The Cheshire Town Post

~ by Craig Houghton - July 05, 2008 ~

Thanks to the Kurtz family and friends for putting on the show year after year. I didn’t have much of a viewpoint, as I arrived late and parked far down Peck, but here are some images:

And, ever tried intentionally blurring fireworks? With my lens it produced this this interesting effect.

~ by Martin E Cobern - June 05, 2008 ~

by Martin Cobern

Several years ago, after nearly two years’ effort and many hours of meetings and hearings, Cheshire adopted one of the best aquifer protection regulations in the State, if not the best.  Since that time, the Northern Industrial Zone, which largely overlies the aquifer, has seen continued development which was consistent with protection of our vital water supply.  (In particular, the Whole Foods warehouse came to Cheshire, in part, because of these regulations.)

Now, the Legislature has finally gotten its act together and passed a statewide regulation which is almost as good as hours.  In its wisdom it has set several requirements in order to qualify for continued State aid in critical areas.  Among these are the following:

	Aquifer protection regulations must be taken out of the Zoning Regulations.
	The Town must name an agency to serve as its Aquifer Protection Agency (APA).  The Town Council has named the PZC as the APA.
	The APA must adopt regulations identical to the State’s, even where ours are more protective.

Therefore, on Monday, June 9, after the regular PZC hearing, we will have our first APA meeting, which will be a public hearing on the new regulations. (It is unclear what the hearing will achieve, since the regulations have been ordained by the State.)  Once the hearing is closed, we can have two consecutive meetings: one to have the APA adopt the new regulations, and the other to have the PZC remove the existing regulations.

If anyone understands the logic in this exercise, please explain it to me.

~ by fischbein - February 16, 2008 ~

We are in the process of updating the Cancer in Cheshire website and wanted to alert folks to a new Google map showing the location of 17 EPA-ID’d hazardous waste sites in Cheshire. Over time we’ll be adding additional details to the map.

As some may know, these hazardous waste sites have been leaking toxins (including solvents) underneath the town for decades. These toxins have migrated underground up to several miles from their sites of origin. While they once quietly poisoned residents and workers through Cheshire’s public water supply, they remain a threat to private water supplies and to Cheshire’s air. Since there is a good chance people are breathing these toxins in Cheshire today, they may still be contributing to Cheshire’s health problems and diseases — including cancer (and the increased risk of developing it).

We’re in the process of collecting updates on the status of each site that remains a concern. Our goal is to ensure these lost toxins are tracked, mapped, and cleaned-up so we can be certain they will no longer pose a risk to Cheshire’s residents and workers.

We’ll keep you posted as we learn more. In the meantime, you can learn more at the Cancer in Cheshire website and at the TCE Blog.

UPDATE: For evidence and examples of toxic migration, see this map which identifies additional locations in town where TCE, PCE, and other toxins are known to have migrated. According to the 1985 Chesprocott Health Department study [PDF, 3 MB] where this toxic migration was revealed, “An extensive plume of contamination was discovered during the study reaching from Blacks Road to Creamery Road Centering along Highland Ave.” Can you imagine how far these toxins have migrated in the past 25 years? And where?

~ by Craig Houghton - February 04, 2008 ~

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

lost in the crowd

chris murphy, rosa delauro, barack obama, john larson, ted kennedy

Video of the event from CTBob

murphy and delauro

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

~ by Craig Houghton - February 02, 2008 ~

I’ve been an Edwards supporter, and now I am leaning strongly towards Hillary. That being said, this is one hell of a video.

Obama’s visiting Hartford on Monday. More here.

Dear Craig Houghton,

Thanks for signing up to join Barack Obama for a Rally in Hartford.

Here are the details:

Stand for Change Rally with Barack Obama in Hartford
Monday, February 4th

XL Center (formerly known as Hartford Civic Center)
One Civic Center Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103

Doors Open: 3:30 p.m.
Program Begins: 5:30 p.m.

~ by Craig Houghton - January 29, 2008 ~

Note: The following post was passed along to me by a group of concerned citizens. The developers are in it for the money. Their elected allies are in it for the sake of a small few or the comfort of an easy delusion and a party vote. The group that gave me this rebuttal is in it for the town. What a world of difference!

-=-

The following are the draft FINDINGS as given to the P&Z Commission for their deliberation by Martin Cobern and alternate FINDINGS of a Cheshire citizen’s group.

P&Z was given a draft of “findings” concerning the mall project several weeks ago. Proponents will likely use it as a basis for voting “yes” on the zone text application. The following is a list of alternate findings for the community’s consideration. Original findings are in black, alternate findings are in red.

FINDINGS - W/S DEVELOPMENT ZONE MAP CHANGE
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 judgment to the questions of whether the proposed change 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 District Project only if, in the opinion of the Commission, the applicant has met all of the standards set forth in. this section of the regulations, and if the Commission finds that the zone map change and project are 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 judgment. In addition, Section 22.a 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 intervener 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.

Finding a) The special regulations, as proposed, as well as the proposed development, are consistent with the intent of these Interchange Special Development District I 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 must 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 opinion of the Commission that the application meets the requirements of this standard.

Alternate view: The Commission changed the zone language for the Interchange Zone in July 2007 using the language proposed by the developer so it is no surprise that the next step in the application process (once again using language proposed by the developer) is found to be consistent. The rules changed for the worse ( allowing retail and residential) and so far the Commission has shown little willingness to tighten up Weiner’s proposed language for what can be built here. Loose standards are easy to meet.

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

A site’ s context 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 1-691 interchange and associated highway frontage, its proximity to existing industrial areas and to the commercial 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 contributes to the site’s context and character.

Alternate finding Suggesting that a 500,000+ square foot mall is consistent with the site’s “context and character” is preposterous. There is NO retail in that area. There is NO residential in the immediate area except for the ill-considered condo’s in Southington whose new owners find themselves hemmed in by industrial/commercial growth. The development will straddle one of the cleanest rivers in the area and substantially destroy the Big Fill as an historical site. The area is better suited for office/light manufacturing which would allow far more green space around the buildings. The context and character of this site is LEAST suited for retail sprawl.

The context also includes the Ten Mile River corridor with existing floodway and floodplain 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 Northern gateway to the Town.

Alternate finding: “The site will serve as the northern gateway to the town”. Unless P&Z reverses their July 2007 zone change, the Interchange Zone will become ALL retail within the next five to ten years and the gateway to Cheshire will be a “Queen Street”. This is not in the best interests of Cheshire.

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 restore 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, particularly with regard to landscaping, this proposal meets the requirements of this standard .

Alternate finding: The Great Fill has been reduced by half already and the mall will diminish it even more. The bypass channel that Weiner has proposed will be nothing more than a concrete walled “cut” through what remains of the Fill and the actual canal channel across the top of the Fill….the most captivating part of this historic area…. will be destroyed. P&Z members “toured the site” but were NOT taken to the top of the Great Fill where the actual canal line is. They were carefully escorted around it by the Weiner tour guides and their engineers and lawyer. It is clear that P&Z needs to study the detailed plans more carefully since allowing current application to go forward will result in the Great Fill being unrecognizable as a true historic structure. This is unacceptable to the residents of Cheshire. In addition, the contention by the developer that a 500,000 sq ft mall complex will “restore and preserve the Ten Mile River” is illogical.

Finding 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 Mile River and it environs. The site design on the proposed plan includes corridor widths ranging from 100 feet in the central area to in excess on 1,000 feet from the 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.

Alternate finding: The “1000’ from Dickerman Road” corridor comes from the fact that this is a huge floodplain/wetlands expanse that can’t be used for any development in any case. This is nature’s doing, not good design by the developer. On the other side of the river, the setback from the commercial buildings/parking areas will narrow to as little as 50 feet. This is against the testimony of every environmental group that appeared before the Commission. The Ten Mile River will cease to be a wildlife corridor. It is quite clear that the writers of this finding did not look closely at the area to the east of the stone arch where the “restaurant village” will encroach to within fifty feet and be 20 to 30 feet above the river bank. This will be a retail canyon, not a wildlife corridor. This setback from the river should be a minimum of 100 feet on both sides of the waterway if there is to be an “earnest effort” to protect the river. In fact, if the Commission members were sincere in protecting this fragile environment, they would not allow such intensive development anywhere near this important waterway.

Development on the remaining portions of the site is being done to minimize fill and excessive grading. In addition ,there is no development proposed on the small portion other site that lies within the aquifer protection area in the southeasterly corner.
Alternate finding: Two separate experts testified that over 150,000 to 200,000 yards of soil would have to be removed from this site. At first, Weiner claimed that these experts were not correct and that the construction would be “material neutral” (what a great term!). At a later hearing, Weiner said there Could be “some” material moved, BUT THE COMMISSION NEVER DETERMINED WHAT THE EXTENT OF EARTH REMOVAL WOULD BE. They let Weiner off the hook by accepting Weiner’s statement that they would clarify the earth movement issue “during the Site Plan approval process”. In other words, “trust us, we’ll tell you later”. To suggest that this massive relocation of soil is not a problem is a simple whitewash of the fact that this site is going to be stripped of its vegetation and soil.

It is true that part of this site encompasses the Aquifer Protection Zone. There will be no buildings or parking directly over the AP Zone. HOWEVER, some of the infiltration beds that will take UNTREATED roof and parking lot run off directly into the groundwater table are within 350 ft of our drinking water aquifer. Given the sandy soils in the entire north end of town, there is a strong likelihood that this tainted groundwater will find its way into Cheshire’s drinking water supply. Because of the proximity to the APZ and the unique sandy soils in the entire north end, OUR EXISTING AQUIFER PROTECTION REGS SHOULD BE USED AS A MODEL TO CREATE NEW REGULATIONS TO BE APPLIED TO THIS SITE. THE REGS COULD BE INCORPORATED VERY EASILY. IF P&Z REFUSES, THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE TOLD WHY SHOPPING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CLEAN WATER.

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

This comment is largely irrelevant with respect to groundwater and the aquifer. IWC has no jurisdiction here and did not consider issues involved with groundwater. It is up to P&Z to provide protection and there are still too many unanswered questions to give approval for this project.

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

The historic Farmington 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 flooding 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 the 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 pedestrians to cross the river. The wood trestles have been chosen to augment the historic setting on this portion of the site.

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

Alternate finding: For reasons stated above, This “finding” is simply another obfuscation of what will really happen to the Great Fill.. Much of the Great Fill was destroyed by the town to make an “emergency bypass” last spring. Many people feel that far more was destroyed than was necessary. But now this bypass has been deemed unnecessary and a new one is to be he existing bypass channel can be used and the actual canal bed on the top of the fill can be preserved.

Finding e) Community facilities, utilities and/or services, as presently existing or to be provided by the applicant, will not be overburdened due to the increase in population or activity cased 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 feasibility at their meeting of December 19, 2007. A copy of the minutes of those proceedings is attached. In this action, the WPCA states that the sanitary sewerage 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 minutes from the December meeting. Assuming this final approval, the utilities required will not overburden the available services. Public safety issues are discussed below.

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

Alternate finding: The “approval” from the WPCA is only agreement that the sewering of this project is “feasible”, that it is technically doable. It does not suggest that the WPCA has “approved” the entire project.The impact on Cheshire’s waste water treatment system has yet to be quantified and was not included in the Town Manager’s estimate of municipal “costs” of this project. (The report distributed at the public hearing with town officials showing the net tax benefit to the town did not subtract all the costs of this project. Therefore the “net benefit to the town” will be smaller once these costs are calculated) Unfortunately, the WPCA has not had a permanent chairman since last spring and their deliberations have been hampered on a number of important issues including this one. At no time have they been asked by P&Z to “fill in the blanks” about costs of this project. What we do know is that Weiner has estimated 100,000 gallons per day while the town’s consulting engineer has estimated closer to 130,000 gallons. The complexity of this issue is great and the costs must be sorted out over the next several months. But it is clear that giving this project a yea vote as if all the sewer questions have been answered is very premature.

Finding 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 facility for public safety personnel to use as needed. They also intend 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 additional tax revenue from the developmenIt is the opinion of the Commission that this proposal meets the requirements of this standard. Alternate finding: The establishment of a large retail area in the extreme north end of town will create additional stress on police and fire services. Intelligent planning places residential and commercial areas close to the core of municipal services. This project is the antithesis of smart planning, placing additional residences and high-density retail on the very perimeter of Cheshire.
Alternate finding: The police department’s “one additional patrol car” mentioned in the “findings” seems a modest expense but it includes “five additional officers” mentioned by the police chief during the public hearings. The indirect impact over the next several years will be substantial (i.e. will we soon be hearing of the “need” for a police station expansion because of “cramped quarters” because of additional staff?).
The Weiner project is just the beginning of the transition of the Interchange Zone. There is enough land there for two more retail/residential projects of the scale of this “Lifestyle Center” and the impact of police and fire should not be simply dismissed because new tax revenue will “cover the cost”. The greatest impact will be in response time to other areas of Cheshire. While a patrol officer is handling a shoplifting incident in the new mall at the extreme border of Cheshire, they will be a long way from a home break-in elsewhere in town. These impacts are subtle but they accrue over time and will show up in town budgets and inevitably in the tax bills of the very citizens who will be receiving diminished protection in their neighborhoods while public safety personnel guard the mall.

The volunteer firefighters will have to leave their homes more often because there will be more calls to the north end, especially to traffic accidents. That is a fact. How many calls? Uncertain. But more telling, how many additional calls does it take to make a volunteer firefighter, busy with work and family responsibilities, decide to no longer participate in the department? Can this be quantified with certainty? No. But in making decisions for the best interests of Cheshire, P&Z cannot ignore that whatever “benefits” come from this mall project, there will be negative impacts on people who work diligently, with no pay, for this community.

Finding 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 river at two locations: one across restored Great FilI 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.

Alternate finding: The walkways are hardly a positive enough feature to justify the approval of the project. The walkway coming from Dickerman Road is largely useless since no one lives on Dickerman Road and, with the text changes recently made, this area is likely to become part of general retail/commercial sprawl largely unsuitable for the recreational walker. The connection walkways across the river will only be used by the residents of the condo/apartments. This is a very limited number of people and in all likelihood most of them will drive over to the mall side of the river….given the average American’s proclivity to not walk anywhere! There is little reason for the mall shoppers to walk across the bridges since on the other side is nothing but condo’s to see. Why would someone do that? Once again, if this was a true “mixed use” area, with an established residential/retail mix of properties, having such walkways would make sense because the reason for their existence would already be established. But this is NOT a true mixed use development and pretending that walkways are going to create a “community” setting is not believable.

The Commission believes that the provision of public access 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.

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

Alternate finding: “Public access to the river” will come in two general areas. The first is along the large area of wetlands/floodplain on the west side of the Great Fill. The “Nature Walk” will lead to nowhere (Dickerman Road) and will have condo’s on one side, the back wall of the megaplex cinema on the other and the traffic sounds of I-691 permeating the air. This will hardly be a destination for nature lovers. There are many more places in Cheshire to enjoy nature. This “Nature Walk” sounds nice in a Weiner marketing piece but a closer look shows that it is an asphalt ribbon near a mall, that’s all.

The other “public gathering area” is on the west side of the river, across from the restaurants in the flood bypass channel between two bridges! To suggest that the public will gather here for anything defies logic. But this area is a cautionary tale for other “amenities”. The original pitch by Weiner in early 2007 had maps showing an amphitheatre and a hint of a stage where plays could be performed. Cheshire residents got the impression (still held by some inattentive residents) that Weiner was going to build an outdoor children’s theatre. Some of the Weiner drawings even had seating for the theatre! But now we have no stage, no benches, no amphitheatre; just a grassy area below two bridges next to a river with a concrete retaining wall on the other side of the watercourse and the back of stores and restaurants at the top of the wall. The use of “public access to the Ten Mile River” as a design feature to justify the approval of this project stretches credulity.

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

As noted above, pedestrian 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.

Alternate finding: This is a mall. The separation of traffic and shoppers is common practice for liability reasons and the layout here is not unusual for a complex of this magnitude.

Finding 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. The regulations will be modified to change this to 2 spaces per unit. (See below.) The applicant 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.

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

Alternate finding: The requirement for two spaces per unit at the condo’s makes sense. The willingness to accept Weiner’s aerial views of their parking areas without further questioning raises questions. Weiner says that the aerial shots showed their parking areas “during the Christmas season” but little else was shown to justify downsizing the lots.

However, given the fact that the proposal as it stands injects parking lot run off directly into the aquifer, having less parking is a good thing.

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

The storm water management system was designed with extensive infiltration and pretreatment.

Alternate finding: Most of the storm water from this site will be injected directly into the sandy soils below the mall. There is some limited provision for skimming oil from the drainage but most of the contaminants will find their way into a water table to which the DEP has given its highest rating. There is simply NO excuse for allowing this to happen especially since the same sandy soils stretch over into our drinking water aquifer and NO proof was entered into the record that such cross contamination would not take place. P&Z should insist on the same storm water management standards for the mall that exist in the neighboring Aquifer Protection Zone.

There are no direct discharges into the Ten Mile River.

Alternate finding: The plans submitted dealt with the “two year storm” which means storms that have a likelihood of occurring every two years. (Compare this to the “100 year storm” standard which is the large storm that only has a statistical chance of happening once every one hundred years) The standard set by Weiner is pretty low since the two year storm is quite common. THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NO DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN LARGER STORMS AT P&Z HEARINGS. There was NO in-depth discussion on where the water goes when it overwhelms the infiltration systems during storms greater than the two year storm. This is what makes the statement above so misleading. P&Z did not explore the run-off from larger storms. There is only one place for the water to go….directly into the Ten Mile River. Much of this water will go into the river to the west of the culvert, making the flooding in that area worse. And, once again, when additional retail development occurs in the area (specifically on the “Walsh Property” along West Johnson Ave) there will be more parking areas and large buildings dumping water into the Ten Mile River basin.

Weiner’s mall should not be approved without a better plan for storm-water management. Cheshire has an admirable record of environmental protection. Putting a huge mall project immediately adjacent to a clean watercourse and on top of a clean aquifer is a radical departure from Cheshire’s past practice.

The IWWC has noted that the applicant has stated that the proposed storm water 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 storm water management system.
This 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 flooding upstream of the Great Fill.

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

Alternate finding: Restoring the spillway to the 100 year flood level will return the flooding situation in the north end to where it was before the spring storm of 2007. For all storms short of the 100 year storm, the flooding on West Johnson and Peck Lane will not be ameliorated. In fact, this flooding will be more frequent and severe since the storm-water from the mall (and other likely retail development in the north end) will enter the Ten Mile River upstream from the Great Fill therefore adding to the volume of water that backs up in this area. Giving approval for this project without a full a resolution of this issue is a shirking of responsibility by elected officials and the town’s professional staff. Flooding does not fall under IWWC authority. It is P&Z’s responsibility. This project should not be approved as submitted.

Finding 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 this scale. The retail portion of this project is broken up into plaza blocks that are separated by pedestrian walkways. Based on the typical renderings provided by the applicant, the Commission feels that this will be an aesthetic and not overpowering development.

Alternate opinion: Malls and box stores are not consistent with anything currently existing in Cheshire. The architecture of the storefronts gives a nice appearance but taken together this is still a concrete block retail city of a magnitude that is inconsistent with the rest of Cheshire.

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 sq. 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.

Alternate finding: The filing of the site plan will be the test of whether this is true. Look for Weiner to request larger stores because of “market conditions”. Will P&Z have the courage to prevent box stores? The analogy with S&S is not quite apt. Food is a necessity and it needs to be in the core of a community. Food stores also need space for storage and prep of food, hence their size.

Finding 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 unfavorable 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.

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

Alternate finding: The proposed setbacks for the parking areas along Rt 10 and I-691 are not sufficient. The scale of the buildings especially along the northern border with the condo’s in Southington will adversely impact that residential area. The regs allow for too much building area (higher density) than is usually permitted.

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

All of the above are shown typically in the Conceptual Architectural and Signage Information supplied by the applicant. The Commission believes that the presentation of these in this 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.

Alternate finding: Sign height, size and location and parking lot lights are of concern. Waiting for the site plan to make decisions without tightening underlying regs may hamstring Commission later on.

Finding 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 this 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 to 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.

Alternate opinion: See Alternate to Finding G. There is nothing particularly special about the walkways. They are simply areas around the river and the wetlands that the developer can’t do anything with. The walkways may be nice, but hardly a reason to approve the entire project given the many downsides.

Finding 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 landowner 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 areas of property that will remain undeveloped within the Ten Mile 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.

Alternate finding: The open space that is being left is simply land that the developer can’t put a parking lot or building on. This comprises wetlands, floodplains and mandatory setbacks. There are no “gifts” here. As noted above, this “open space” will be of little benefit to the public since it will be eventually hemmed in by large stores, retaining walls, parking lots and a four lane highway. This land is simply “left-overs” not something to celebrate.

Finding 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.

Alternate finding: Residential units should not be in an industrial/mall area in the first place. The green area around these units is standard fare, nothing special.

Just what an “over look field” is remains unclear. And the “public gathering lawn” is in the flood by-pass channel down between two bridges. Such “amenities” are underwhelming; nice, but hardly justification for an approval given other project shortcomings.

Finding 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 at 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 great supply in Cheshire. It should be appealing to both young professionals working in Hartford, Waterbury, Meriden or New Haven as well as to “empty nesters.”

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

Alternate finding; Historically, the ONLY people who suggest a “need” for additional housing of various kinds are developers and real estate agents who have a direct monetary interest in getting them built. A check of the record over several decades at Town Council meetings, P&Z meetings and in local papers will find no evidence of average citizens looking for these projects. To take at face value that there is a “need” and to cite only the developer’s expert as proof of that need is wrong. There is no public outcry for more residential in Cheshire and, in fact, there is substantial resistance to residential being put in the Interchange Zone. It simply makes no sense.

In addition, the claim that these residential units would only be occupied by young professionals and empty nesters is completely unsupported. What is there to prevent parents with a child…or even two children from living in these units to get their kids into the Cheshire school system? To simply say, “They won’t” is not reasonable. The contention that empty nesters will choose to live next to a mall also defies logic.

With 89% of Cheshire’s land area already zoned residential, there is no reason to add residential here. The only beneficiary is the developer; certainly not Cheshire residents.

Finding 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.

Alternate finding: Because the developer has the finances to build a project that is not good for the community is not justification to let him build it.

Finding s) The Interchange Special Development Project will include provisions for suitable water supply and sewage disposal in accordance with applicable standards of the Town of Cheshire, the Connecticut State Health Department, and the Connecticut State Water Resources Commission. All utilities will be underground, except those items customarily placed aboveground such as hydrants, transformers, communications equipment and the like.

As discussed above, the project has preliminary WPCA approval and the applicant has provided reasonable plans for the provision of water and power to the site.

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

Alternate opinion: See Alternate to Finding e. The waste water capacity issue is still NOT clear nor is the ultimate cost to the town. This a critical issue that must be addressed before final approval is given by the town.

Finding t) 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 Commission 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, impairing 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 & 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.

ALTERNATE FINDING; THIS PROJECT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THIS COMMUNITY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1.TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON RT 10 AND RESIDENTIAL “BY-PASS” STREETS
2. INAPPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
3. THREAT TO DRINKING SUPPLY
4. NO DEMONSTRABLE NEED FOR THIS PROJECT
5. LAND COULD BE MORE PRODUCTIVE TO THE REGION UNDER OTHER USES
6. ADDITIONAL FLOODING UP AND DOWNSTREAM
7. DAMAGE TO SENSITIVE HABITAT
8. LONG TERM DRAIN ON MUNICIPAL RESOURCES
9. UNLESS IC ZONING IS REINSTATED, ENTIRE AREA WILL BECOME “RETAIL CITY”
10. NET TAX REVENUE TO THE TOWN DOES NOT JUSTIFY CUMULATIVE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. .