and $280,000. These prices “are deemed to be achievable and slightly below market rate.” These prices are also well above the median price of $214,000 mentioned above.

The New York Times sums up both the local and the national moods. “A house is a long-term commitment that many are loathe to make in uncertain times such as these.”

As we asked earlier: “Who’s gonna buy these places?”

2011-07-28T15:07:00.000-07:00

An analysis (of traffic or anything else)is only as good as its data: Part 2

Heather is lead researcher on Cherenzia's traffic analysis. Here is her post on trip generation.

Thanks to all involved in our Traffic Count! Whether you were at the station distributing brochures, sharing information, counting movements or passing through as one of the many vehicles and pedestrians - I thank you greatly. I have compiled the data and provided an overview, as well as some supporting details as to why we felt compelled to spend part of our weekend at an intersection of our beloved loop. From 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., there were 116 vehicle movements and 32 pedestrian movements. The following hour resulted in 230 vehicle movements and 16 pedestrian movements.

What does all this mean? Our neighborhood streets are already congested but to add the volume of attached housing may result in dangerous circumstances. Unlike other areas with this high volume of movements, our pedestrians have no sidewalks for safety.

Our neighborhood is on a peninsula with two main means of egress. Spring of 2010 showed us our vulnerability if required to evacuate. Parts of Mechanic Street, River Road and Mary Hall were all under water. The structural integrity of the bridge on Greenhaven Road, over Wequetequock Cove, was in question and closed due to a partial collapse.

Developing this site with attached housing/condos increases the possible number of households/units with a lower cost to build per square feet. That's great news for the developer's profit but not for us. If the land was developed with single family homes it would decrease the quantity of additional movements by decreasing the quantity of households/units.

It was mentioned in The Day’s July 7 article, that a similar Cherenzia development (76-units called Fountain Crest) in Westerly, RI, did not dramatically increase traffic. This part of the article inspired me to use that project as a tangible example of what is proposed for my neighborhood - minus the great deal of blasting - of course.

It was a random Tuesday afternoon during the timeframe of 3:05 to 3:35. During that short amount of time, I observed the actual traffic count of Fountain Crest condos totaling 8 exits and 13 entries. I compared that data to the Table No. 1 Trip Generation Summary in the application for the proposed development on Greenhaven and Mary Hall roads. It was listed as 230 EXIT and 230 ENTER for a full weekday. 230 / 48 (half hour segments in a full weekday) = 4.7 per half hour intervals.

With the observed count at Fountain Crest of 8 EXIT and 13 ENTER, maybe the figures below would be more accurate expectation in a random weekday if this project is approved…8 x 48 (half hour segments in a day) = 384 EXIT and 13 x 48 (half hour segments in a day) = 624 ENTER

In all fairness, this is just 1/48^th of the 230 weekday total traffic count of movements. But also please keep in mind that this is not a peak timeframe of the random weekday. It is in the middle of the work week; a Tuesday. That is considerably more traffic on our loop for any weekday.

2011-07-21T08:28:00.000-07:00

An analysis (of traffic or anything else) is only as good as its data: Part 1

Heather is lead researcher on Cherenzia's traffic analysis. Her post on trip generation will appear shortly.

On December 15, 2010, Bryant Associates of Lincoln, Rhode Island, submitted a “Preliminary Traffic Analysis” to Cherenzia Excavation, Ltd. A traffic analysis generally has three sections: a study of average daily traffic counts in an area; a study of the number of trips generated by residents of a new development; a distribution report that details the choices of routes to be taken by residents.

It is standard procedure to use traffic data generated by the Connecticut Department of Transportation in the first section of such a report. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts throughout the state are available at The Traffic Count Locator on the DOT website.

Bryant Associates chose two sites in the Loop to capture neighborhood traffic counts. The first is at the corner of Greenhaven just south of Sunrise. It shows Average Daily Traffic as 400 vehicles. The second site is on Mary Hall Road close to the intersection of River Road. The ADT there is 1,200 vehicles. (At another level of DOT detail, these counts appear without rounding: 407 and 1,286.)

These sites seem to be odd choices. The Greenhaven site is a half mile south of our Mary Hall Road intersection, a corner which will carry a lot more cars if this proposed development is approved. A count at Sunrise does not correctly describe the amount of traffic flowing in and out of our neighborhood. The second site is also an oddity. It counts the traffic on Mary Hall rather than the more important road into which it flows, River Road.

To better understand the ADT situation and how it could be used to accurately represent the traffic situation, I called the State Department of Transportation and spoke with Jackie Henry-Rafiq, supervisor of the Traffic Monitoring Section. She offered her professional opinion.

“ I don’t think the count of 400 on Greenhaven Road is justified. It’s too far away. There’s nothing below Mary Hall Road. The road doesn’t go anywhere. In my opinion, the traffic count on Greenhaven north of the Mary Hall intersection more accurately represents the flow of traffic for the area.”

She also supports the use of a site on River Road north of Rivercrest Drive as more “justified” than the site on Mary Hall Road. The ADT at Rivercrest is 2,300 and more correctly represents traffic flow in the area.

We ended our conversation with an explanation of her job at DOT. “My function is to collect, analyze and report traffic data, not to say how the data should be used.”

It appears that Bryant Associates has severely underestimated local traffic. The ADT on Greenhaven is more correctly reported as 1,300, more than triple the 400 vehicles per day reported by Bryant. River Road traffic is more accurately reported at 2,300 versus 1,200.

To those of us who live in the Loop, traffic is a public safety issue. We have only two roads out in a crisis. The flood in March 2010 showed us our vulnerability. River Road flooded, the bridge on Greenhaven at Wequetequock Cove was compromised by a rising stream and backed-up tidal water.

When a developer proposes adding new members to our neighborhood, and potentially puts more residents in peril, I would hope they would use the most accurate traffic count possible. Thankfully, this is only a preliminary traffic analysis. Perhaps Bryant Associates will step forward with corrections.


     We have experienced technical difficulties receiving your comments. Hopefully, we have solved the problems. Let us know your thoughts. Leave a comment below.

2011-07-11T16:35:00.000-07:00

Not Your Average Housing Development

The Cherenzia development proposed on Mary Hall and Greenhaven roads is not your average housing development. Normally, we think of a subdivision as land carved up into building lots, roads following an existing landscape and houses situated within that existing landscape.

To understand the Cherenzia project, picture a commercial site such as Stop and Shop on Route 2. To prepare such a site, the developer clear cuts all trees, strips the land of its topsoil, blasts any rock in their way and levels the area. Now they have their industrial building pad.

Posted on the website today are three site plans derived from the Ledge Removal Plan submitted by Cherenzia to the the Stonington Planning Department as part of their application. Unfortunately, I have only an 11” x 17” to work with. The usual 2’ by 3’ version is not in the packet.

To read more, click on “Site Plan-Blasting & Filling” under LOOP LINKS TO CHECK OUT at the left of your screen. We apologize in advance for the side-ways format of the documents.

Is This the Right Site for High Density Housing?

At the public hearing on June 7, 2011, a Planning and Zoning commissioner asked why the acreage on Greenhaven and Mary Hall roads was the “right site” for a high-density condo/townhouse development.

Mr. Ligouri, Cherenzia’s attorney and spokesperson, gave two responses. First, the site is “the largest RM 20 site available ... and a site that has public water and sewer available.”

Then Mr. Ligouri cited the 2004 Plan of Conservation and Development as his second reason. I’m quoting him loosely here but my notes have him saying:

“The Plan supports such a development. The regulations say such development should occur in this community. This is probably the only site [where it could be built.]”

I have a moment of guilt. Am I being a NIMBY, insisting that a proposed development is bad, not on its merits or demerits, but only because the development is sited in my backyard? Am I allowing my own self-interests to cloud my civic judgment?

If the town really needs this type of development, could I support it, for the good of the community? I ask some friends where else such high-density, urban housing could be built. It would have to be a site in Pawcatuck with public sewer and water; a site “close to amenities, close to shopping.” (Two other criteria Mr. Ligouri says are important.)

“What about the Threadmill on River Road?” Sally suggests.

I remember a sign posted on the corner of Clark Street. The website address (www.corebuilds.com) appears across the bottom. The website lists the Pawcatuck Threadmill as “an upcoming project.”

I call Construction Resources, Inc., a construction management/general contractor located in Farmington. I speak with Nick Matarazzo, the company’s vice president. He is friendly but his cell phone keeps crackling.

“The Threadmill is a great project. It’s a 129,000 mixed use development ... been in the works for three or four years. All the site development plans have been submitted. We’re approved for 58 units and 9,000 square feet of retail space. The economy, being what it is, financing has been delayed. But we hope to have the money will be in place by the end of 2011.”

What a great project! It’s a triple win!

CORE will give an old mill, built in the 1880s, a modern purpose. The building will supply high-density housing in Pawcatuck ... and Cherenzia won’t have to build in my backyard!

My momentary guilt is totally assuaged.

2011-07-06T11:52:00.000-07:00

A Missing Map and More about Blasting

I call a friend of mine to come for coffee. He’s a civil engineer and would understand and explain the details of the Ledge Removal Plan.

Joe picks up an 11” x 17” copy of the plan, actually a map. He waves it at me.

“So where’s the big one, the 2’ x 3’ sheet that’s in the Site Development Plan? I asked you to get Planning to make you a copy.”

“But, they don’t have one,” I reply. “I went to Planning. I checked through the entire set of Site Plans. I wrote down a list of the pages: Title/Cover Sheet, Legend and Notes, Existing Conditions Plan, Overall Site Plan, Grading and Drainage Plan, Utility Plan, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, Enhancement Plan, Details.”

Joe shakes his head.

“When I didn’t find it, I asked where it was. They said that Cherenzia has never submitted a full-sized Ledge Removal Plan. They even suggested that they could enlarge one of those 11” x 17” copies for me... if that would be helpful”

Joe uses a magnifier to try to pick up details from the smaller version of the map.

“That would get us absolutely no where,” he says. “Take fuzzy detail and blow it up? You just have big fuzzy detail.”

“What are you looking for?” I ask.

“See these broken lines?” He points to curved lines that crawl across the site. “Those are the contour lines before blasting. They show how the land rises and falls as it is now. Now look at the solid lines. Those are the grade lines AFTER blasting. See that little box. There are numbers in that box.”

Joe points to a box that straddles a straight line. I can’t read the numbers even with a magnifying glass.

“Without knowing those numbers, we don’t know the proposed new contours of the site. In other words, we can’t really understand what Cherenzia plans to do.”

Joe takes a sip of coffee.

“With no full-scale Ledge Removal Plan submitted in the application to the Planning Department, what kind of map did the Wetlands Commission or the Conservation Commission get? Oh, let me guess.”

He tapped the copy sitting on my counter.

“Well, I call that a case of hiding information in full sight. Or maybe, I just might call it ... an incomplete application.”

2011-06-29T13:44:00.000-07:00

The Ledge Rock Removal Plan

At the meeting with Ed Haberek on June 17, I wanted to put him through the same “connect-the-dots” experience I had been through that week. There was no table to spread out the three documents I wanted to show him, so we had to deal with the situation across his desk. I opened the “Conceptual Evaluation,” a document prepared by the Planning Department for the Planning and Zoning Commission, turned to page 12 and rotated the page so he could see it.

“Can you read this paragraph out loud, Ed? It’s upside down to me.”

“Sure.”

A significant amount of ledge exists on the subject property. A ledge removal plan submitted by the applicant show the largest area of ledge removal in the area approximately 200’ from Mary Hall Road, with ledge expected to be removed in other areas as well.

“Well, that sounds pretty benign, doesn’t it?” I said. “But I decided to ask the Planning Department for a copy of the ledge removal plan anyhow. Here’s what they gave me.”

I unfolded an 11” x 17” contour map. It shows three areas slated for removal. The first area is 3.16 acres. The second area is .14 acres. The third area is .34 acres.

“Ed, my hands began to shake when I saw this map. But that’s not all. I went back to the the “Impact Statement” submitted by Cherenzia.

Their statement says there is approximately a 40-foot difference between the road grade on Mary Hall Road and the high point within the 3.16 acres scheduled to be removed. Forty feet! Take the roof off a two-story house, stack another house on top -- that’s 40 feet. Now, I'm an amateur here but if they take 40 feet off a 3-acre surface, I figure that is about 5 million cubic feet of rock!”

I flipped back to page 12 of the “Conceptual Plan.”

“Now, do you think the description given here, about some ledge rock existing on the site and a ledge removal plan is on file? ... Do you think that is an adequate description of blasting and crushing of more than 3.5 acres of rock? Do you think the Commissioners need to know about this?”

Ed nodded yes. He took a pen and make a note on his desk pad.

“And I have another question. At the public hearing, Cherenzia’s staff took an hour to present all kinds of photos, maps and charts. Why was the ledge removal plan never presented at the public hearing? Between rock removal and regrading, the site is going to look like an airport runway.”

“This is mountain top removal ... and we don’t even live in coal country!”

There's a lot to learn, so let's get started ....

2011-06-24T13:41:00.000-07:00

Cherenzia Excavation, Inc. has submitted a proposal to build 68 attached housing units and 11 single family along Greenhaven and Mary Hall roads. The site is just up the hill from my home on Mary Hall Road.

On June 7, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on the proposal. I arrived home the night at 11pm. I was exhausted. I had listened to a full hour presentation by Cherenzia staff with charts and graphs and few questions from the four Commissioners present. I spend another hour listening to the objection from my neighbors. No one spoke in behalf of the project.

The weather was hot and stuffy. Open doors brought in mosquitoes attracted to electric lights and bare skin. In all, it was a trying night for citizens doing their democratic duties: volunteer Commissions and my neighbors alike. I woke the next morning depressed to think that my neighborhood would be altered forever. I pouted for two days, then got to work.

I made phone calls and met with people. I sought some deeper understanding of the proposal. I wanted to get beyond the suits talking to each other as they shuffled paper and quoted three digit zoning regulations. I’ve been to the Planning Department so many times in the last two weeks, staff just roll their eyes when I walk in. I’ve been asked to call ahead if I want copies.

I scheduled a meeting with Ed Haberek, the First Selectman, to clarify roles and responsibilities. What is the role of Commissions like Inland Wetlands and Conservation? What is the role of the Planning Department staff? Who (if anyone) is doing "due diligence" research? Is Planning Staff charged with this function? Or does staff just act as a funnel and push information from Cherenzia to the Planning and Zoning Commission? The Commissioners will make the final decision on behalf of the Town. They will decide if this project will go ahead. Or not.

I told Ed how concerned I was. Commissioners have ALL the information they need to make a good decision. Here’s why ...

The “Conceptual Evaluation” prepared for the Planning and Zoning Commission outlines the “basic feasibility” of the Cherenzia project. In short paragraphs, the report ticks off sewers, fire protection, highway maintenance: feasible. Provisions for preservation of significant ... environmental features: feasible. Project density, impacts on adjoining neighborhoods, architectural treatment, school impact: feasible. In the end, the “Conceptual Evaluation” considers all aspect of the project as doable.

I disagree. In my opinion, the “Conceptual Evaluation”, is such a watered down version of the proposal that it is, in fact, a re-telling of the story. In order to really understand what’s going on, we have to get behind the evaluation. We have to go back to reports, support documents and memoranda.

.... More tomorrow