Information about the project everyone should consider

2005 NO, 2018 YES???????

Two misleading suggestions are made to justify overriding the 2005 State denial.

1 – Second Access point - From the 2018 approval - “The site now features two points of access and egress. Vehicles may connect to RT 139 east and the nearby RT 3 interchange via Cross Street.”

- The second entrance is 2 houses down from the first

- Empties onto the same narrow road with no cross intersection

- Does NOTHING to alter the traffic patterns.

- Cross street was the same alternative in 2005 as it is today and is the route ALL residents heading East will use, EVERY TIME


2 – Misleading statements on Size Reduction by Mr. Baker

2005 – 64 AGE RESTRICTED UNITS. Average people in household by age of household head 55-74 = 1.99. Total residents = 127

Current – 56 NON-AGE RESTRICTED UNITS at 2.52 average = 141 residents.

In terms of Traffic, Sewage, Environmental Impact, Town Resources, Emergency calls, School System Impact, Pedestrians, Bikers etc, the Current proposal is larger than that Rejected in 2005.



Reference to 50 ACRES is misleading to the public – Density is Extreme.

- The State references 3.02 units per acre but this doesn’t factor in the WWTP and two stormwater detention basins

- The Clustered buildings sit on roughly 10 acres – or 5.6 units per acres

- In no way does this fit the surrounding neighborhood.

- 32 units & 11 buildings are on the equivalent of the 4 lots they Abut

- There is no room to reduce the density

- 6 Buildings, 14 units, and both drainage sites are within the 100-foot Wetland Buffer zones

- There is no Green space – no area for absorption even if the land could

- The Density creates substantial safety and environmental hazards.

- The surrounding infrastructure, Town Resources, and Natural habitat cannot support any amount of clustered housing.

- Did they reduce units when they Moved WWTP and Drainage sights, or when they moved Building 2 from 2 FT to 40 Ft from Lenahagns house, or when they added sidewalks??? NO – DENSITY has only gotten worse throughout this process. UPDATE – They add Sidewalks, but shrink street width (which they don’t mention unless asked – and why the Engineer or Traffic Peer reviewer didn’t ask shows the conflict in this whole process) – bottom line – sidewalks only made the project more crowded and the Mousetrap harder to maneuver for cars, Kids, Fire trucks and Delivery trucks.

aug3slidesPOSTMEETING
.pdf
Download PDF • 544KB

Featured Posts
Recent Posts