How are the Applicant's traffic assumptions changing through this process? What does Darien peer review report say? What must PZC do in ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Darien Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing • How are the Applicant’s traffic assumptions changing through this process? • What does Darien peer review report say? • What must PZC do in order to approve this Special Permit? January 26, 2021 January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 1
How Can You Estimate the Impact? January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 2
Where is 7-11 Traffic Coming From?
In July, Applicant’s traffic engineer cited
“existing travel patterns” and “logical 50%
routes for site patrons” to estimate 50%
where 7-11 customers would come
from.
Exit 13
Of f
No data analysis of the “existing travel 30%
patterns” has been presented and no
explanation of “logical routes” has been
provided.
0%
0%
30%
20%
Exit 13 On
20%
January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 3
Where is 7-11 Traffic Coming From? … Part Deux
However, in December, Applicant’s
traffic engineer abruptly changed these 40%
50%
estimates. 50%
40%
Now, it cited just “existing travel
Exit 13
patterns” to estimate where 7-11 Of f
customers would come from and we can 30%
15%
see the changes presented here.
With no explanation or supporting
evidence – except to remove the prior
“logical routes” – the project now 5%
expects significant traffic to travel via 0%
Birch Road and a substantial increase to 0%
30%
5% 40%
travel to & from downtown Darien. 20% 15%
Exit 13 On
20%
Inexplicably, the traffic model sharply 40%
reduced the estimated visitors from
I-95.
January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 4
Where is 7-11 Traffic Coming From? … Part Three!!!
Finally, in late December, Applicant’s 35%
traffic engineer changed these 40%
50%
estimates again. 50%
40%
35%
Now, more traffic will come from and
Exit 13
return to I-95 with a modest decrease Of f
in traffic going downtown. 30%
15%
25%
Despite working on this project for 6
months, the traffic engineer has spent a
total of about 2 hours measuring traffic
along Post Road: first, to eyeball cars on 5%
Birch Road and then to watch cars 0%
entering the BP gas station on Post 0% 35%
30%
5% 40%
Road. 20% 15%
25%
Exit 13 On
20%
One gets the impression that this 40%
35%
analysis is closer to a big guess.
The residents of Darien will be the ones
that live with the actual results of this
guess.
January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 5
2020-2021 Darien Public School Bus Stops in Site Vicinity
Ox Ridge Elementary School
Royle Elementary School
Tokeneke Elementary School
Middlesex Middle School
Darien High School
January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 6
Darien’s Traffic Engineer January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 7
Applicant’s Narrative of Darien Zoning Regulations January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 8
Required Findings for Special Permit
Remem
ber wha
t the Ap
plicant
is telling
y ou!
January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 9Precedent Cases St Joseph High School, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Trumbull: More recently, the [Connecticut] Supreme Court has affirmed a commission’s decision to deny a special permit on the basis of the general standard that “the proposed use was not in harmony with the general character of the neighborhood.” There thus is no doubt that, under Connecticut Law, a zoning commission may deny a special permit application on the basis of general standards set forth in the zoning regulations, even when all technical requirements of the regulations are met. … In addition, several neighbors opined that the proposed use would detrimentally affect their property values, the character of their neighborhood, and their quality of life. The commission, as arbiter of credibility, was “entitled to credit the testimony and evidence adduced during the [public hearing] in arriving at its ultimate conclusion” as to compliance with the requirements of the regulations. Source: St. Joseph’s High School, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission (176 Conn. App. 570) January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 10
Precedent Cases Wellsville Donedeal, LLC v. New Milford Planning and Zoning Commission (emphasis added): Here, I have searched the record and have found substantial evidence to support the Commission’s denial of the proposals based upon a finding that additional traffic generated by the project would unduly imperil the safety of the public. Traffic proved to be one of the major complaints from members of the public, and was mentioned by several commissioners as a reason for voting against the project. Furthermore, [Connecticut General Statute] § 8-2 specifically provides that special permit uses are “subject to standards set forth in the regulations and to conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety, convenience and property values.” “Thus, in accordance with § 8-2(a), an applicant’s obtaining of a special [permit] pursuant to a zoning regulation is subject to a zoning commission’s consideration of these general factors.” The record is replete with testimony concerning the difficult traffic conditions on Wellsville Avenue. Wellsville Avenue was described as a narrow, curving two-lane road passing through a residential neighborhood with many grade school children living along it. School buses move slowly along the road making frequent stops. There was evidence that there is substantial pedestrian traffic. Many people spoke about the trouble and hardships which would ensue if the projects creates additional car and truck traffic. The Commission members were not bound to adopt the opinion of the plaintiff’s traffic engineer who opined that the project would not create an undue or unusual traffic hazard. Traffic conditions and pedestrian safety are nontechnical subjects; the Commissioners were entitled to rely upon the testimony of the other witnesses as well as their own personal knowledge on subjects which do not require expert knowledge such as traffic congestion and street safety. Source: Wellsville Donedeal, LLC v. New Milford Zoning Commission, 2006 Ct. Sup. 20785 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006) January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 11
Precedent Cases In Willimantic Car Wash, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Connecticut Supreme Court opined: Hearings feature prominently in the zoning process because land use decisions are quintessentially decisions impacting the public. Zoning regulation represents the common decision of the people “to serve the common social and economic needs … for their mutual advantage and welfare …” The statute authorizing local zoning regulation, the gist of which is that zoning regulations must promote the public welfare and be expressive of a comprehensive plan, reflects this community of purpose. Because of the public impact of land use decisions, Connecticut’s governing statutory scheme promotes public participation in such decision making, and particularly provides for public hearings with substantial procedural safeguards. We have recognized that, “hearings play an essential role in the scheme of zoning and in its development. They furnish a method of showing to the commission the real effect of the proposed change upon the social and economic life of the community. Hearings likewise provide the necessary forum for those whose properties will be affected by a change to register their approval or disapproval and to state the reasons therefor.” Source: Willimantic Car Wash, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appears, 247 Conn. 732, 739, 724 A.2d 1108 (1999) January 2021 Darien PZC Hearing 12
You can also read
