The Cheshire Town Post

~ by Craig Houghton - September 17, 2007 ~

Note: Anyone can post right to the front page on the Cheshire Town Post. Use the Register button up above to get started!

-=-

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.