Inland Wetlands 9/4
Last night's Inland Wetlands meeting got a writeup in today's NHR (by Luther Turmelle). It's not online, but did mention the proposal includes a 100ft setback from all waterways... does anyone happen to know more about this setback rule though? I could've sworn that this has been a point of contention within the IWWC for several years.
Cindy Kleist was also talking about this meeting over at Underground Town Hall:
Architects Milone and Macbroom said that the proposed plan will only disturb one tenth of an acre of wetlands and part of that would be the footings for the bridge that would be put into the water. This wooden bridge would be for pedestrians and cars with a railing that would separate the pedestrians from the cars–God I hope so! The bridge according to reports, would be going into previously disturbed agricultural dump property.
Apparently there was a slide show-the whole works and it went on for nearly two hours. Representatives from Westfield were also in attendance and will be returning Sept. 18th at the next scheduled meeting of IWC to give their side.
Finally, Cindy mentioned that a member of the IWWC has recused himself. Anyone know if Inland Wetlands has alternates? I'm pretty sure there's no such thing.
Tim White
2 comments:
The following is from Cindy
"Let’s face it, Westfield Shopping Town in Meriden is practically “right down the street” off I-691 so the town of Cheshire is in for a fight and you can’t blame them."
Cindy certainly has it wrong here. The town of Cheshire will not be in a fight for this mall, this simply involves W/S and local developers who do not care about how this sprawling complex will effect our town. It's simply about them making money and they don't give a damn on how much it will cost Cheshire taxpayers in state and local taxes or the negative effects it will have on our lives.
It's all about making money.
I thought 300 ft was required. What's 100 ft going to do????? Does one realize how fast water can travel?
Post a Comment