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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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?

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.”

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. 

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

         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.