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?