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

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:

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.

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?

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

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.

-=-

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.