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.