WordPress database error: [Can't open file: 'wp_bas_log.MYI' (errno: 145)]
INSERT INTO wp_bas_log (visit, stamp, outbound, page) VALUES (43877, '2008-08-28 17:42:11', 0, 23);

Levers and Pulleys
Polaroid Photo

Click for the Fine Art and Illustrations of Craig Houghton

Levers and Pulleys

Choose a Topic:

An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way. -- Charles Bukowski
Site:
RSS 2 FeedAtom Feed
blog radio

JohnEdwards.com

Tue
5
Feb '08

Obama rally at the Hartford XL Civic Center - Video and Pics

Note: This is cross-posted over at the Cheshire Town Post.

The XL center was packed. The first image is a panorama of five images stitched together. All photos my own. Video is from CTBob.

I went into the rally as a recovering Edwards supporter strongly leaning towards Hillary. I left in exactly the same state. Obama sounded great. The audience cheered and beamed. It’s just that I’m looking for real change, more than either of the two remaining candidates provide. Between the two, I’ll take Hillary.

Full Size 8100×2300 (Huge, 5 megs)
Medium 1024×290
obama_rally_pano_thumb.jpg

amongst the crowd
obama.jpg

chris murphy, rosa delauro, barack obama, john larson, ted kennedy
ted_kennedy.jpg

Video of the event from CTBob

murphy and delauro
murphy_for_obama1.jpg

Obama is a centrist. So is Clinton, but in the end I think she’ll stand up better to the heat. My position has less to do with Clinton having passed through the gauntlet already than it does this: Obama wants to unite the two parties. That usually translates to a one-sided compromise in favor of the republicans. He’s not even setting his sites on real universal healthcare, so what will his plan look like after the republican machine whittles it down? Hillary has a progressive voting record (aside from the war), a decent platform (better on paper than Obama’s), and a proven ability to walk through fire (well, it improved over time).

I would love to feel the magic. I just get the feeling he’s more likely to head to the right than he is the left. More than a leader, we need a politician that will act when the people demand change. Hillary isn’t perfect, but I see her pushing through more progressive legislation than Obama.

Although I have a lot of respect for Ted, Robert Jr’s endorsement matters a whole lot more to me:


What matters most is how well you walk through the fire. ~Charles Bukowski

Fri
18
Jan '08

Leaked draft of findings for the W/S Development Zone Map Change

Note: This is cross-posted over at the Cheshire Town Post.


It is the opinion of the Commission that this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

This doesn’t look like good news for fans of process. In fact, it’s downright humiliating for anyone that has endured hours of meetings listening to a W/S sales pitch while waiting to contribute, only to find that the audience dwindled to a stalwart few and the press all went home. Considering what Cindy posted yesterday over at the Underground Town Hall, I am surprised the PZC even bothered. It looks like the process has been nothing more than pageantry. Cindy posted in two parts: here is part one and part two.

from the Underground Town Hall

This is going to be a long post, so I am going to break it up into two separate posts. Frankly, after what I found in my mailbox this afternoon, I wonder why they even had this meeting and will have another “meeting” Jan 22, with the final decision to be made on the 28th of January.

I’ve heard some rumors, but I really have no idea how or why this was leaked. Considering that new information is still coming in, it’s just horrifying to see this draft written up in such detail and finality.

It was a “DRAFT: FINDINGS -W/S Development Zone Map Change.

This is the wording on the DRAFT.

“According to State law, the PZC is acting in a legislative capacity when dealing with a proposed zone map change. As such, it is only required to apply its informed judgement to the questions of whether the proposed change is in the best interest of the Town as a whole, and consistent with the Plan of Development & Conservation. In this case, however, additional findings are required.

Section 45B.6 of the Cheshire Zoning Regulations states that the Commission may approve a zone change to an Interchange Special Development District and the Interchange Special Development Project only if, in the opinion of the Commission, the applicant has met al of the standards set forth in this section of the regulations, and if the Commission finds that the zone map change and project ae in the best interests of the town. The discretion to make these findings belongs solely to the Commission as this section states that the Commission must make these findings only in its own judgement.

In addition, Section 22a of the Connecticut General Statutes requires the Commission to consider the entire record with regard to the application’s potential environmental impact.

The twenty areas in which findings are required were the subject of extensive oral and written testimony. The Commission held nearly 20 hours of hearings and reviewed over 1000 pages of written submissions. The opinions of the applicant, the intervenor and the public were considered, and particularly those of the professional staff. To ensure that the Commission had the best and most complete information, the Town engaged an outside, disinterested professional consultant, whose input has been invaluable.

Each of the twenty standards is listed below. In each case, there were positive and negative features of the proposal, which the Commission has weighed carefully. In some cases, the Commission feels that changes in the proposed regulations are necessary to meet the standard. These will be discussed in the decision which follows these findings.

a) The special regulations, as proposed, as well as the proposed development are consistent with the intent of these Interchange Special Development District regulations, the Cheshire Plan of Conservation and Development, and the laws and standards for zone changes and amendments in the State of Connecticut.

The proposed regulations offer a number of amendments over existing regulations and cover a variety of topics. In considering such a wide-ranging revision of the existing rules, attention ut be paid to the specific details. The Commission has reviewed these and has made the changes described in the decision below. With these changes, it is the opionion of theCommision that the application meets the requirements of this standard.

b) The proposed project is designed with recognition of a site’s context and character.

A site’s content and character are defined by natural and manmade characteristics within and around its perimeter. The context for this property is established in part by the I-691 interchange and associated highway frontage, its proximity to existing industrial areas and to the commerical areas along Route 322, by its nearly 1400 feet of frontage on Route 10, and by Dickerman Road that runs along the westerly boundary. Furthermore, the remains of the Farmington Canal as evidenced by the Great Fill also contribute to the site’s context and character.

The context also includes the Ten Mile River corridor with existing floodway and floodplan and regulated wetland areas, and its proximity to the recently developed residential area just north of this property. Any development of this property must be done with consideration of these unique characteristics. Finally, the site will serve as the Norther gateway to the Town.

The Commission walked the site and observed these features first hand. They saw the damage done to the river banks by uncontrolled use of off-road vehicles, and the collapsed culvert at the Great Fill. The proposed development will not only resotre and preserve the Ten Mile River and its banks and the Great Fill, but will make them the centerpiece of the development.

It is the opinion of the Commission that, with some changes in the specific regulations, particulary with regard to landscaping, this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

c) That the natural features of the land have been considered as design determinants.

As noted above, the site has many distinctive natural and historical features. In particular, much testimony dealt with the need to preserve and protect the Ten Mle River and its environs. The site design on the proposed plan includes corridor widths ranging from 1oo feet in the central area to in excess of 1,000 feet from Dickerman Road perimeter. It is the commission’s opinion that the design of this proposal represents an earnest effort to protect the Ten Mile River corridor.

Development on the remaining portions of the site is being done to minimize fill and excessive grading. In addition, there is no development propoed on the small portion other site that lies within the aquifer protection area in the southeasterly corner.

The Commission notes that the application was unanimoulsy approved by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commissions. It is the opinion of the Commission that, with some changes to the proposed regulations, this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

d) That important historic and archaeological characteristics have been respected and considered as design determinants.

The historic Farminton Canal and aqueduct lies within the central area of this site. The aqueduct was constructed in the early 19th century to establish an elevation for the canal to cross the Ten Mile River. This aqueduct and great fill area were severely disturbed by flodding in the spring of 2007.

This application proposes reconstruction of the aqueduct using modern standards along with the preservation of the original stone arches. There is also a visitor area and heritage monument proposed in teh central portion of the site that will review the history of the Farmington Canal and the importance of this property in that context.

The applicants are proposing a wood trestle bridge for motor vehicles and pediestrians to cross the river. The wood trestles have been chosen to aument the historic setting on the portion of the site.

It is the opinion of the Commission that this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

e) Community facilities, utilities and/or services as presently existing or to be provided by teh applicant, will not be overburdened due to the increase in population or activity caused by the new development.

The applicant for this project will construct public water and sewer as required by the Cheshire Zoning Regulations. The Water Pollution control authority (WPCA) granted the request for the feasibility at their meeting of December 19, 2007. A copy of those minutes of those proceedings is attached. In this acton, the WPCA states that the sanitary sewarage system is generally capable of construction and is capable of being connected to the Town of Cheshire public sanitary sewer system. The WPCA will have final approval of final design of the system, discussion of which is contained in the munutes from the December meeting. assuming this final approval, the utilities required will not overburden the available services. Public safety issues are discussed below.

f) There will not be any significant public safety or fire protection problems and that emergency access is adequately provided.

The Cheshire Police and Fire departments have issued comments to the applicant and Commission during the public hearing phase of this proposal. Both departments requested an emergency access drive from Route 10 that is being provided by the applicant who also offered to dedicate some square footage and parking within the facilaity for public safety personnel to use as needed. They also inted to provide private, on-site security the level of which they have offered to discuss with the Cheshire Police Department.

The Police Department anticipates the need for an additional patrol car for the North End to meet the needs of this project and other developments in the area. The cost for this additional service will be offset by the addtional tax revenues from the development.

EDITORS NOTE: I AM SKIPPING TO THE END. MORE OF THIS “DRAFT” IN THE NEXT POST.

r) There is a reasonable assurance that the developer has the financial and organizational capability to complete the project as submitted.

The applicant has provided the necessary documentation to support this standard. The Commission can find no evidence to cast doubt that this developer is capable of completing this project.

It is the opinion of the commission that this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

f) The overall project is in the best interest of the Town.

Based upon the discussion above, as well as upon the positive fiscal impact of the development, the Commission concludes that the overall project is, in fact, in the best interest of the town.

After due consideration of the entire record, the Commision finds that the applicant’s proposed Zone Map Change, Interchange Special Development District Project Plan, and Aquifer Protection Application are not reasonably likely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting, imparing or destroying the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Cheshire Planning and zoning Commission that this application meets all of the standards laid out in Section 45.B6 of the Zoning Regulations, and that it may, therefore, be approved by the Commission.

from part two

g) Any internal circulation system encourages pedestrian use and provides linkage throughout a development to the maximum extent possible.

The proposed development plan shows a walkway system beginning at two locations on Dickerman Road proceeding through the open, common areas within the proposed residential portion of the site and also along the buffer area adjacent to the Ten Mile River. The walkways cross the rier at two locations: one across restored Great Fill and culvert leading through the area of the heritage monument into the restaurant court portion of the site. This area also contains some outdoor eating areas and terraced overlooks of the river. Pedestrians also have the option of crossing the river on the proposed timber bridge that is proposed with a dedicated walkway. The primary retail portion of the site has clearly defined walkways that are shown with distinctive crossing across the interior roadways.

The Commission believes that the provision of public acces along and to the Ten Mile River corridor is an important design feature well attended to within this proposal. It is also our opinion that the location of the walkways will maximize pedestrian safety.

h) Separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic is maintained to the greatest extent possible.

As noted above, pedesetrian and vehicular traffic is well-separated in the proposed development. The proposed trestle bridge has pedestrian traffic isolated by a divider from the vehicular traffic.

It is the opinion of the Commission that this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

i) Adequate on-site parking for the proposed development is provided, consistent with items f) through h), above.

The Commission is concerned that the proposed standard (1.5 spaces per unit) for the residential area is inadequate. EDITORS NOTE: WHAT ABOUT THE RETAIL PART? IS THAT WHY A PARKING GARAGE WAS DISCUSSED. WESTFARMS MALL, MERDEN SQUARE AND TRUMBULL MALL HAD TO BUILD PARKING GARAGES AND THEY ARE USUALLY FILLED.

The regulations will be modified to change this to 2 spaces per unit. (See below.) The appliant has provided reasonable demonstrations, via aerial photography at peak periods, that the proposed retail parking will be adequate even in the holiday season. Theatre parking is to be in an underground garage, reducing the impermeable surface required.

EDITORS NOTE: PARKING FOR THE THEATER IN AN UNDERGROUND GARAGE? WHEN WAS THIS DISCUSSED AND WHEN DID THE PUBLIC HAVE A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON IT?

It is the opinion of the Commission that this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

j) Storm water run-off will be controled wherever retention or detention is possible and that all proper and necessary easements will have been obtained by the applicant.

The stormwater management system was designed with extensive infiltration and pretreatment. There are no direct discharges into the Ten Mile River. The IWWC has noted that the applicant has stated that the proposed stormwater management designs will have the least impact on the wetlands and watercourses on or off the site compared to alternative storm water management designs presented during the public hearings. The applicant reports that no easements are needed from any entity for the installation of the stormwater management system.

The site plan does create a spillway over a portion of the Great Fill for flood control purposes. Though historically significant, the Great Fill became a dam for floodwaters upon its construction in 1820. The proposed spillway will provide a by-pass for 100 year and greater storm events, reducing the upstream of the Great Fill.

It is the opinion of the Commission that this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

k) The design and construction of buildings, other structures and facilities by virtue of their location, orientation, texture, materials, landscaping, general bulk and height and other features would be consistent with the Town and would show design merit.

This center is proposed in an area whose landscape is dominated by an Interstate Highway with an interchange, an area within the community that is best suited for projects of scale. The retail portion of this project is broken up into plaza blocs that are separated by pedestrian walkways. Based on the typical renderings provided by the applicant, the Commission feels this will be aesthetic and not overpowering development.

The largest commercial building currently proposed is the theatre, which has 75,000 sq ft. of space. The anchor store at the other end is currently shown as -50,000 sw. ft, or smaller than the existing Super Stop & Shop in town. This is consistent with the general limitations on commercial buildings.

It is the opinion of the Commission that this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

l) The perimeter edge of the proposed development relates to existing development with respect to scale and setback.

As noted above, the organization of buildings upon this property avoids unfoavorable scale at the perimeter edge of this property. Changes in the landscaping requirements (below) will improve the appearance of the perimeter. A reasonable setback has been provided between this project and the residential development on the northern edge of the property and that a more substantial landscaping buffer has been provided along this edge.

EDITORS NOTE: JUST LIKE THE LANDSCAPING BUFFER ON ST. JOSEPH STREET!!

It is the opinion of the Commission that, with changes to the proposed regulations, this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

m) Landscaping, lighting, graphics, street furniture have beenn coordinated to create a pleasing public environment.

All of the above are shown in the Conceptual Architectural and Signage information supplied by the applicant. The Commission believes that the presentation of these in the report is generally favorable and establishes a good point of beginning for refinement during the site plan phase.

It is the opinion of the Commission that, with changes to the proposed regulations, this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

n) The open space system including pedestrian walks is usable, beneficial and can logically be expected to connect to existing and/or future walks on abutting properties.

Access and use of the open space areas has been provided on the proposed plan including a pedestrian nature walk within the river corridor and a public gathering lawn overlooking the river on the residential side of the property.

The plan includes an organized open space area around the restaurant court in the central portion of the site. This open space has public access from all sides and will create beneficial activity in tis center portion of the site.

All of these elements combined with the pedestrian walkways will firmly establish the importance of pedestrian activity within this project.

The proposed plans also indicate a future connection the the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail and it is assumed that the applicant will make a sincere effort to accomplish this linkage.

It is the opinion of the Commission that this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

o) Open space set aside or established pursuant to the proposed application site plan shall be made available for public use. The open space land shall be held in ownership by the applicant landwoner and shall be subject to an agreement with the Town to be filed on the Land Records at the time of approval regarding the applicant landowner’s responsibility for maintenance of said open space.

This site contains large ares of property that will remain undeveloped within the Ten ile river corridor. As noted earlier, this open space will be available for public use with the creation of the pedestrian nature walk.

The specific legal documentation regarding continued ownership, stewardship, and public use must be submitted during the site plan phase of approvals. It is anticipated that the public will also have access to and use of the public gathering area and overlook field on the residential side of the property. All of these concerns should be addressed in the legal documents. This requirement is being added to the revised regulations (below).

It is the opinion of the Commission that, with changes to the proposed regulations, this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

p) Recreational or park-like areas related to residential units shall be shown.

The residential portion of this site contains common areas between neighborhood blocks with a pedestrian walkway, access to the nature walk, active recreation with tennis courts, an overlook field and a public gathering lawn on this side of the Ten Mile River.

It is the opinion of the Commission that this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

q) Any residential units proposed will be beneficial to the Town of Cheshire, satisfy a demonstrated need within the local housing market, and be integrated with and demonstrably enhance the overall development. The total floor area devoted to residential uses shall be less than 40% of the floor area of buildings devoted to other uses.

The burden of demonstrating need was upon the applicants and they have provided their opinion with statistical support in the “Market Study, Residential Component, The Shoppes of Cheshire” submitted with the application. The 40% floor area requirement is a hard and fast rule and there has not been any attempt to exceed this requirement. The residential layout and building types may evolve somewhat based upon market conditions,but must always be less than 40% of the non-residential total and never exceed two bedrooms per unit.

The plan to provide condominium townhouses addresses a type of residential property that is not in Cheshire. It should be appealing to both young professionals working in Hartford, Waterbury, Meriden or New Haven, as well as “empty-nesters.”

It is the opinion of the Commission that this proposal meets the requirements of this standard.

This is so damned frustrating. There are a lot of people in this small town. Unfortunately, a handful of folks have taken it upon themselves to decide what’s best for the rest of us. If you’re not on Cheshire’s side, get the hell out of office.

Thanks for the show. You really had us going…

-=-

Take action. Write a letter to the editor. We are at least owed an explanation (or an investigation).

news@cheshireherald.com
letters@courant.com
letters@nhregister.com
opinion@rep-am.com
letters@record-journal.com

Fri
30
Nov '07

“Massive, massive traffic” in Clinton Crossing, Cheshire next?

Note: This is cross-posted over at the Cheshire Town Post.

Fast-forward five years. What will it be like to navigate Cheshire’s north-end during the holidays? Will we describe the maddening standstill on route 10 as “10 pounds of flour being stuffed into a five-pound bag?” Read the article below.

Remember, the clients W/S manages to hook will be hoping for record traffic like this. What’s good for the mall is probably not all that terrific for Cheshire. When you’re done with the article and the goose bumps have subsided, visit www.CheshireSmartGrowth.org to learn the truth behind W/S Development’s proposal to squeeze a lifestyle center into Cheshire.

traffic_nightmare_in_clinto.jpg

If you’re not all that jazzed about endangering environmental concerns, tampering with the floodplain, crowding the schools, and trading in a darn good thing for the sake of a mall that will sit two exits down from the existing Westfield mall in Meriden, you’re not alone. It took only days to assemble a petition with 595 signatures opposing the plan. Read all about it.

Click for full-sized version.
mall_opponents.jpg

Mon
17
Sep '07

Comments regarding the 9/4 Inland Wetlands meeting on the north-end development (mall)

Note: This is cross-posted over at the Cheshire Town Post.


Attend the next meeting!

Inland Wetlands meeting, Tuesday, Sept. 18th at 7:30PM
Council Chambers at Town Hall, 84 South Main Street

The following are some thoughts offered by some people who attended the 9/4 Inland Wetlands meeting. Meeting minutes available here.

In the following comments, M&M stands for Milone and McBroom.

1. The ever changing world of W/S: The people of Canton had warned us that you can never believe what W/S says, and that fact has become all too clear. Prior to the text changes to the town Conservation and Development Plan, W/S stated their plan to build a 500,000 square ft retail mall. After the P&Z approved both the development plan and the zone change, W/S filed a plan with P&Z for a 500,000 sq ft mall, 160 residential units and, all of a sudden, a hotel. A short time later at an informal meeting of the Inland Wetlands Commission, Louis Masiello mentioned that the retail would be between 500 and 600,000 square ft, and finally at the Sept 4 meeting they said that the commercial area would be 639,000 sq ft. Since nothing has been built yet, the final sq ft can only be guessed. Any changes after an approval should have to be reviewed.

2. For the first time it was stated that the residential apartment buildings for 160 units will be 3 to 4 stories high.

3. The presentation to the commission and the public took quite a long time and covered so many parts and pieces that it was totally impossible to understand all the details what they really plan to do. This is a huge mega project, and if it were not for the 10 Mile River and the very large inland wetland, it could have been understandable. There is so much that has to be done, and the methods of doing wetlands mitigation and infiltration for the varied parts requires a detailed question and answer session on each component.

4a. M&M stated that they would maintain a 100 ft offset from the wetlands, but when questioned if the 100 ft was all around the property, the answer was no. We were told that the section around the big pond was not at 100 ft.; Some of the reasons offered were that they wanted to provide the public access to this area with paths down to the pond. This would be a real plus for the public as they currently don’t have any access. They stated that the area around the pond had been seriously disturbed and that it contained many invasive plant species. Their plan is to replant the area, leaving lower plants on the mall side so as to make the pond visible. This means that they will completely landscape all the land surrounding the pond. This in effect puts the priority on visitor pleasure rather than being “wildlife friendly.” With people close to the water late into the evening, it will not be a safe environment for animals, and instead of naturally selected plants, nursery stock will occupy the space. One thing that was not discussed at the Sept 4 meeting was presented to the commission at the informal meeting by Lou Masiollo. At that meeting Lou stated that the pond was a very attractive asset and that they planned to have some special marketing to restaurants so that their guests could enjoy the great view. So, one can see that the commercial value of the pond outweighs the environmental considerations.

4b. M&M discussed their plan to establish a new habitat for the wood turtles. A comment was made regarding the creation of a new nesting site for the turtles. Although it might at first sound good, it does not take into account the turtles’ lifestyle, and it expects the turtle to stay in this area. They will not survive in an asphalt commercial development that has taken over their range.

5. Mr. Fazzone mentioned that the State Of Connecticut has a Conservation and Development Plan, and that this development meets the criteria of a growing area and could qualify for funds for utility extension. It looks like this is another opportunity for the state taxpayers to support a development that is not needed.

6. A question was raised whether the public would really have access to the pond, as an individual was not even allowed to take pictures in Canton. Mr. Fazzone stated that picture taking was prohibited in Canton due to potential customer complaints, and that W/S respects the privacy of their customers. If, however, a person requests permission from W/S management to take pictures, it would be granted and one could take pictures. As we all know, Americans like to take a lot of pictures and they never have to ask if they want to take picture of scenes or their friends. Will taking pictures at the pond require permission?

7. There was some reference by Milone and McBroom that the tunnel sustained some damage as a result of the town’s work. The town’s work was based on engineering performed by Milone and McBroom.

8. There was no discussion regarding migrating birds, and how the development and the work arround the pond might affect their migration patterns.

9. M&M on more that one occasion mentioned special construction of vegetation buffers to improve the quality of runoff passing through these areas, but did not cover how these areas would benefit when the vegetation is dormant.

10. M&M pointed out that the 10 Mile River had a BC rating. The B means that there were contaminants, and the C indicated that it was classified as a cold water river. The main point being was that it already had contaminants. No mention was made when the river had been classified.

11. No mention was made of road salt that would be expected in winter from visitors coming from local and state roads.

12. No mention was made of the effect of noise and outdoor lighting on animal life.

13. No mention was made of dragonfly inventory to determine if rare and endangered species existed here. This type of study requires the proper timing to be accurate.

14. The whole matter of infiltration of runoff was sketchy. As the commission has not been given a finalized plan that shows the location and size of the buildings, it is impossible to determine what type of infiltration method is appropriate. Certainly, all roof runoff should be considered for infiltration and other runoff should be pretreated if it is to be infiltrated.

15. No mention was made of destruction of bird nesting areas. The close proximity of people walking close to the pond is not conducive to aquatic birds nestiing.

16. What is the high water mark based on? Is it based on accepted Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), which are accepted everywhere and are used in these types of applications. They are based on the probability of a 100 year flood level.

17. This is a massive project, and that’s a massive engineering aspect. Among other things, they should have a plan for holding water from severe, sudden summer thunderstorms so that the hot water will not run into the river. There needs to be adequate detention and retention ponds, which have scheduled maintenance to ensure their size and functionality are maintained. The stormwater component of this project may be the most important aspect of the entire project as it will either help maintain (or further compromise) the health of the river and its wetlands.

18. As stated by Mr. Schrumm, much of the flooding on the downstream side of the tunnel resulted from water backing up from the Quinnipiac. This means that the bypass does not assure that upstream properties are not flooded, and that high water levels can result from the Quinnipiac.

19. A question was raised as to the scale used on the maps. It was suggested that a scale of 1 inch per 40 ft be provided instead of a 1 to 100 that was being presented. The 1 to 40 would be preferable, as it would be much more detailed. After some discussion, the request was not honored. We had heard over and over from W/S that they would go out of their way to fulfill Cheshire’s requests.

20. With the massive amount of work that has to be done, how will the residents of Cheshire know that the work is done properly and as promised? Cheshire has had too many projects that contractors or developers have not done right, and the problems of I84 should make detailed iinspection and reporting throughout the life of the project.

21. A point was made that it appears that there will be 37 acres of impervious surface consisting of asphalt, cement or roofing. All this runoff has to be handle one way or another.

Wed
22
Aug '07

Will environmental concerns spare both Cheshire and wood turtles?

Note: This is cross-posted over at the Cheshire Town Post.

wood_turtle1.jpg

If Cheshire manages to avoid the impending disaster that is the W/S mall, I hope its due to the efforts of its 27,000+ residents and not a competing mall, but I’ll take what I can get.

from MRJ, City mall might try to block Cheshire project (hat tip to TWL and photo from here.)

CHESHIRE — Westfield Meriden mall has apparently hired environmental experts to gather information for a possible legal action against a company seeking to build an upscale shopping center in Cheshire’s north end.

During a site walk of the property by the town’s Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission on Saturday, two professional wetlands scientists working for REMA Environmental Services of Manchester said they had been hired by a Westfield attorney to provide environmental reports as part of a possible intervention, or lawsuit, by the international property group.

It’s unfortunate that, thus far, the only independent environmental impact assessment that I’ve heard word of has been commissioned by a mall competitor with the cash to make it happen. Assuming it’s under their power, I’m curious if inland wetlands was planning to formally request this of W/S?

Among other concerns, the area is likely home to wood turtles.

from MRJ

Gadwa said there have been at least eight confirmed sightings of wood turtles in the flood plain of the Ten Mile River, the watercourse that flows through the proposed development. Wood turtles are a species of special concern, as listed by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Anyone concerned about the future of our town and the health of our shared environment, should attend the Cheshire Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission’s Sept. 4 public hearing on the W/S application. The Planning and Zoning Commission will follow up on Sept. 24.

Considering that their days in Cheshire are numbered, this could be a good time to learn a bit more about the wood turtle.

wood turtle2.jpg

from the CT DEP site (Photo from eyedesignbook.com)

Wood Turtle

A medium-sized turtle, readily distinguished by its sculptured, rough, moderately-domed carapace, black head, orange-red wash on its under limbs, and a yellow plastron with black squares along the edges. Adults 150-200 mm carapace length…

The wood turtle is a “Special Concern” species in Connecticut. International commerce in wood turtles posed such a threat that in 1992 this species was placed under international trade regulatory protection administered by CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna). The wood turtle is of conservation concern throughout most of its range. Most states and provinces where it occurs afford it special status and/or some form of statutory protection.

Species of special concern…


“Species of Special Concern” means any native plant species or any native nonharvested wildlife species documented by scientific research and inventory to have a naturally restricted range or habitat in the state, to be at a low population level, to be in such high demand by man that its unregulated taking would be detrimental to the conservation of its population or has been extirpated from the state.

If REMA’s investigation turns up items of particular importance, their appeal will likely fall outside of our local process. As I read it, if inland wetlands gives a thumbs up, that’s final as far as the ct dep is concerned, but it then goes to the state courts.

from CT DEP

Appealing Decisions

Finally, if you feel that the action or decision of a municipal inland wetlands agency is erroneous, you may obtain legal counsel and take the matter to the state courts. Whatever the outcome of a regular meeting or a public hearing, the action or decision of a municipal inland wetlands agency cannot be appealed to the DEP. The Wetlands Management Section of the DEP receives numerous telephone calls every year from persons requesting that the DEP reverse or overturn an action or decision of a municipal inland wetlands agency. The Act does not provide any authority to the DEP to act as a board of appeals or to overturn the actions of municipal inland wetlands agencies. Appeals must be taken to state courts. Only the state courts can overturn such actions or decisions. Section 22a-43 of the Act requires that appeals must be made to the superior court for the judicial district where the land affected is located. The majority of legal appeals of municipal inland wetlands agencies actions in Connecticut involve appeals of permit decisions.

north_end.jpg
Photo of the proposed site, posted
on TWL.

Thu
16
Aug '07

Your politics at a glance

I’ve been a fan of the two axis presentation of political orientation for quite some time. A favorite site of mine, On the Issues, has done a good job of tracking candidates using the measure. Now, The Political Compass, sporting a more easily digested graph, is gaining popularity. Essentially, they present a vertical social scale and a horizontal economic scale. On the Y axis, social conservatives plot to the north and freewheeling hippies settle at the southern pole. Across the x axis, you’ll find the socialists clumping up together on the left and the hands-off Laissez-faire crowd speeding towards the right. For a better description, go here or here.

I’m not surprised that the people behind On the Issues are libertarians. Back in the day, when I swam upstream from my economically liberal tendencies and called myself an Objectivist, I found it easier to communicate my political positions in terms of two axes. Objectivists/libertarians are generally socially liberal and economically conservative (to put it lightly). Nowadays, everyone seems to speak in those terms. You may have heard an increasing number of old-school conservatives referring to themselves as economically conservative, distancing themselves certain other elements in the party (like intolerance and general prudishness).

Here’s a breakdown of the 2008 presidential candidates that appeared recently in the London Times:

Click for full-size.
usprimaries_20071.png

They pulled the graph from The Political Compass site, which argues the following regarding a perceived need to break away from the overly simplistic left-right distinction:


On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It’s not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can’t explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as ‘right-wingers’, yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.

Here’s a comparison from The Political Compass that places some historical figures on the map:

Click for full-size.
axeswithnames1.gif

Using their test, where do you fall? Here’s where I’m at: ec=-7.50&soc=-7.33 And, using the test from On the Issues, I rank as ec 92% / soc 0%

where I fall on The Political Compass
map1.jpg

where I stand On the Issues
s090_0001.gif

I may appear to be rather far to the south-west or left-corner. However, I think it’s more so the case that the candidates shown way up above are drastically out of touch with where America is at. This article backs me up (bearing in mind that it’s from Kucinich’s site): Survey of public attitudes makes Kucinich the frontrunner

Political Compass test
2008 Candidate match from On the Issues

Thu
9
Aug '07

Video of Cheshire Town Council meetings now available

While the list of available videos is rather short right now, you’ll find a link to the new video index located on the navigation bar over at The Cheshire Town Post. Each meeting will have its own post. The video index page will tie them together.

Here’s the first video page: Cheshire Town Council Meeting Video 06-26-07

This isn’t the fanciest way to get these up, but you can watch them full-screen, skip around through the videos using the slide-bar, and reference specific agenda items using the provided content index. For $0 down and $0 recurring, that’s a good deal. Google-Video is a fantastic host. Unlike YouTube, the videos do not have a 10 minute limit and the files can exceed 100 megs in length. In the future I may divide the videos strictly into agenda items. However, I think you’ll find the current system to be quite adequate.

What is not adequate, is that I’m the one providing this content. Hey, I don’t mind, but that’s far from the point. Tim White shouldn’t be the only one pushing for this. How long will it take for the town to provide web-based video (and hopefully it won’t be too expensive)? Will there be an archive or will they only provide the video from the previous meeting, as they do with the minutes?

So, until that time…

UNOFFICIAL Video Catalog of Town Meetings

Cheshire’s UNOFFICIAL Town Document Archive

Fri
27
Jul '07

The Cheshire Herald Continues to Run Broken Poll

Note: This is cross-posted over at the Cheshire Town Post.

On July 19th it was demonstrated that the Cheshire Herald web poll allows participants to vote repeatedly without detection. Two days later a staff member acknowledged the problem.

Unfortunately, The broken poll continues to run without modification, and the disclaimer printed in the recent issue remains untouched.

heraldpoll2.jpg

I trust that the Herald means well, and I am thankful to have an independent paper in town. However, I think the current poll question adds insult to injury. How we respond as a community to the recent tragedy should not be influenced by a broken poll. I think the question is a good one, but it does a disservice to the town to ask it using bad polling software.

When the results of this current poll are printed, I hope the Herald includes a more accurate disclaimer. We have seen poll results misused by commission members in the past.

from A conversation with the Cheshire Herald

The poll results are published in our local paper, and the staff member I spoke to noted how popular the poll has been. Is it any surprise that a Sean Strollo, a Planning and Zoning commission member, referred to the poll during one of the hearings as proof that the majority of Cheshire residents supported the mall?

Please call the Cheshire Herald to advocate for new polling software and a revised disclaimer. There are many free choices (their existing poll software is free) available on the web that guard against ballot stuffing.

Tell them that we deserve better. The main number for the Cheshire Herald is (203) 272-5316.

Tue
24
Jul '07

The Conquest of Cheshire’s North-End Interchange Zone: Operation Sell Out

Note: This is cross-posted over at the Cheshire Town Post.

operation_sell-out1.jpg
Cartoon by Craig Houghton

And, in case you haven’t heard about the (surprise!) hotel, here’s a front-page Record Journal article on the subject.

Many thanks to Al Sanders for sending along the article and asking this question:

Many of the people that wanted the I/C zone to remain unchanged to allow for the creation of good jobs and high quality revenue asked many questions including, why did W/S want building heights up to 65 ft? All the questions that were asked at the P&Z meetings that P&Z didn’t answer we will now get the answers after the zone change has been made.

Do you think the reason for the height change should have been asked by the P&Z?

He’s right. Unfortunately, we’re going to continue to find these things out the hard way. As Alan Bisbort wrote in his Record Journal op-ed piece from last Saturday, this is a disaster and P&Z failed to protect us. As a semi-judicial board, how did they make this decision without bringing in some impartial smart-growth experts to respond to the W/S lobbyists?

Certain members of the town council, planning and zoning, and a handful of residents have sold us out. Unfortunately, the hotel ’shocker’ won’t be the last of the surprises conveniently left out of the W/S sales-pitch.

Sat
21
Jul '07

A Conversation With The Cheshire Herald About Their Misleading Poll

Note: This is cross-posted over at the Cheshire Town Post. I’ll often be doing that. This is still my primary blog for local or political issues. The CTP is an open forum for everyone, and over there I’m just another poster (or, I will be once people get used to writing their own posts).

Two days ago I posted a piece on the Cheshire Town Post where I presented evidence that the informal Cheshire Herald web poll, which is then published in print, allows participants to vote repeatedly without detection. No one expects the poll to be accurate — you have to actively visit the site to participate. However, considering the amount of discussion the poll generates, few realize that anyone can vote again and again.

I just spoke to the advertising director at the Cheshire Herald. She was already aware of the problem and does not feel the current disclaimer should change. She’s expressed concern that to do so would be to invite abuse. I consider the current state of the poll to be an abuse of the community’s trust.

She told me that she realizes people will likely take the poll out of context, but it’s wrong to think of this in terms of a potential for abuse. After all, it’s just a web poll. She argued that people will take absolutely anything and run with it. She compared it to the ‘pass a message around the room whisper game’ — in the end a garbled message circles back around and everyone has a good laugh. I think that the message is certain to fail when the information going in is unclear or misleading.

The poll results are published in our local paper, and the staff member I spoke to noted how popular the poll has been. Is it any surprise that a Sean Strollo, a Planning and Zoning commission member, referred to the poll during one of the hearings as proof that the majority of Cheshire residents supported the mall?

The fact is, decision makers in our town government do discuss the polls. Much of that discussion happens on the blog Tim White Listens. The staff member I spoke with acknowledged that some people at the Cheshire Herald actually visit, just to have a laugh. I can only assume that she does not represent the paper in this, but she went on to laugh aloud about blogs in general, stressing that it’s all just opinion. Few bloggers are familiar with, or even attempt to uphold, journalistic standards for reporting, but I do not consider discussion among residents to be worth a good laugh. You don’t need to own a stylebook to speak the truth.

Thankfully, she said that the poll will be changing. She noted that the poll is “very rudimentary,” as it generated ballots via email submission. That is exactly what I pointed out in my post. Regarding my suggestion to change the disclaimer in anticipation of an upcoming change in polling software, she said she would, “pass that by the publisher.”

The main number for the Cheshire Herald is (203) 272-5316.