HomeMy WebLinkAboutWinchester Mall To: Richard J. Sartor, Town Manager Page 2
Comparison of Buckland Hills projects planned vs. Buckland Hills
application to STC.
STC Project
Application Plan *
- 785,000 s. f retail mall - 785 ,000 s.f. retail mall
- 120 ,000 s . f. additional retail
facilities
- 625 seats of restaurant facilities
- 200 room hotel
- 130 ,000 s . f. office space
- 1 ,600 seat movie theater
MAB:dlb
CC: Ralph Elliot, Esquire
Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
* From "Traffic Impact Report Preliminary Plan of Development, Buckland
Hills, Town of Manchester, Ct. , for Homart Development Co. , " prepared
by Fuss & O'Neill, Inc.
`4
r
PIERCE .
CLAR K lr
ST.
7
6
_ $ ST
GZ
ELER D ',� 4 \
ITEM DESCRIPTION 0
l Wapping Bypass _� O 1
2 Ellington Road PROPOSED
WINCHESTER. �Q6
3 5 Corners Upgrade Zj9 MALL
2 3
4 Sullivan Avenue trO R
Widening y� G
5 Buckland Road
Widening
6 Connector Road 10
(including 5
Pleasant Valley- rl
Wheeler Road
Connection) BUCK LAN D
D�
7 Pleasant: Valley- � S
Clark Street /�
� DO p.
g Smith-Wheeler
FIGURE t,
a. Cul-De-Sacs
b. Upgrade n
TRAFFIC IMPACT AREA
9 Neighborhood Wethersfield Connecticut WINCHESTER MALL;
Cul-De-Sacs SEA Consultants Inc.
Mall Access
� � SOUTH WINDSOR
10 I
�j ill
(Manchester).
PROJECT PLAN
FOR
THE MALL AT BUCKLAND HILLS
AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS
MANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT
ti
z
a
Municipality:
TOWN OF MANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT
Development Agency:
MANCHESTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Dated as of
DEC. 2, 1986
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
III. PRESENT CONDITIONS AND USES 7
IV. PRESENT AND PROPOSED ZONING 8 b
V. PROPOSED USES 9
VI. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 10
VII. FINANCING PLAN 13
VIII. ADMINISTRATION PLAN 16
IX. RELOCATION PLAN 18
X. APPRAISAL 19
XI. MARKETABILITY 2,0
XII. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 26
XIII. TITLE 28
XIV. FINDINGS 35
-i-
1
4
ATTACHMENTS
1. Present Conditions and Uses Map W 1)
2. Proposed Uses Map 02)
3. Proposed Traffic Improvements Map 03)
4. Proposed Utility Improvements Map 04)
5. Legal Description - Project Area Map (#5)
6. Tax Increment Financing Agreement
-ii-
I. INTRODUCTION
This Project Plan for the Mall at Buckland Hills and related improvements is part
of the development of 380 acres in northern Manchester and has been prepared for the
Economic Development Commission (EDC) by the Town of Manchester staff. The EDC
was designated the "development agency" by the Manchester Board of Directors and
charged with the responsibility of preparing this plan along with the issuing of bonds for
public improvements. The Project Plan has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 132 of the Connecticut General Statutes. It will describe the "
physical improvement activities necessary to allow the development of the area; describe
the type of development which is expected to occur; and describe the financing
mechanisms to pay for the necessary improvements. The plan represents the culmination
of a collaborative policy effort among the Board of Directors, Planning and Zoning
Commission and Economic Development Commission. The essential policy goal is to
secure the growth of a diversified economic base for the Town, create employment
opportunities and generate tax revenues. Full development of the Buckland area will also
provide new residential opportunities for Manchester.
-1-
t
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There are approximately 380 acres .of mostly vacant land lying north of Interstate
84 between Buckland Street and Deming Street in northern Manchester. Long considered
a prime location for development, the western 138 acres has been zoned Comprehensive
Urban Development (CUD) since 1977. This zoning district would alljw a mix of
commerical, residential and industrial development. In the fall of 1985, the Planning and
Zoning Commission (PZC) approved a site development plan for the 138 acre CUD zoned
land which proposed the construction of a regional shopping mall and several hundred units
of housing. This proposal, by the Homart Development Company (Homart) and
Manchester I-84 Associates, was recognized as the catalyst for a much larger mixed use
development for all of the land north of 1-84.
The Town proposes to enter into a cooperative effort with the developers to secure
a high-quality mixed use development. In order to achieve this goal, several actions are
necessary. First, because the public utility systems required to allow this type of
development are not available on the site, it is necessary to design and construct water,
sewer, and road systems which will serve more than the Homart project. Much of this
activity will occur on land which has extraordinary natural features, most notably
extensive rock outcrops and some large inland wetlands. The extra costs associated with
land development, plus the Town's desire to open up nearly three times more land than is
required for the mall project, leads to the need for a joint financing/development effort.
Some major improvements to state and local roadways are required to accommodate the
increased traffic generated by the development of a regional mall, and because the mall is
the catalyst for the development of a larger area, public participation in these costs is
considered warranted.
While site specific planning was under consideration for the mall project, the PZC
was in the process of finalizing a new Plan of Development for Manchester. A major
planning objective was to designate the Buckland area as a special mixed use district to
allow a variety of higher intensity residential, commercial and industrial development
-2-
governed by flexible perfor.mance standards. This policy objective appears in the Plan of
Development adopted in July, 1986, and includes the area which is the subject of this
Project Plan.
In order to test the feasibility of the mixed use development scenario, the PZC
sought and secured funding from the Board of Directors for an area-wide traffic study to
determine the limits of the roadway system serving the northern end of Town. The study
found that, with some intermediate roadway improvements beyond those required for the
Homart project by the State Traffic Commission, the Town's Plan of Development
scenario for this area could be substantially achieved.
Even though the PZC policy goal was to obtain a mixed use development pattern in
the Buckland area governed by flexible development controls, the existing CUD
regulations required a fairly rigid proportion of commercial and residential development.
The regulations even specified the percentage of various housing types. While similar in
concept to the Plan of Development goals, it was felt the regulations did not allow the
PZC the discretion necessary to plan a larger area of land under multiple ownership. In
September, 1986, the PZC took a major step in meeting the Plan of Development goals by
adopting a new CUD regulation which provides more discretion and flexible development
standards. It also rezoned land abutting the mall site to CUD, thus creating the legal
ability to pursue the mixed use development scenario in the 360 acres in northern
Manchester.
In August of 1986, the Board of Directors designated the EDC as the "development
agency" pursuant to Chapter 132 of the Connecticut General Statutes. The intent of this
statute, as stated in its declaration of policy, is to allow municipalities to acquire and
improve land areas for industrial and business purposes recognizing that such acquisition
and improvement often cannot be accomplished through the ordinary operations of private
enterprise at competitive rates of progress and economics of cost. This action gave the
EDC the responsibility to prepare a Project Plan for development of the Buckland area
and to set forth the financing mechanisms to pay for these improvements. The Project
-3-
Plan would describe a set of proposed land uses and delineate the public improvements
necessary to lead to the development of the land. a
In preparing the Project Plan, it is necessary first to distinguish the "development
project" from the "Project Area." The development project consists of the various public
improvement activities necessary to make land available for development. The Project
Area is that land from which incremental real property tax revenues will be dedicated to
a special fund to retire the proceeds from a revenue bond issue to pay for the
improvements.
A. The Development Project
The impetus for the Project Plan for Buckland was the approval by the Planning
and Zoning Commission of a 750,000 square foot regional shopping mall as proposed by
Homart. It is estimated that the mall will generate $1.8 million in real property tax
revenues annually and create approximately 1,700 new jobs.
Most importantly, the mall will provide the physical presence necessary to
generate other development on and around the mall site. Market experience shows that
additional retail space, office and service uses occur in close proximity to a regional mall.
Due to its location on the interstate highway network and its accessibility to labor ani
consumer markets, the Homart parcel and abutting"land is ideally suited for the business
and industrial uses contemplated. Market studies project an additional 1,000,000 square
feet of retail, office and light industrial development above the mall project, with
attendent job and revenue gains, within the next 10 to 15 years.
In order to take advantage of this potential, it is necessary to construct new public
utilities and mprove existing systems. The development project, therefore, requires the
following activities:
* Construction of approximately 2 miles of new streets. This includes a four-lane
access road on the northerly side of the site running from Buckland Street to Slater
Street. Also included is a four-lane access road to the mall on the southerly side of
the site.
-4-
* Construction of approximately 4.5 miles of street improvements including road
widening and/or additional turning lanes to Buckland Street, Slater Street, and
Deming Street, as required by the State Traffic Commission or the Town of
Manchester North End Traffic Study.
# The extension of a 12" water main from Deming Street to Buckland Street,
including a loop system around the mall site and a new water storage tank.
* Construction of new sanitary sewer trunk lines to serve the land between Buckland
and Slater Streets, including a pump station and force main necessary to serve a
portion of the site until gravity flow can be served by South Windsor.
# Improvements to existing traffic signals or installment of new signals at numerous
locations on Buckland and Deming Streets, the Tolland Turnpike/Chapel Road
intersection, and other locations, if needed.
Construction of a sanitary sewer trunk line to serve the land between Slater and
Buckland Street.
The development project improvements will benefit and serve all of the land from
Buckland Street through to Deming Street. This land represents nearly 380 acres of
vacant and underutilized land. The Buckland Mall site requires 115 acres for the mall
proper and perimeter development. It is estimated the capital costs for these
improvements will be $12 million, which together with an estimated $1 million of
associated bond issuance costs and other associated project costs results in a total bond
issue of $13 million.
B. Project Area
Given the desire to create the conditions for a large scale mixed use development
and the need for public participation in the project, the EDC proposes to utilize the
provisions of Chapter 132 and issue revenue bonds to finance the public improvements.
Under the act the Town Board of Directors can issue such bonds and repay the debt from
the difference between the current taxes generated by the land and the revenues
generated after the improvements. This tax "increment" must be deposited in a special
-5-
4
fund dedicated solely for bond payments until sufficient funds are recovered to pay all
principal and interest in the bond issue. It is anticipated that bonds will be issued for 15
years and that sufficient funds to retire the bonds will be collected within the 10 years
following mall construction, at which time tax increments collected may go directly into
the General Fund. All personal property taxes collected from the Project Area go
directly into the General Fund.
In determining the physical boundaries of the "Project Area" (i.e., land from which
the tax increment is dedicated for debt service) the EDC used two parameters. First, �.
Chapter 132 states that a development project shall be primarily for business or industrial
purposes. Therefore, any land which is intended for eventual development for housing has
not been be included within the Project Area.
Second, it is in the best interest of the Town to delineate as small a Project Area
as is economically feasible to assure the repayment of the revenue bonds. This minimizes
the amount of real property tax revenue dedicated for bond payments. Other land which
will develop outside the Project Area but as a result of the development project will pay
all taxes directly into the General Fund.
The result is a Project Area of 193.33 acres, as more specifically defined in Section
XII of this Plan, which is dedicated to business or industrial use and which will provide the
revenues necessary to complete the development project improvements.
-6-
III. PRESENT CONDITIONS AND USES
The Project Area is now divided into two existing use areas. The westerly portion
of the site is currently mixed woodlands with only a few tobacco barns. The easterly
portion is a public, privately operated 18-hole golf course. The site has gently rolling
topography, with the more severe slopes limited to the westerly end of the site where
ravines occur with a north-south orientation.
There are four distinct wetlands areas on the site as identified on the map entitled
"Present Conditions and Uses." The wetlands identified as 1 and 3 are important due to
their drainage functions, diverse ecology and potential for aesthetic and recreational
values.
-7-
IV. PRESENT AND PROPOSED ZONING
The great majority of land within the Project Area is zoned Comprehensive Urban
Development (CUD). This zoning designation permits all land uses proposed on the
"Proposed Land Use Map" subject to a preliminary and final plan approval by the PZC. As
of this date a preliminary development plan approval request is pending beftre the PZC.
An existing development plan approved for the mall at Buckland Hills was approved in
November, 1985. The only parcel in the Project Areas not zoned CUD is a ten acre parcel
which is zoned Industrial. No zoning district changes are necessary or anticipated.
-8-
V. PROPOSED USES
This Project Plan is intended to develop 193.33 acres of land as a mixed use
business/industrial/office complex to serve the Hartford regional economy. (See Map #2.)
The catalyst for this development program is the Mall at Buckland Hills: a regional
shopping mall of 785,000 square feet of gross leasable area which will occuppy a 64-acre
site at the heart of the Project Area.
Surrounding the road ringing the mall itself and having access from the ring road
and/or both major access roads are approximately 40 acres which will contain a variety of
retail, office, service and entertainment uses. Land to the west of peripheral parcels
oriented toward Buckland Street will be available for additional commercial and office
space, with 275,000 square feet of floor area capacity on 36 acres. To the east of the
peripheral development parcels lies approximately 27 acres targeted for use as an
industrial/office employment park. Twenty acres of land is set aside for future hotel use;
10 acres on either side of the Mall site.
The development pattern calls for construction of retail and service activity from the
Mall west to Buckland Street with a gradual transition to entertainment, industrial and
office toward Slater Steet. Land lying to the north of the North Access Road has a very
high potential for medium-high to high density residential development. Since Chapter
132 requires the development project to be used primarily for business or industrial
purposes, this land has not been included in the Project Area and is not targeted for use
on the Proposed Uses Map.
-9-
VI. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The role of the Town of Manchester is to create the basic physical conditions
necessary to allow the development of the Project Area to achieve a business/industrial
development. These basic improvements include the construction of two main roads
which will provide access to land between Buckland and Slater Streets. In order to take
full advantage of the interstate highway network, the northern access road shall be
extended across Slater Street to Deming Street.
Because of the size and location of the Homart project, the State Traffic
Commission (STC) required improvements to be made to state roads and the interstate
highway system ramps. This work is necessary to ensure an acceptable level of service
once the anticipated traffic from the mall project becomes a reality. The following is an
itemized breakdown of the access road and STC required improvements and estimated
costs:
Buckland Street - 1-84 E.B. Ramps to Town Line $402,000
South Access Road - Buckland to Mall 649,000
North Access Road - Buckland to Slater 2,550,000
Hale Road Construction - Slater to Route 30 1,1501000
Slater St. - Access Road to Tolland Turnpike 550,000
Route 30 - Manchester/South Windsor Town Line to Oakland 1,3081000
Install Traffic Signals
a. Buckland and Access Road 75,000
b. Route 30 and Tolland Turnpike 75,000
c. Chapel Road and Tolland Turnpike 75,000
Revise Traffic Signals
a. Buckland St. Pleasant Valley/N. Access Road 100,000
b. Route 30/Avery Street/I-84 W.B. Ramps 100,000
c. Route 30/Tolland Turnpike 75,000
d. Route 30/Route 83/Oakland Street/1-84 E.B. Ramps 100,000
Interconnect Signals - Buckland Street 75,000
Interconnect Signals - Route 30 100,000
Subtotal $7,334,000
15% Eng., Legal, etc. 1,100,000
$8,434,000
-10-
Looking beyond the mall project itself, the Town commissioned a traffic study to
analyze traffic impacts on local and state roadways in northern Manchester, including
traffic from approved developments and estimates for trips generated from presently
vacant land. This study, by Purcell Associates of Glastonbury, Connecticut, resulted in
the identification of several potential capacity problems which may occur vfirth additional
development after the mall is built and after the STC required improvements are installed
and operating. Several roadway improvements from among those recommended in the
Purcell study are included in the development project because they can be easily
accomplished simultaneously with STC required improvements because they are
exclusively Manchester streets and because they will be required in the near future.
These road improvements and estimated costs are as follows:
Widen South Access Road to provide additional
left turn onto Buckland Road southbound $100,000
Widen Buckland Road to provide additional left
turn into I-84 eastbound ramp 200,000
Widen Buckland Road and Tolland Turnpike to provide
additional through lanes southbound and eastbound 400,000
Widen Deming Street to provide additional left and right
turn into I-84 westbound ramp 100,000
Subtotal $800,000
10% Engineering, legal, etc. 80,000
Total $880,000
The location of all roadway improvements are shown on the "Traffic Improvements
Map."
Public water and sanitary sewer facilities must also be extended to serve land
within and outside of the Project Area. In the case of water, a 12" water main must be
extended west from Deming Street to Buckland Street; an 8" to 12" water main must be
installed as a loop around the mall to serve peripheral development; and a new water
storage tank must be built.
-11-
Sanitary sewers are mainly in the Eighth Utilities District and shall be funded along
with other basic public mprovements. In addition to 8" gravity lines, a pumping station
and force main system s necessary for serving land within and outside of the Project
Area. It is anticipated the force main and pump station shall be temporary expedients
until gravity sewers can be extended to South Windsor according to an intertown sewer
agreement. Until then the operation of the pump station and appurtenances shall be
governed by the Eighth Utilities District. Finally, a sanitary ,sewer line will be designed
and installed in the Hale Road area to serve land between Slater and Deming Streets.
This line will be built during the development project, but will be funded by other funding
mechanisms. The location of these water and sewer facilities is shown on the Proposed
Utility Improvements Map. The costs for extension of power, gas, telephones and other
services are the responsibility of the developers. The cost estimates for the water and
sewer facilities are:
Water Lines and Storage Tank $1,116,000
Sanitary Sewers and Pump Station 734,000
Subtotal $1,850,000
10% Engineering, Legal, etc. 185,tl00
Total $2,035,000
-12-
VII. FINANCING PLAN "
The construction of the traffic improvements and water and sewer improvements
required in connection with the development project, as more particularly identified in
Section V of this Plan, will facilitate the development of approximately 380 acres in
northern Manchester. The total principal amount of bonds to be issued wild- not exceed
$13 million. The proceeds of the bonds may be used for the following purposes:
1. The cost of constructing and installing the access road and other State Traffic
Commission required improvements and water and sewer improvements required in
connection with the development project as identified in Section VI of this Plan,
not to exceed $10,500,000.
2. The cost of road improvements required by the Town not to exceed $1,500,000
identified in Section No. VI.
3. The issuance costs for any series of bonds, including bond counsel fees and expenses
and any underwriters' discount thereon.
4. The cost of any on-site inspector maintained by the Town at the site during
construction and installation of the improvements.
5. The cost of any land condemned, purchased or otherwise acquired necessary to
accomplish any of the public improvements identified in the Project Plan.
6. The cost of any financial advisor to the Town.
7. The cost of any legal fees or expenses incurred by the Town with respect to the
preparation and implementation of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Agreement
and the Project Plan.
8. Any expenses of the Town paid by the developer prior to the issuance of the bonds.
The total amount of the costs described for Item No. 1 above which may be paid
from the proceeds of the bonds shall not exceed $10,500,000 (which cap figure shall be
reduced dollar for dollar to the extent that the responsibility for construction and
installing any of the improvements shall be assumed by the State of Connecticut). To the
-13-
extent that the Developer can reduce the anticipated $10,500,000 (or reduced cap figure
as described above) cost of construction of the improvements identified in Item No. 1
above and/or the extent that the costs for the items described in Items 3-8 above are less
than $1 million, then the balance of such amount up to the $10,500,000 cap (or reduced
cap as described above) and/or the $1 million cap for Items 3-8 shall be avai*ble to pay a
portion of the following costs:
9. The cost of providing any required credit enhancement for the bonds.
10. The provision of any capitalized interest or any deposit into a debt service reserve
fund required in order to secure the bonds.
11. The payment of any cost or provision for any deposit in addition to those listed
above in Items Nos. 1 through 10, which is mutually acceptable to the Town and the
developer.
The Developer's share of the costs for Items Nos. 9 through 11 which exceed the
$10,500,000 cap (or lower figure) and/or the $1 million cap as described above shall be the
responsibility of the developer.
The tax increment bonds issued for the purposes described above shall be paid from
the incremental increase in real estate taxes received due to the revaluation of land
and/or construction of improvements on the land within the Project Area and will be
directed to a separate fund dedicated to the retirement of the bond issue for public
improvements in accordance with provisions of Chapter 132 of the Connecticut General
Statutes. The cumulative incremental real estate taxes to be received during the life of
the bonds is anticipated to be $51,217,275. The total principal and interest payments
required to retire the public improvement bonds is estimated to be $21,292,000. The
result is that the dedicated tax increment fund should have sufficient incremental real
estate tax contributions some 10 years after the bonds are issued to make all principal and
interest payments. The projected incremental real estate tax contributions received after
there is sufficient money in the fund to pay for the principal and interest of the bonds
issued (including reimbursement to the Developer for any principal and interest paid by
-14-
the Developer after the December 31 following the opening of the center) become=
available to the Town as unrestricted General Fund tax revenue. a
In addition,. development within the Project Area will be generating personal
property tax revenue to the Town. These taxes are not dedicated toward bond retirement
costs but instead are immediately available to the Town as General Fund tax revenue. It
is estimated that the personal property tax revenue which will be accruing to the Town
during the life of the bonds will total $9,693,766.
The provisions of the Financing Plan referenced in this section and the
Administration Plan referenced in Section VIII are a summary of the Tax Increment
Financing Agreement which is the governing document between the EDC, Town and
Homart in regard to the Financing and Administrative Plan contained in the Project Plan
(Exhibit W. The provisions contained in Sections VII and VIII of this Plan have no
substantive legal effect which is inconsisent with the provisions of the Tax Increment
Financing Agreement.
-1 S-
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN
Subject to certain preconditions, such as the issuance of the Tax Increment
Financing Bonds by the Town, the Developer has agreed to construct and install or to
cause the construction and installation of the Improvements as more particularly
identified in Section VI of this Plan. In addition, the Developer will use its (lest efforts to
obtain all necessary governmental approvals, licenses and permits for such construction
and installation, and if necessary, will use its best efforts to obtain approvals from the
Town, its Town Water Pollution Control Authority, the Eighth Utilities District, and the
State Department of Environmental Protection.
The Town shall have the right to approve in advance all contracts and all plans and
specifications for the construction and installation of the Improvements. The Town shall
be entitled to inspect the Improvements and to monitor the construction and installation
in any reasonable manner including the maintenance of an on-site inspector or inspectors.
The Developer shall provide the Town with reasonable cost and expenditure reports as
requested by the Town, and the Town may exercise the right to approve any expenditures
in addition to the amounts set forth in original contracts.
It shall be the responsibility of the Town to obtain by condemnation, purchase, or
any other means which it may choose, the land on which the south access road to the
center is to be constructed -and the land between Slater Street and Deming Street on or
under which any of the Improvements are to be constructed or installed and to make this
land available to the Developer for the purpose of constructing and installing the
Improvements. The Developer shall dedicate to the Town any real property which they
own upon or under which the Improvements are to constructed or installed and the Town
shall accept the dedication of such real property from the Developer as long as the
Improvements are constructed or installed in accordance with Town's standards for public
improvements.
-16-
The Developer has the right to terminate its obligations under the TIF Agreement
if it in good faith determines that it is not economically feasible to proceed with the
development of this center, or if any of the preconditions set out in the TIF Agreement
are not satisfied, as long as there is payment in full of the principal and interest on
outstanding bonds (including payment of any applicable redemption, Epenalties, or
premiums in connection therewith) and upon payment to the Town of all costs and
contractual obligations incurred by the Town with respect to the TIF Agreement or the
Project Plan.
An allowable expense under the TIF Agreement the hiring by the Town of a
financial advisor or consultant which it may deem prudent or advantageous to consult or
hire in order to provide the Town with advice concerning issuance, delivery and sale of the
bonds, as well as the ability to consult or hire attorneys to review the TIF Agreement and
Project Plan. In this regard the Town has consulted with the accounting firm of Arthur
Young to verify financial information supplied by the Developer in support of its request
to the Town for financial assistance utilizing tax increment financing. The firm of
Robinson and Cole has been hired to act as the Town's bond counsel, and Attorney Kevin
O'Brien has been retained by the Economic Development Commission for legal counsel in
regard to the Tax Increment Financing Agreement and Project Plan.
a responsible for approving the issuance of bonds in
The Board of Directors shall b p pp g
accordance with the provisions specified in the TIF Agreement, Chapter 132 of the
Connecticut General Statutes and this Project Plan. The bonds will be issued upon a date
or dates mutually acceptable to the Town and Homart; however, it is anticipated that the
bonds will be issued at or near the commencement of the construction and installation of
the improvements. This Project Plan must be approved by the EDC and the Board prior to
issuance of any bonds. The contractual obligations of the EDC and the Board to issue any
bonds are expressly conditioned upon prior fulfillment of each requirement for the lawful
issuance and delivery of such bonds.
-17-
IX. RELOCATION PLAN
There is no governmental action requiring the relocation of any occupants within
the Project Area. Accordingly, a plan for relocating Project Area occupants will not be
required.
-18-
X. APPRAISAL
For the purposes of this Plan the appraisal referenced in Chapter 132 of the
Connecticut General Statutes is considered to be the assessed value of the land within the
Project Area as of the Grand List Valuation of October 1, 1986. All real estate property
taxes to be escrowed for repayment of bond principal and interest will be based upon the
General Fund mill rate for the Town of Manchester applied against the incremental
increase in the value of land within the Project Area on any subsequent Grand List and the
total value of any improvements constructed on land within the Project Area subsequent
to the approval of this Plan.
-19-
Xl. MARKETABILITY
Critical to the success of the development project's investment and the Town's
ability to repay the debt incurred for it is the ability of the marketplace to absorb the
type and amount of development contemplated for Buckland. The EDC required Homart
to provide market analyses to demonstrate the feasibility of the activities pr'yposed.
Market studies were prepared by Homart's Department of Research and Market
Analysis for the regional mall project; Phillips/Norwalk Company of Wesport, Connecticut
for the development of land peripheral to the regional mall including office, retail and
entertainment uses; and Coldwell Banker Real Estate Consultation Services of
Washington, D. C. for the regional office market. Additional economic and market trend
information was collected by ECONNomics of Hartford, CT.
The market studies show there is a very strong demand for a regional shopping mall
located east of the Connecticut River. This demand can be served immediately by a new
mall. The presence of a significant new retail facility will generate a market for spin-off
retail, service and office space near the mall. Absorption rates should allow this
development to occur over the next 10 to 15 years.
The following is a summary of some major findings of the market studies as they
relate to each market component.
Retail Sector:, Regional Shopping Malll
* The trade area for a regional shopping center at the Buckland Hills site was
delineated based on point-to-point driving times, geographical features, existing
retail competition, and existing and emerging population patterns. A major
regional mall anchored by three or more department stores currently in the
Hartford market would attract 80 percent of its shoppers from the primary trade
area; the remaining 20 percent sales inflow would come from residents outside of
the primary trade area.
-20-
The primary trade area includes the Hartford County towns of East Windsor, South
Windsor, East Hartford, Manchester, Glastonbury and Marlborough and the Tolland
County towns of Hebron, Andover, Bolton, Vernon, Tolland, Ellington, Willington,
Coventry, Columbia and Mansfield. All of the primary trade area residents have
easy access to the mall site via Interstate 84 and Highway 83 as well as other local
and state highways (partial). The secondary trade area covers the Hartford County
Towns of Windsor, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Newington, West Hartford (partial)
and Hartford. The Buckland Hills site is within a 20-minutes drive of the secondary
trade area's residents.
In 1985, the population residing in the Buckland Hills primary trade area was
estimated to be almost 258,000 persons; the secondary trade area was estimated to
contain about 270,000 persons. By 1990, population is expected to increase to
almost 263,400 persons in the primary trade area and nearly 272,600 persons in the
secondary trade area for a total trade area population of almost 536,000 persons.
Population is expected to grow at a faster rate in the primary tade area (0.4
percent or 1,000 persons per year between 1985 and 1990) than in the secondary
trade area (0.1 percent or 200 persons per year between 1985 and 1990).
* At the time of the 1980 Census, residents in the primarily trade area recorded a
1979 per capita income of $8,279 while those in the secondary trade area recorded
per capita income of $7,534. Per capita income is growing at a faster rate in the
primary trade area than in the secondary tade area because of the slow growth in
income for residents in the City of Hartford. Both the primary and secondary
trade areas are expected to grow at rates above the national average. Between
1979 and 1985, per capita income is estimated to have grown by 10.1 percent per
year in the primary tade area and by 8.4 percent per year in the secondary trade
area.
-21-
* In 1982, shoppers goods sales represented 12.1 percent of money income in the
Hartford Metropolitan Area. Between 1972 and 1977, growth in sales in Hartford
grew by only 4.3 percent per year. Since that time, sales in Hartford have been
growing much faster at a rate of 8.0 per cent per year which is above the national
average of 7.4 percent per year for the same time period. This increased growth in
GAFO sales is due, in part, to the increased strength in the Hartford economy
which has increased income levels, providing residents with more disposable income
in recent years.
# There are currently only two regional shopping centers located in the Hartford
Metropolitan Area to serve the population base of 720,000 persons. Westfarms
Mall helps define the trade area to the west while Enfield Mall limits the northern
boundary of the trade area. The redeveloped Hartford retail area, which includes
The Richardson and The Civic Center Shops, also limit the Buckland Hills trade
area to the west. In addition to these malls, there are numerous community
centers in the market.
* An important factor in determining the feasibility of a regional shopping center is
the calculation of the total sales potential in a given trade area based on the
expenditure potential of the area residents and future customers. Shoppers goods
expenditure potential is the amount of total income trade area residents can be
expected to spend in general merchandise stores (including department stores),
furniture and home furnishings stores, apparel and accessories stores and selected
other establishments.
-22-
The 1990 shoppers goods expenditures potential for the Buckland Hills. primary
trade area is projected to be about $644,900,000 in current year dollar values
(about $530,000,000 in constant 1985 dollar values). The 1990 shoppers goods
expenditure potential for the secondary trade area is expected to be about
$516,400,000 in current year dollar values (about $424,400,000 in senstant 1985
dollar values). As evidence of the accuracy of the marketability study, four major
department store anchors have committed to utilizing approximately 450,000
square feet of retail space in the mall.
Based upon detailed analysis of the sales potential available to each of these
anchors, and the level of mall tenant sales which would be generated by consumer
patronage of the anchors, we conclude that in 1990 Buckland Hills could support
785,000 square feet of gross leasable space registering total sales of $183,400,000
or $234 per square foot ($150,700,000 and $192 per square foot, respectively, in
1985 values).-
Retail/Service/Of f ice: Peripheral Land Development2
Based upon the size of the proposed mall and the quality of department store
tenants the development of 90,000 square feet of peripheral retail space and a
restaurant could be expected coincident with the mall opening.
Given the expected drawing power of the mall, approximately 41,000 square feet of
general office space and 10,000 square feet of medical-dental uses could be
achieved within several years of mall opening.
Continued office demand in the amount of 100,000 to 150,000 square feet would be
achieved four to ten years after mall opening.
Office Sector: Project Area3
The strongest employment growth occurred in the trade, services and finance,
insurance and real estate sectors. Actual employment increase was almost 40,000
workers from 1970 to 1980 in Hartford County in these business.
-23-
# The Hartford office market is dominated by the space needs of large institutional
users - primarily Hartford's insurance companies such as Aetna, Travelers,
Connecticut Mutual, Cigna, and The Hartford Insurance Group. In addition, the
city's large banks such as Connecticut National, Connecticut Bank and Trust, Bank
of Boston, and Mechanics Savings create a second, but more stable, large block of
demand.
Suburban office development has been fueled to a great extent by peripheral needs
of the insurance and financial companies for back-office space. In moving to
suburban locations, the insurance sector has sought to acquire high quality flexible
space at a lower cost than in downtown locations, to locate facilities near desirable
residential areas, and to access a larger labor pool than is available to the Hartford
CBD. Companies which have moved into large suburban locations in recent years
include Cigna, The Hartford Group, Allstate, Great American Insurance, Arnica,
and.Aetna.
Net absorption of office space averaged almost 1.2 million square feet from 1981
to 1985. 1985 absorption is estimated to be around 800,000 square feet, following
1984's record absorption of over 1.8 million square feet. Local observers predict
that major corporate space users' needs are swinging upward again and that almost
1 million square feet will be absorbed between June 1985 and June 1986.
# Recent absorption trends among the submarkets have shown a swing in favor of the
suburban areas due to the variety of space alternatives available and competitive
rents. In January of this year, the Farley Company predicted that by the end of
the year absorption should be favoring the suburbs over Hartford City by 75
percent to 25 percent. Suburban absorption would be led by the East submarket
which is predicted to average some 300,000 square feet per year, or twice its
annual average over the last five years.
-24-
+� It is anticipated by most observers of the Hartford market that the underdeveloped
east suburban area will be the next target of area real estate development, aided
by a large labor pool and a superior transportation network. Buckland Hills offers
potential users a highly accessible location convenient to downtown Hartford
which, when coupled with a regional mall, will be an attraq ive working
environment for tenants and their employees. The eastern market is ideal for users
who do not need to be located in the downtown Hartford's insurance and financial
district.
1. Excerpts from Development Potential of Buckland Commons. October, 1986 by
Homart Development Co., Department of Research and Market Analysis.
2. Excerpts from Absorption Analysis, Buckand Hills Peripheral Parcels, September
24,1986 by Phillips/Norwalk Company.
3. Excerpts from Hartford Market Study, November, 1985 by Coldwell Banker.
-25-
XII. LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A certain piece or parcel of land located in the Town of Manchester, State of
Connecticut, containing 193.33 acres as being shown on a map entitled "Map of Land For
Project Plan, Buckland and Slater Street, Manchester, Connecticut," Scale 1"=100', Dated
8-24-86 by Fuss be O Neill, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Manchester, Conr*cticut, said
parcel being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
Commencing at a point, said point being the southeasterly corner of the herein
described parcel which point is the intersection of the westerly street line of Slater Street
with the northerly highway line of Interstate Route 84.
Thence running S63044117"W 457.07 feet, thence running southwesterly on a curve
to the right having a radius of 5579.60 feet and an arc length of 749.41 feet; thence
running 57003714511W 1302.57 feet; all along the northerly highway line of Interstate Route
84, land now or formerly State of Connecticut.
Thence running N04007151"W 68.16 feet; thence running N0700012511W 113.11 feet;
thence running S75001109"W 871.11 feet; thence running S80006137"W 1740.87 feet; thence
running N3101312211W 370.02 feet; thence running S8005910811W 64.60 feet to a point on the
easterly street line of Buckland Street; all along land now or formerly State of
Connecticut;
Thence running N27023148"W 87.21 feet; thence running N23059134"W 172.04 feet;
thence running N23034112"W 130.01 feet; thence running northwesterly on a curve to the
right having a radius of 3140.00 feet and on arc length of 380.91 feet; thence running
N1304410111W 513.92 feet; thence running N0603811211W 167.62 feet to a point on the
Manchester-South Windsor town line, all along the easterly street line of Buckland Street;
Thence running N71015113"E 2564.91 feet; thence running N71015113"E 109.09 feet;
all along the Manchester-South Windsor town line, land now or formerly Hartman Tobacco
Company;
Thence running S08028147"E 170.47 feet; thence running southeasterly on a curve to
the right having a radius of 540.00 feet and an arc length of 171.90 feet; thence
-26-
running S4702013011E 100.00 feet; thence running on a curve to the left having a radius of
555.40 feet and an arc length of 307.32 feet; thence running S7900214211E 1631.88 feet;
thence running on a curve to the left having a radius of 460.00 feet and an arc length of
523.37 feet; thence running N3504515611E 110.85 feet; thence running on a curve to the
right having a radius of 540.00 feet and an arc length of 430.00 feet; thence-running on a
curve to the left having a radius of 50.00 feet and an arc length of 46.34 feet to a point on
the westerly street line of Slater Street; all along land now or formerly Manchester I-84
Associates;
Thence running S06046145"E 605.53 feet; thence running S0702710011E 195.00 feet;
thence running S07019100"E 183.17 feet to the Point and Place of Commencement; all
along the westerly street line of Slater Street.
All improvements to be performed in conjunction with the Development Project
but outside of the legally described Project Area will occur within the public right-of-way
of the streets in or over which the improvements will be installed. Said improvements are
as shown on the map entitled "Proposed Utility Improvements and Proposed Traffic
Improvements."
-27-
XIII. TITLE
A. Homart Parcel. On or before commencement of the proposed improvements in
the Project Area, fee simple title to the Homart Parcel will be held in the
name of Homart Development Co.
As,of June 19, 1986, the Homart Parcel is free and clear of alFencumbrances
of record except the following:
1. The lien for all municipal taxes and assessments on the list of October 1,
1985 and thereafter. Said taxes are current and the next installment is �.
not yet payable.
2. Mortgage for $32,517.40 from MAP Associates of M. & S.W. to Eileen
Schweir dated and recorded December 1, 1981 in Volume 794, Page 55 of
the Manchester Land Records.
3. Mortgage for $48,623.18 from MAP Associates of M. do S.W. to Leon R.
and Edward H. Schweir dated and recorded December 1, 1981 in Volume
794, Page 74 of the Manchester Land Records.
4. Mortgage for $45,585.23 from MAP Associates of M. & S.W. to Leon R.
Schweir dated and recorded December 1, 1981 in Volume 794, Page 63 of
the Manchester Land Records.
5. Mortgage for $15,000.00 with an existing balance of $-0- from MAP
Associates of M. & S.W. to Sterling Pitkin Olmstead dated and recorded
December 1, 1981 in Volume 794, Page 84 of the Manchester Land
Records.
6. Mortgage for $429,480.82 from MAP Associates of M. do S.W. to The
Hartman Tobacco Company dated January 21, 1981 and recorded January
22, 1981 at 11:10 a.m. in Volume 767, Page 17 of the Manchester Land
Records.
7. Denial of Access Rights to land now or formerly of the State of
Connecticut by virtue of a taking by eminent domain as reflected in a
-28-
Certification of Condemnation from The Hartman Tobacco Company to
the State of Connecticut dated February 6, 1974 and recorded in Volume
537, Page 89 of the Manchester Land Records.
8. Sloping and excavation easements by virtue of a taking by eminent domain
as reflected in a Certificate of Condemnation from Rapid-American
Corporation to State of Connecticut dated July 6, 1983 and recorded in
Volume 853, Page 166 of the Manchester Land Records.
9. Easement by virtue of a taking by eminent domain as reflected in a
Certificate of Condemnation from Rapid-American Corporation to State
of Connecticut dated April 25, 1984 and recorded in Volume 893, Page 91
of the Manchester Land Records.
10. Survey by Fuss & O'Neill Consulting Engineers, Manchester Connecticut
"Property of Rapid-American Corporation to be conveyed to Manchester
I-84 Associates Limited Partnership Buckland Street Manchester, CT Proj.
No. 84-316 Dated June 1986 Scale 1"=200' Designer NLB Checker LRG
Sheet No. 1 of I Revisions 6-16-86", on file in the Town Clerk's Office of
the Town of Manchester, discloses the following:
(a) Shed extending over northerly line.
(b) Brooks flowing through the easterly and westerly portion of the
premises.
(c) Drainage ditches and pipe easements in favor of State of Connecticut
along westerly boundaries.
(d) Slope easements in favor of the State of Connecticut along westerly
boundaries.
(e) Drainage swale on northwesterly portion of premises.
11. Terms and Conditions of Memorandum of Purchase Agreement between
Manchester I-84 Associates Limited Partnership and Hornart Development
-29-
Co., recorded in the Manchester Land Records on June 19, 1986 at 4:45
p.m.
B. Manchester I-84 Associates Parcel. Fee simple title to the Manchester I-84
Associates Parcel is held in the name of Manchester I-84 Associates Limited
Partnership. As of June 19, 1986, the Manchester I-84 Associates Parcel is
free and clear of all encumbrances of record except the following:
1. Taxes to the Town of Manchester on the List of October 1, 1985 and on
the List of October 1, 1986.
2. Taxes on the List of October 1, 1985 and on the List of 1986 to the Eighth
School District.
3. Slope rights as set forth in a deed from Robert W. Gale and Madeline F.
Gale to State of Connecticut dated January 10, 1983 and recorded in the
Manchester Land Records in Volume 830, Page 102.
4. Mortgage from John Finguerra to Robert W. & Madeline F. Gale dated
December 21, 1984 and recorded in the Manchester Land Records.
5. Rights of other in and to the brook flowing through the premises.
6. Private property permit from Joseph Kaselauskas to the Connecticut
Power Company dated December 5, 1945 and recorded in the Manchester
Land Records in Volume 168, Page 330.
7. Slope Rights Easement from Charles Kaselauskas to the State of
Connecticut dated January 10, 1983 and recorded in the Manchester Land
Records in Volume 830, Page 104.
8. Mortgage from John Finguerra to Charles Kaselauskas and Wanda
Kaselauskas dated December 21, 1984 and recorded in the Mancheser
Land Records.
9. Title dispute with respect to the area so marked as shown on the survey
by Fuss do O'Neill, Inc. dated December 19, 1984.
-30-
v
10. Mortgage for $32,517.40 from MAP Associates of M. & S.W. to Eileen
Schweir dated and recorded December 1, 1981 in Volume 794, Page 55 of
the Manchester Land Records.
11. Mortgage for $48,623.18 from MAP Associates of M. ac S.W. to Leon R.
and Edward H. Schweir dated and recorded December 1,191&1 in Volume
794, Page 74 of the Manchester Land Records.
12. Mortgage for $45,585.23 from MAP Associates of M. & S.W. to Leon R.
Schweir dated and recorded December 1, 1981 in Volume 794, Page 63 of
the Manchester Land Records.
13. Mortgage for $15,000.00 with an existing balance of $-0- (no balance)
from MAP Associates of M. & S.W. to Sterling Pitkin Olmsted dated and
recorded December 1, 1981 in Volume 794, Page 84 of the Manchester
Land Records.
14. Mortgage for $428,480.82 from MAP Associates of M. & S.W. to the
Hartman Tobacco Company dated and recorded January 21, 1981 and
recorded on January 22, 1981 in Volume 767, Page 17 of the Manchester
Land Records.
15. Denial of Access Rights of land now or formerly of the State of
Connecticut by virtue of a taking by eminent domain as reflected in a
Certificate of Condemnation from The Hartman Tobacco Company to the
State of Connecticut dated February 6, 1974, and recorded in Volume 537,
Page 89 of the Manchester Land Records.
16. Slope and excavation easements by virtue of a taking by eminent domain
as reflected in a Certificate of Condemnation from Rapid-American
Corporation to State of Connecticut dated July 6, 1983, and recorded in
Volume 853, Page 166 of the Manchester Land Records.
17. Easement by virtue of a taking by eminent domain as reflected in a
Certificate of Condemnation from Rapid-American Corporation to State
-31-
of Connecticut dated April 25, 1984 and recorded in Volume 893; Page 91
of the Manchester Land Records.
18. Survey by Fuss & O'Neill Consulting, dated June, 1986 discloses the
following:
(a) Shed extending over northerly line.
(b) Drainage Ditches and Pipe Easements in favor of State of
Connecticut along westerly boundaries.
(c) Slope Easements in favor of the State of Connecticut along westerly
boundaries.
(d) Drainage Swale on northwesterly portion of premises.
19. Terms and Conditions of Memorandum of Purchase Agreement between
Manchester I-84 Associates Limited Partnership and Homart Development
Co., recorded in Manchester Land Records on June 19, 1986.
20 A mortgage for $6,500,000.00 from Manchester I-84 Associates Limited
Partnership to Homart Development Co., recorded in the Manchester
Land Records on June 19, 1986.
21. Sewer Caveat, The Parkway Corporation, et al, to Sewer Commission of.
the Town of South Windsor dated April 28,1971, and recorded in the South
Windsor Land Records in Volume 136 at Page 262, said caveat for the
installation of sanitary sewers on Deming Street and Slater Street which
have been installed.
22. Denial of Access Rights to I-86 as set forth in a deed from A1ary
Palauskas to State of Connecticut dated July 21, 1943 and recorded in the
Manchester Land Records in Volume 155 at Page 212.
23. Drainage Right-of-Way, Mary Palauskas to State of Connecticut, recorded
on August 15, 1944, in Volume 163 at Page 437 of the Manchester Land
Records.
-32-
24. Drainage Easement, Charles Palauskas and Mary Palauskas to State of
Connecticut dated January 2, 1945, and recorded in Volume 166 at Page
359 of the Manchester Land Records.
25. Denial of Access Rights to I-86 appearing in a Quit-Claim Deed from The
Savings Bank of Manchester to State of Connecticut dated iuly 1, 1943,
and recorded in Volume 157 at Page 136 of the Manchester Land Records.
26. Water Discharge Rights appearing in a Quit-Claim Deed from The Savings
Bank of Manchester to the State of Connecticut dated June 1, 1943, and
recorded in Volume 157 at Page 163 of the Manchester Land Records.
27. Exclusion of Access Rights appearing in a Quite-Claim Deed from State
of Connecticut to Charles Palauskas and Mary Palauskas dated June 8,
1944, and recorded in Volume 163 at Page 205 of the Manchester Land
Records.
28. Pole Line Easement, E. A. Buckland to American Telephone and Telegraph
Company dated May 8, 1902, and recorded in Volume 14 at Page 235 of
the South Windsor Land Records.
29. Denial of Access Rights to I-86 appearing in a Notice of Condemnation,
Parkway Corporation to State of Connecticut dated August 5, 1982, and
recorded in Volume 817 at Page 194 of the Manchester Land Records.
30. Drainage Easement, Parkway Corporation to Eighth Utilities District
dated July 22, 1983, and recorded in Volume 857 at Page 21 of the
Manchester Land Records.
31. Drainage Easement appearing in a Notice of Condemnation, The Parkway
Corporation to State of Connecticut dated March 22, 1984, and recorded
in Volume 888 at Page 51 of the Manchester Land Records.
32. Denial of access rights and drainage rights as appear in a Certificate of
Condemantion the Savings Bank of Manchester to State of Connecticut
dated May 17, 1943 and recorded in Volume 152 at Page 521 of the
Manchester Land Records.
-33-
33. Mortgage for $1,665,000.00 frorn Parkway Corporation a/k/a The Parkway
Corporation to Raymond P. Jewell, Pearl D. Jewell and John and James
McIlduff, co-executors of the Estate of Bernard F. McIlduff, dated
December 23, 1985 and recorded in the Manchester Land Records on
December 23, 1985. L
34. Any obligation to convey land to the Town of Manchester and South
Windsor along Slater Street in accordance with a certain note appearing
on survey by Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. dated June 1, 1984, certification added
December 20, 1985.
-34-
XIV. FINDINGS
Based n the information presented in this Project Plan, the EDC, acting as the
development agency and according to the requirements of Chapter 132 of the Connecticut
General Statutes, finds as follows:
A. The land and buildings within the Project Area shall be used ppincipally for
business or industrial purposes as set forth in the Project Plan.
B. The Project Plan is in accordance with the July 1986 Plan of Development for
the Town of Manchester. The Project Area is located on land designated a
Mixed-Use District which calls for a variety of high intensity commercial,
industrial and residential uses.
C. The Project Plan, and the location of the Project Area, is in accordance with
the Regional Plan of Development adopted by the Capital Region Council of
Governments on 22 February 1978. It is further found that the Project Plan
meets the Land Use and Economic Development goals and policy statements of
the Regional Plan.
D. The Project Plan is not inimical to the statewide planning program objectives
set forth in the State Policies Plan for the Conservation and Development of
Connecticut, Proposed Revisions of 1987-19929 prepared by the State Office of
Policy and Management and the State Policies Plan for the Conservation and
Development of Connecticut, 1982-1985, prepared by the State
Office of
Policy and Management.
E. It is found that the Project Plan's implementation will create a business and
industrial center of regional importance, creating employment opportunities
and generating real and personal property and sales tax revenues for the Town
and the State, thus contributing to the general economic welfare of the Town
and State.
F. It is found that in order to fully develop the Buckland Hills area and the land
within the Project Area and given the extraordinary land development costs of
the site, public action is required under Chapter 132 of the Connecticut
General Statutes.
-35-
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
HUGH MEADE ALCORN.JR. BARRY C.HAWKINS CITYPLACE 205 CHURCH STREET
WILLIAM R.MURPHY IRVING S.SCHLOSS 35TH FLOOR P.O.BOX 1936
MILTON P.DEVANE JON T.HIRSCHOFF
JOHN H.FILER WILLIAM H.CHAMPLIN,III HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-3488 NEW HAVEN,CONNECTICUT 06509
RICHARD G.BELL TIMOTHY W.BINGHAM
WILLIAM S.ROGERS DAVID W.SCHNEIDER (203) 522-1 21 6 (203)789-0700
RALPH G.ELLIOT CARTER LAPRADE TELECOPIER(203)777-1181
GORDON S.FERGUSON ROBERT L.KEEPNEWS TELECOPIER (203) 278-3802
MICHAEL J.DORNEY RICHARD W.BOWERMAN
SAMUEL W.BOWLBY GEORGE E.O'BRIEN,JR, 3 LANDMARK SQUARE
BRUCE LEWELLYN ROBERT J.METZLER.II
ROBERT K.CIULLA RONALD J.COHEN STAMFORD,CONNECTICUT 06901
JOSEPH C.LEE MARGARET P.MASON (203)348-5555
JAMES G.KENEFICK,JR.
TELECOPIER(203)348-3875
WILLIAM W.BOUTON,III EMMETT E.BROWN,III
VERONICA M.FALLON ALAN J.SOBOL• SUFFIELD VILLAGE
KATHY KIEFER PRIEST MICHAEL B.DASHJIAN SUFFIELD,CONNECTICUT 06078
ALICE A.BRUNO SARA CHURCH DINKLER
RICHARD F.ORR JUDITH A.RAVEL (203)668-7326
MARY BETH FREDERICK KAREN KAPEL ASTRACHAN
MARK V.CONNOLLY SHEILA M.COOLEY OF COUNSEL
WILLIAM S.FISH,JR. MARGARET A.LITTLE December 1 1986
CHARLES W.LLEWELLYN. BEN A.SOLNIT / HENRY W.PASCARELLA,P.C.
KEVIN MCCANN PAUL A.MITCHELL
ROBERTA L,McCAW JEAN L.KELLY 2 GLEN COURT,P.0.BOX 1038
STANLEY E.PARESE MARK A.MILANO GREENWICH.CONNECTICUT 06836
DAVID J.WIESE MARSHALL J.TOUPON5E
LIVIA D.BARNDOLLAR (203)869-2000
'NOT ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
Richard J. Sartor,
Town Manager
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Town of South Windsor v. State Traffic Commission
Dear Dick:
I enclose the Interrogatories with signature pages on Chief
Ryan's for him to sign before a Notary Public and on the Town of
South Windsor's for you to sign before a Notary Public. Would
you please do this as soon as possible, and return them to me,
hopefully by the end of this week.
Sincerely,
RGE:j rc
Enclosures
kY
AV.
i
i
tNO. CV 86 0319641 S
i
IiTOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, ET AL SUPERIOR COURT
0
o DVS . JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/NEW
BRITAIN AT HARTFORD
6
z
0
STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION, ET AL NOVEMBER 7, 1986
• INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DEFENDANT, HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
co l;
Pursuant to §216 et seq. of the Practice Book, the defendant,
M
0
N
w Homart Development Company, hereby requests of plaintiff, TOWN OF SOUTH
vco WINDSOR (the "Town" ) as amended:
00 A. Answers to the following interrogatories and amended answers to
gU l
yw ! the date of trial as supplemental information is discovered:
z
W� 1 . The name(s ) address and title of any persn designated to provide
Wo ; responses to any of these interrogatories , including the name( s ) of
c� zany person who has been designated as a spokesperson for the Town.
a
Mr. Richard J. Sartor
I' Town Manager
N Town of South Windsor
X 1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
0
a �
• j 2. Did any Town official , employee, agent or represent9tive,
w including persons from the Economic Development Agency, attend any
! meeting of the State Traffic Commission wherein Homart' s application
' for certificate of operation was considered?
LijN Yes
z
Z ,
0
I
is
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
-2-
i
3 . If so, identify:
a. the name, address and title of any such person;
b. the date(s ) of any such meeting;
z C. the location of any such meeting;
d. the role of any such person at the meeting.
(a) William Ryan, Chief of Police, Local Trafic Authority
Marcia Banach, (Acting) Director of Planning
Richard Martel, 'Town Engineer
cN
John Shemo, Economic Development Coordinator
(b) June 3, 1986 (c) Conn-Dot Office, Methersfield, CT.
cN
(d) Chief Ryan - Read into the record his letter dated June 3, 1986.
J
4 . If you expect to call an expert witness at trial , please state:
a. the identity of any such expert;
00 b. the subject matter on which the expert is to testify;
3U C. the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert
is to testify; and
>Z d. a summary of the grounds for each opinion.
J O
Y O
,� Unknown at this time
Y 0
i
N ;
co B. To produce the following documents:
o
m
1 . Any and all expert reports in connection with Interrogatory
cL
No. 4.
Unknown at this time
j DEF NDA ,T, DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
w i I
Z
0
i
BY
ELI B TH= McLAUGHLIN, ESQUIRE
I Updike \Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
P.O. B x 31277, One State Street
Hartford, CT 06103 548-2600
i
I
I!
I �
i
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the reg ' ng was mailed, postage
0
0 1 prepaid, this day of November, 1986 ,t 1 ,nsel of record.
z
ELI ABE ;1q.' cLAUGHLIN, ESQUIRE
oo
f
w I
I
J
W
N
• 1
C.1 M I
d� I
U�
3~
W
a
O w
�Z
}Z
J O-A
Y� j
uj
W O
Y W
am
n
� I
N
M
X
O
m
O
a
• t
w
H
N
w
F-
Q
r-
Z
O
I!
i
i
I
I
I
i
i
- 3 -
i
Richard J. S tor, Town Manager
Subscribed and sworn to before me this An= —day of
December, 1986.
Notary Pub Ic
<- '5 /'r 9j
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the attached has been
sent this day of December, 1986, via U.S. Mail,
postage prepaid to: Michael D. Neubert, Esq. , Updike Kelly
& Spellacy, One State Street, P.O. Box 31277, Hartford, CT
06103 ; Susman & Duffy, P.C. , P.O. Box 1684, 234 Church
Street, New Haven, CT 06507 and Robert T. Morrin, Assistant
Attorney General, 90 Brainard Road, Hartford, CT 06114 .
Ralph G. Elliot
i
i
I
NO. CV 86 0319641 S
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, ET AL SUPERIOR COURT
I
o SUS • JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/NEW
`. I BRITAIN AT HARTFORD
II
STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION, ET AL NOVEMBER 7, 1986
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
0 i OF DEFENDANT, HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
N �
co
Pursuant to §216 et seq. of the Practice Book, the defendant,
o j!CN
—
IHomart Development Company, hereby requests of plaintiff, WILLIAM R.
• RYAN, as amended:
vM i
a� I�
60 ;A. Answers to the following interrogatories and amended answers to
_j
y� ithe date of trial as supplemental information is discovered:
.az
jo 1 . The name(s ) address and title of any persn designated to provide
YC responses to any of these interrogatories, including the name(s ) of
YO any person who has been designated as a spokesperson for the Town.
acc
William R. Ryan
• Chief of Police
N Thwn of South Windsor
Cl) 151 Sand Hill Road
x
a i
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
a
• 2. Did any Town official , employee, agent or representative,
Including persons from the Economic Development Agency, attend any
x ;meeting of the State Traffic Commission wherein Homart' s application
for certificate of operation was considered?
a
Z Yes
0
I
I!
I
i
i
I
i
-2-
3 . If so, identify:
a. the name, address and title of any such person;
b. the date(s ) of any such meeting;
z C. the location of any such meeting;
d. the role of any such person at the meeting.
(a) William Ryan, Chief of Police, Local Traffic Authority
Marcia Banach, (Acting) Director of Planning
Richard Martel, Town Engineer
c6 John Shama, Economic Development Coordinator
M (b) June 3, 1986 (c) Conn-DOT Office, Wethersfield, CT.
(d) Chief Ryan - Read into the record his letter dated June 3, 1986.
w
4 . If you expect to call an expert witness at trial , please state:
�M a. the identity of any such expert;
00 j b. the subject matter on which the expert is to testify;
g� C. the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert
Lu is to testify; and
.6Z d. a summary of the grounds for each opinion.
0
J
U
Yci
cr
i Unknown at this time
ui0
G¢
04
j=
n
X iB. To produce the following documents :
0
m
ccL 1 . Any and all expert reports in connection with Interrogatory
No. 4 .
w li Unknown at this time
cc
a
DEF N T, 0 RT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
z
z
0
BY
ELIZ T . McLAUGHLIN, ESQUIRE
Updi ly & Spellacy, P.C.
P.O. B x 31277 , One State Street
Hartford, CT 06103 548-2600
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
I
i
I
CERTIFICATION
I
I
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage
oLO prepaid, this day of November, 1986 t all counsel of record.
W j
o i H K. McLAUGHLIN, ESQUIRE
N I 1
� I
M j
O
N_
J
W
F
•
C>CO
d� ,I
UO
~ i
W F-
V1 w j
•y Z
}Z
J�
J U
W
Y�
WO
~ I
j= I
• I�
n j
N �
M
X i
O
m
O �
a I
• I
w �I
2
V
w
r
Q
r
N
w
Z
O
I
I
I
li
I
f
I
I
I
- 3 -
William R. Van 'ef of Police
Subscribed and sworn to before me this may of
December, 1986.
otax-y Public
t
c. �
y•
7-own, aie soutA ?dl�zd&>t
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WIN DSOR, CONN. 06074
��dsoe•CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511
RICHARD J. SARTOR
Town Manager
November 12 , 1986
Atty . Ralph Elliot
Tyler Cooper & Alcorn
CityPlace - 35th Floor
Hartford , Connecticut
Dear Attorney Elliot :
Attached is a memorandum from South Windsor 's Director of Planning ,
Marcia Banach , in which she responds to several issues you have
raised in your recent memoranda , and our telephone conversations .
Additionally , I am enclosing the Agreement and Amendment between
the Town of South Windsor , and the Town of Manchester , regarding
sewer system utilization .
Today I received your letter of November 7 concerning the revised
State Traffic Commission Certificate of Application . I have
immediately forwarded it to staff for review .
Very truly yours ,
Town Manag
RJS : prb
Attmts .
M E M O R A N D U M
TO : Richard J . Sartor , Town Manager
FROM Marcia Banach , Director of Planning
RE : South Windsor-State Traffic Commission
Date : November 6 , 1986
A. Letter dated November 3 , 1986 from Ralph Elliott re: Cul-de-sac
Slater Street .
The STC permit does not require that Slater Street be cul-de-sacced .
It provides that , in the event South Windsor decides Slater Street needs
to be cul-de-sacced , the developer must do so . This is an unacceptable
alternative to South Windsor because Slater Street is a collector street
(and thus serves intertown traffic movements) , yet South Windsor has not
been given another option . It is our contention that Slater Street should
be either properly improved to handle the volume of traffic (along with
the other streets that will feed into Slater Street) , or there should be
no access from the Mall to Slater Street.
B . Letter dated November 3 , 1986 from Ralph Elliott re : 3 party sewage
disposal agreement ; DEP suit .
The 3-party agreement is our intertown sewerage agreement with
Manchester. Fred Shaw indicated that under our intertown sewage disposal
agreement , it is highly likely that South Windsor will take the sewage
from the Mall (see attached information from Fred) . Thus the Mall would
not impact Manchester ' s sewage system -- and it would result in sewers
along Buckland Road in South Windsor plus upgrading of the Clark Street
pump station . No formal request has been made to South Windsor for
sewerage accommodation of Buckland Hills Mall as yet. There is no effect
on our court proceeding from the sewerage issue - our intertown agreement
provides for a certain amount of flow from Manchester , and they can
maximize it all at once or slowly , whichever they prefer .
C . Letter dated November 5 , 1986 from Ralph Elliott re : Possible
intervention in proceedings before the STC with regard to the
application now pending .
We do indeed have hard data and concrete suggestions which we would be
able to present in a meaningful way to the STC if we are allowed to
intervene/participate in the hearing . This information includes :
Richard Sartor PAGE 2
( 1 ) General Plan of Development , Winchester Mall ,
F.A . Hesketh & Associates, 1984 (prepared by Mall applicants) .
Indicates that "development of a system of access roadways
without inter-connection to Smith Street , Wheeler Road , or
Pleasant Valley Road west of the (Winchester ) site would
insure that the entire residential neighborhood is not impacted
by new traffic . " The Hesketh report also indicate that building
the proposed Connector Road , plus a traffic separation connecting
Pleasant Valley Road with Wheeler Road and Connector Road with
the remainder of Pleasant Valley Road will isolate the
residential neighborhoods.
(2) Winchester Development , South Windsor , Ct. , SEA Consultants , Inc .
November 1984 (prepared for Town of South Windsor) . This report
supports Hesketh ' s conclusions plus indicates that Wheeler Road -
Smith Street should be improved ; that Pleasant Valley Road and
Clark Street should be separated at their intersection so that
Clark Street traffic can only go southeast onto Pleasant Valley
and Pleasant Valley Road traffic can only go northeast onto Clark
Street ; and that cul-de-sac ' s of Quarry Brook and Margaret Drive
may be desirable at some point .
(3) Memorandum of Decision , Superior Court , J .D . of Hartford/
New Britain , Docket # CV85-03025375 , Pleasant Valley Et Al vs
South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission , July 23 , 1986 . The
judge ruled : "I find that the evidence in the record does not
support the Commission ' s conclusion that only improvements seven
through nine [ improvements discussed under ( 1 ) & (2) above] are
necessary to decrease the traffic impact which would result from
the mall . The testimony and reports clearly show that some or
all of the other improvements are necessary prerequisites to the
opening of a shopping mall in the South Windsor area . "
We have diagrams to illustrate all of the above suggested improvements.
We do not have a presentation of alternatives readily available for the
Slater Street area, as we have never had the Buckland Hills site
development information to review and therefore we cannot intelligently
develop suggested alternatives.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO : Marcia Banach , Director of Planning
FROM: Fred Shaw, Superintendednt , Pollution Control
RE: Buckland Mall , Manchester , Ct
South Windsor/Manchester Sewer Agreement
DATE: November 7 , 1986
I have studied the South Windsor/Manchester intertown sewer Agreement
dated October 12 , 1978 , and as amended on June 11 , 1980 relative to the
proposed location for Buckland Mall in Manchester. Under the terms of
this Agreement , the Town of South Windsor may be obligated to accept
gravity flow from the area in Manchester east of Buckland Road bounded to
the north by the town line .
This Agreement obligates the Town of South Windsor to accept into its
sewerage system an average daily flow of 430 , 000 gallons from several
areas along the municipal boundary . Currently , only the Manchester
Industrial Park ( 20 , 000 gallons average daily flow) is serviced by the
Town of South Windsor under the terms of this Agreement ; therefore , there
is a remaining obligation to accept about 400 ,000 per day additional flow.
The proposed Buckland Mall should be serviced by a new sewer main
constructed along Buckland Road , proceeding northerly in Buckland Road to
the intersection of Buckland Road and Deming Street , then proceeding
westerly from said intersection along and in Deming Street , connecting to
the existing sewer in Deming Street .
The design and location for this sewer should be integrated within the
plans the Town of South Windsor is now preparing relative to the
reconstruction of Buckland Road .
Furthermore , the additional flow from the Buckland Mall will require
upgrading the capacity of the Clark Street Pump Station . Under the terms
of the Agreement , the Town of' South Windsor is required to provide
treatment plant capacity for sewage originating from the Town of
Manchester ; there is sufficient reserve capacity at the Plant to satisfy
this obligation .
C . F . Shaw , Supertendent
Bureau of Pollution Control
i
A G R E E M E' N T
i
This agreement made this/47-It-day of &o/PzA-, 1978
between the Town of South Windsor, acting by its Sewer Commission
and the Town of Manchester, acting by its Town Manager, concerning
sanitary sewers in the Chapel Road, Clark Street area, hereby
revoking a prior agreement between the parties relative to said
area dated March 28 , 1972 .
WITNESSETH In exchange for mutual promises , covenants and r
consideration hereinafter contained the parties hereto agree as s
follows :,
i
1. The Town of South Windsor shall own, maintain and s
service a sanitary sewer in the Town of Manchester located as
follows:
Commencing in Chapel Road at the South Windsor Town Line
and proceeding easterly in ChaPel Road to the intersection
of Chapel Road and Clark Street, thence proceeding northerly
LAW OFFICES
.from said intersection along and in Clark Street to the
[CHARD M.RITTENBAND - -
1734 ELLINGTON ROAD Said
UTH WINDSOR.CONN.06O74 sewer is further described on
Manchester Town Line.
(203)644.2456 a map entitled "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a
Juals No.50412 - - -
part hereof , as "Chapel-Clark Sewer. "'
2. The Town of South Windsor will accept into its sewerage
system all sewage that will originate from the area of the Town of
-2
Manchester shown as "S.W. " on a map attached hereto as "Exhibit
A. " The Town of Manchester will accept into its sewerage system
all sewage that will originate from the area of the Town of South
Windsor shown as "M" on the aforementioned map entitled "Exhibit
A. " The provisions of this paragraph are subject to conditions
and limitations hereinafter specified. Both Towns agree to
construct, maintain any ��?ra -P their sewerage systems to be
able to adequately accept the other Town' s sewage as provided and
limited herein. Included in the area shown as "S.W. " is the
western half of the proposed industrial park in Manchester shown
as "Western Half-Industrial Park" on said map; and the Town. of
Manchester shall be permitted to make gravity flow trunk or
lateral sewer connections from said western half of the industrial
park provided that the Town of Manchester, prior to discharging
sewerage therefrom, replaces , at its expense, a portion of sani-
LAW OFFICES tary sewer on Chapel Road, as shown on "Exhibit B. "
RICHARD M.RITTENSAND
1734 ELLINGTON ROAD- 3. Each Town shall be permitted to install other gravity
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN.06074
flow trunk or lateral connecting sewers and make connection there-
(203)644-2456
JURIS No.50412
of to the sewerage system in both Towns from the areas in that ,
Town from which the sewage originates' as shown on "Exhibit A. "
All sewers mentioned in this agree_ment-,—except-the._.'_'.h_ peel-Clark
r
-3
Sewer, " shall become the property of the Town in which it is
located, and shall be maintained, serviced, and operated by said
Town. Each Town shall _ be permitted to assess benefits against
abutting properties within its own Town according to its particu-
lar assessment formulas and rates , but may not assess benefits
against abutting properties outside of its Town even though said
Town may have installed the sewer in the other Town.
4.. All sewer installations shall be subject to the specifi
cations regulating such installation in effect at the time of
installation, of the Town in which said sewers are installed and _
the location of said sewers shall be subject to the approval of
the Town in which they are installed, which approval will not be
unreasonably withheld.
5. The Town receiving sewage.- shall be permitted to charge
connecting properties from which said sewage originates all pre
wailing connection (outlet) charges of said Town in effect at the
LAW OFFICES
RICHARD M. RITTENBAND
time of such connection; and said Town receiving sewage shawl be
1734 ELLINGTON ROAD
;OUTH WINDSOR.CONN.06074 permitted to charge 'use charges , which .shall include industrial
(203)644.2456 - - -
JuRIs No.50412 cost recovery charges , against any such properties in accordance
with its prevailing use and industrial cost recovery charge
schedules and as they may be changed from time to time. Said
charges by said Town shall be the same as that charged against
proPerties in its Town. All such charges shall be levied by
-4
the Town receiving the sewage directly to and payable by the Town
from which the sewage originates.
6. Each Town shall cooperate with the other Town to obtain
necessary easements for the construction, maintenance and use of!
said sewers provided the. Town installing said sewers for which
the easement is required shall bear the costs and expense of
acquiring the necessary easements for said sewer.
7. Each. Town shall, at the time of installation of said
sewers , construct, at its own expense, sanitary sewage meters to
accurately measure the quantity of sewage originating within its
Town provided, however, that no meter shall be required if the
usage of said sewer is so minimal as to make construction of a
meter economically unjustifiable. Where no meter is required,
the sewer use charge shall be made on a per-dwelling basis , or
shall be based on water usage as mandated by the Town receiving
LAW OFFICES the sewage. -
RICHARD M.RITTENBAND - -
1734 ELLINGTON ROAD 8. The quantity of sewage. that may be discharged into and
OUTH WIN OSOR.CONN.06074 -
accepted by the South Windsor sewer system from areas designated
(203)644.2456
.1URIs NO.50412 on "Exhibit A" as "S.W. " will be limited to an average of
430 ,000 gallons per day with a maximum peak flow of 1,616 ,000
gallons per day. �'� ,(it `�0
- v
-5- _
9. The quantity of sewage that may be discharged into and
accepted by the Manchester sewage system from areas delineated on
"Exhibit A as "'MI' will be limited to an average of 183 ,000
gallons per day with a maximum peak flow of 732 ,000 gallons per
day.
10/ The sewage discharged into each system shall meet the
quality standards as set forth by the rules and regulations
regarding such discharges in effect at the time of discharge, of
the: Town accepting said sewage, provided said rules and regula-
tions shall be the same for sewage originating in both Towns.
11. This agreement shall remain in effect indefinitely.
However, it may be terminated"by either party in the event of a
material breach of this agreement by the other party, upon two
(2) years ` written notice to the party committing the breach.
12. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding, the Town of
LAW OFFICES Manchester will pay to the Town of South Windsor, in a lump sum,
:HARD M. RITTENBAND
1734 ELLINGTON ROAD the connection (outlet) charge specified in paragraph 5 hereof on -
rH WINDSOR.CONN.06074 all of the acreage in the western half of the Manchester Industria
(203)644.2456
JURIS No.50412 Park, amounting to 140 acres.-:more or less ,- at the time of the - - -
initial connection of-- any sewer line in or from Manchester to
the Chapel-Clark sewer. In the event any land is taken from such
western half of the industrial park to be used for the I-291 high-
way corridor, the Town of South Windsor agrees to reimburse the
Town of Manchester $1 ,000. 00 for each acre so .taken.
)
i
1
5
rez—
-6-
i
r
Dated at Manchester, Connecticut this /Zh�day of QCvakx_' ,
1978.` l
WITNESSED BY: TOWN OF MANCHESTER
.:?' j"j
Ro ert D. Weiss
General Manager
� �A•, o �al-c.c�� Duly Authorized
Dated at South Windsor Connecticut this day of d1-/0Z21L_1
1978
WITNESSED BY: TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
Richard Reeves , Chairman
South Windsor Sewer
Commission
Duly Authorized
LAW OFFICES -
1AR0 M.RITTENSAND -
734 ELLINGTON ROAD - -
i WINDSOR.CONN.06074 .
(203)644.2456 -
JURls No.50412 -
t.
NOTES
I SEWER TO BE REPLACED -580 FT.
2. EXIST. 27" SEWER PROPOSED TO BE
REPLACED WITH 36 SEWER.
ST
ti
sMrrH s�
o �
r
i
/ ROQO
O� f
M. H. STA. 6 t 0 pSO
EXIT. CAP. 7.3 -CFS
DESIGN CAP. 8.4 CFS RDq p
MP
M. H. STA. 9+61 o M.H. STA. 11 + 80
J
p
EXIST CAP. 6.6 CFS
DESIGN CAP, 8.4 CFS SST Ems..• MANCHESTER
.•�•�"" y INDUSTRIAL I
gURNHAM m• tD��2
S •� C
—:--- RTIFORD 's' N SOUTH WINDSOR-MANCHE!
EAST �,n 0- SANITARY SEWER AGREEME
a EXHIBIT "B"
'Y,t' p ♦ • �j •
:
J
1)
Hill
10
MM
o e
0Qs
01
y
!
a
4-
,,
A
V
f
i v�
O
P O
,
•
,.. t . • O
• . .., SEW . : -
,
0-1
rr
rf ,
- L..
s('
14
i
a+4
i'
1
t.
y
.r
r-
JJ c
i
r
•
_ .v .. . - --a. -, ate. .. S- .. _ _ ..-•. » .. -.:`. ',- .J�J•
x I -
.. j a t
n
! •� ;� � (�� LEGEND
S.W.- AREA TO FLOW TO SOUTH WINDSOR
a .. ', tG•.: �< ,430 DAILY = 000 GALLONS
P :,- c�:; s• AVE.
lt,_ . �., ,; Af, _.* ;�:- � �° g•� ' - -� MAX.DAILY - I616000GALLONS
AREA TO FLOW
M_ TO MANCHESTER
-,- � •• .}. _ •- ;,a ; rthw� �„-,r .�` �.'. ,.... - AVE. DAILY 183,000 GALLONS
�, - yy ft_,. y-ky •_t S _F� -..ti _rj _v;,t't `_1� ;a, •-. -• 1: . •: •♦-•
o MAX.DAILY 732,000 GALLONS
t �
AVE.DAILY IS TO BE BASED ON THE
TOTAL YEARLY FLOW DIVIDED BY
Y
65 DAYS -
,
,
• f w - SOVINDSOR - MANCHESTER
+ SANITARY SEWER AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT A
/�'� / \ \``\ ! ,j• �t.: •�`a .� a .� ■� i '"` SCALE: 1f 800 DATE: 6/78
A G R E E M E N T
This agreement made this1r day of 19ro 'by and between the
Town of South Windsor, acting by its Sewer Commission, the Town of Manchester,
acting by its Town Manager, and The Eighth Utilities District, a body politic
and corporate and incorporated by Act of the Connecticut General Assembly,
hereinafter called "District", acting herein by its President and Directors,
WHEREAS, the Town of South Windsor and the Town of Manchester entered
.into an agreement dated October 12, 1978 concerning sanitary sewer service for
both towns, and
t
f WHEREAS, the parties hereto agree that said agreement should be amended
in certain respects, '
S i
• � i
Its is herebv agreed, in exchange for mutual promises, covenants .and con-
sideration, hereinafter set forth.that said agreement is amended as follows:
1. District is hereby made a party to said agreement, and anything to !
1
the contrary notwithstanding;
a) . The obligations of and the benefits to the Town of Manchester in
said October 12, 1978 agreement are hereby assumed and accepted by District as
to those areas now or hereafter located in said District, except that, since '
it is the Sewerage Treatment Plant operated by the Town of Manchester that will
4 accept the sewerage originating from the Town of South Windsor, the connection
and user charges for such sewerage specified in paragraph number 5 of said
agreement shall be charged by the Town of Manchester even though said sewerage
may flow through District; and except for the provisions of paragraph number
12. However, nothing herein shall be construed as relieving the Town of
Manchester from any of its obligations specified in said agreement as amended.
b) . District will permit the installation of sewers by the Town of
South Windsor, its duly authorized agents, assigns or designees, within the
r
area now or hereinafter designated as said District and will permit utilization`
of and connection to sewers then existing within said 'District by the Town of
South Windsor, its agents, assigns or designees to carry, sewerage to the
Manchester Treatment Plant from the area in South Windsor designated in said
agreement in accordance with the terms of said agreement.
2. If the sewage treatment plant operated by the Town of Manchester is
unable to accept sewage originating from the Town of South Windsor as designated
in said agreement as amended in accordance with its obligations under said
agreement as amended because of court action, inadequate capacity of said plants
Federal or State governmental order, or breach of said agreement as amended by
jj the Town of Manchester, the Town of Manchester will be required, in addition tol
' 'any other damages to the Town of South Windsor for which it may be liable, to
design,. acquire, construct, operate and maintain a pumping station and forced
man and any other facilities and/or sewer lines necessary for said sewerage that
it cannot accept to flow into the South Windsor sewerage system to the South
1 _ i
Windsor Treatment Plant,
i,
In the event of any breach of this agreement by the District, nothing
provided herein shall be construed to relieve the District of liability here-
under. }.
it
And,, similarly, if the Town of South Windsor is unable to accept into it i
P s
sewerage treatment plant sewerage originating from the Town of Manchester or
District as designated in said agreement as amended in accordance with its
j
�i obligations under said agreement because of court action, inadequate capacity
of the plant, Federal or State governmental order, or breach of said agreement
i
1
as amended by the Town of South Windsor, the Town of South Windsor will be re-
quired, in addition to any other damages for which it may be liable to the '
i
Town of Manchester or the District, to design, acquire, construct, operate, and
maintain a pump station and forced main and any other facilities and/or sewer
2 _
f
j;
i
f
}
i
f
t
ee
1
lines necessary for said sewerage it cannot accept to flow into the District
and/or Manchester to the Manchester Treatment Plant.
The requirements specified in this paragraph are in addition to anv other .
remedies the parties may have under the terms of the agreement as amended.
3. The Town of Manchester, the District or their duly authorized agents
or designees, shall install at their own expense and gravity flow trunk or
lateral connecting sewers within the Town of South Windsor necessary to carry
1
sewerage originating from the areas of the Town of Manchester and District
f designated in the agreement as amended to the South Windsor sewerage treatment
r; plant and make any connection thereto at their own expense, and in no event
` 'shall any of said cost of installation or connection be borne by the Town of ,
1` South Windsor. However, the Town of Manchester the District or their duly
authorized agents or designees may, for the said purpose of carrying sewerage
j .from the said areas of Manchester and the District to the South Windsor treat-
ment plant utilize sewer lines existing within the Town of South Windsor at the
;
3
f time said sewerage is to be so carried, and may connect thereto at their ,own
�! expense. Additionally, nothing herein shall be construed as relieving the Town
tl
. of Manchester of its obligations to pay for the installation of sewer lines and
the making of connections from the western half of the industrial park and re
} placing, at its own expense, a portion of sanitary sewer on Chapel Road, all as
ii specified in paragraph 2 of the agreement of October 12, 1978.
e�
The Town of South Windsor, or its duly authorized agents or designees,
g
shall install at their own expense any gravity flow trunk or lateral connecting
sewers within the Town of Manchester or the District necessary to carry sewerage
originating from the area of South Windsor designated in the agreement as amend-'
ed to the Manchester sewerage treatment plant and make any connection thereto
at their own expense, and in no event shall any of said cost of installation
or connection be borne by the Town of Manchester or the District. However, the
f
3 -
d
9
t
' k
Town of South Windsor, its duly authorized agents or designees may, for the
said purpose of carrying sewerage from the said area of South Windsor to the
Manchester treatment plant, utilize sewer fines existing within the District
of Town of Manchester at the time said sewerage is to be so carried, and may
connect thereto at their own expense.
4. All other terms and conditions of the agreement dated October 12,
1978 shall remain -in full force and effect.
Dated. at Manchester, Connecticut this f/ day of r�--•C,l,t, _ , 19M
:1 Witnessed By: TOWN OF MANCHESTER
i
BY: I
Ro ert B. Weiss, General Manager
duly authorized
i1
Dated at._f�-. �• *�J..rc.. , Connecticut this day of ./f , 1979
Witnessed By: TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR !1j
Walter Pekala, Chairman Sewer i
i Commission of South Windsor duly
i t authorized
lj
Dated at Manchester, Connecticut this /.3 day of (4(''YLL�.
r
!: Witnessed By; THE EIGHTH UTILITIES DISTRICT '
Its President,
,it duly authorized
J
Direc or
is �
R
i
1
M
.�1
1 6�
f.
•
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
HUGH MEADE ALCORN.JR. BARRY C.HAWKINS CITYPLACE
WILLIAM R.MURPHY IRVING S.SCHLOSS
MILTON P.DEVANE JON T.HIRSCHOFF 35TH FLOOR 205 CHURCH STREET
JOHN H.FILER WILLIAM H.CHAMPLIN,III P.O.BOX 1936
RICHARD G.BELL TIMOTHY W.BINGHAM HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-3488 NEW HAVEN,CONNECTICUT 06509
WILLIAM S.ROGERS DAVID W.SCHNEIDER
RALPH G.ELLIOT CARTER LAPRADE (203) 522-1 2 1 6 (203)789-0700
GORDON S.FERGUSON ROBERT L.KEEPNEWS
MICHAEL J.DORNEY TELECOPIER (203) 278-3802 TELECOPIER 203)777-1181
RICHARD W.BOWERMAN
SAMUEL W.BOWLBY GEORGE E.O'BRIEN,JR.
BRUCE LEWELLYN ROBERT J.METZLER.11 ROBERT K.CIULLA RONALD J.COHEN 3 LANDMARK SQUARE
JOSEPH C.LEE MARGARET P.MASON STAMFORD.CONNECTICUT 06901
JAMES G.KENEFICK,JR.
(203)348-5555
WILLIAM W.BOUTON,111 EMMETT E.BROWN,III TELECOPIER(203)348-3875
VERONICA M.FALLON ALAN J.SOBOL•
KATHY KIEFER PRIEST MICHAEL B.DASHJIAN SUFFIELD VILLAGE
ALICE A.BRUNO SARA CHURCH DINKLER
RICHARD F.ORR JUDITH A.RAVEL SUFFIELD.CONNECTICUT 06078
MARY BETH FREDERICK KAREN KAPEL ASTRACHAN MARK V.CONNOLLY SHEILA M.COOLEY (203)668-7326
WILLIAM S.FISH,JR. MARGARET A.LITTLE
CHARLES W.LLEWELLYN BEN A.SOLNIT November 11, 1986 OF COUNSEL
KEVIN McCANN PAUL A.MITCHELL
ROBERTA L.MCCAW JEAN L.KELLY
HENRY W.PASCARELLA,P.C.
STANLEY E.PARESE MARK A.MILANO 2 GLEN COURT.P.O.BOX 1038
IJVIADAVID D.
WIESE MARSHALL J.TOUPONSE GREENWICH.CONNECTICUT 06836
DAVI D.B IESE LAR
'NOT ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT (203)869-2000
Richard Sartor, Town Manager
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Town of South Windsor v. State Traffic Commission
,PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Dick:
You will recall that a while ago I suggested copy from the people in Manchester of the plansfiledtbyoHomaet
rta
there. That becomes even more important as a result of some
information I have received. That information suggests to me
that the new plans for a revised plan of development now on file
in Manchester differ not only from the original plan of
development on which the STC granted its certificate in June, but
also from the revised plan of development that Homart has just
submitted to the STC in support of its new application for a
revised certificate. I am informed that there are things on the
Manchester-filed revised plan that are not shown on the STC-filed
revised plan, which may indicate a strategy on the part of Homart
to get piecemeal STC approvals.
In considering our active intervention in the STC
proceedings, it may be appropriate for us to consider in addition
a petition to intervene before the STC under General Statutes
Section 22a-19, which gives "any political subdivision of the
State . . . any person, partnership, corporation . . . " etc. the
right to intervene as a party "on the filing of a verified
pleading asserting that the proceeding or action for judicial
W review involves conduct which has, or which is reasonably likel
to have, the effect of unreasonably Polluting, y
destroying the public trust in the air, water ormothernnator
ural
resources of the State. "
r
f
Richard Sartor
November 11, 1986
Page 2
I suggest that you have your Planner or other appropriate
people look into this to see if we can sustain such a claim on
the part of the Town. If we can, that may be yet another arrow
in our quiver in seeking to intervene before the STC, and is the
sort of thing that the STC would be hard put under the Statute to
prevent our doing.
Sincerely,
RGE:j rc
IF
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
HUGH MEADE ALCORN,JR. BARRY C.HAWKINS CITYPLACE 205 CHURCH STREET
WILLIAM R.MURPHY IRVING S.SCHLOSS 35TH FLOOR P.O.BOX 1936
MILTON P.DEVANE JON T.HIRSCHOFF
JOHN H.FILER WILLIAM H.CHAMPLIN,III HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-3488 NEW HAVEN,CONNECTICUT 06509
RICHARD G.BELL TIMOTHY W.BINGHAM
WILLIAM S.ROGERS DAVID W.SCHNEIDER (203) 522-1 2 1 6 (203)789-0700
RALPH G.ELLIOT CARTER LAPRADE TELECOPIER(203)777-1181
GORDON S.FERGUSON ROBERT L.KEEPNEWS TELECOPIER (203) 278-3802
MICHAEL J.DORNEY RICHARD W.BOWERMAN
SAMUEL W.BOWLBY GEORGE E.O'BRIEN,JR. 3 LANDMARK SQUARE
BRUCE LEWELLYN ROBERT J.METZLER.II
ROBERT K.CIULLA RONALD J.COHEN
STAMFORD,CONNECTICUT 06904
JOSEPH C.LEE MARGARET P.MASON (203)348-5555
JAMES G.KENEFICK,JR.
TELECORER(203)348-3875
WILLIAM W.BOUTON,III EMMETT E.BROWN,III
VERONICA M.FALLON ALAN J.SOBOL' SUFFIELD VILLAGE
KATHY KIEFER PRIEST MICHAEL B.DASHJIAN SUFFIELD,CONNECTICUT 06078
ALICE A.BRUNO SARA CHURCH DINKLER
RICHARD F.ORR JUDITH A.RAVEL (203)668-7326
MARY BETH FREDERICK KAREN KAPEL ASTRACHAN
MARK V.CONNOLLY SHEILA M.COOLEY
WILLIAM S.FISH,JR. MARGARET A.LITTLE November 11' 1986 OF COUNSEL
CHARLES W.LEEWELLYN BEN A.SOLNIT HENRY W.PASCARELLA,P.C.
KEVIN MCCANN PAUL A.MITCHELL
ROBERTA L.McCAW JEAN L.KELLY 2 GLEN COURT,P.O.BOX 1038
STANLEY E.PARESE MARK A.MILANO GREENWICH.CONNECTICUT 06836
DAVID J.WIESE MARSHALL J.TOUPONSE
LIVIA D.BARNDOLLAR (203)869-2000
'NOT ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
Richard Sartor, Town Manager
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Town of South Windsor v. State Traffic Commission
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Dick:
I enclose to you a copy of a set of interrogatories
consisting of four questions and a production request propounded
to the Town, and a separate one to Chief Ryan, in the
above-entitled action. The discovery rules provide that
discovery is permitted "in any administrative appeal where the
court finds it reasonably probable that evidence outside the
record will be required. . ." Practice Book Section 218 . While no
court has so found, clearly we shall need to introduce evidence
in our case at the trial court; and therefore I think we should
answer these interrogatories and treat their having been asked as
in a sense a concession by the other side that evidence will have
to be produced (as opposed to deciding the case on the record
that was made before the STC in our absence) .
I should appreciate your and Chief Ryan's supplying me with
the answers to these interrogatories, and doing so within ten
days. While the answers obviously should be yours and his, I
think that in the interrogatory directed to the Town, the answer
to the first question should be you and in the interrogatory
directed to him the answer to the first question should be Chief
Ryan; and the answer to the fourth question in both
interrogatories should be that we do not know the identity of any
expert at this time or any of the other matter as to which they
inquire. I do not know the answers to the second and third
questions.
IF
Richard Sartor
November 11, 1986
Page 2
When you have supplied me with the answers to these
questions, I, who have retained the original of the
interrogatories, will put them in appropriate form and then
submit them to you and Chief Ryan for signing before a notary
public.
Sincerely,
RGE:j rc
Enclosures
j%�
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
HUGH MEADE ALCORN,JR. BARRY C.HAWKINS CITYPLACE 205 CHURCH STREET
WILLIAM R.MURPHY IRVING S.SCHLOSS 35TH FLOOR - P.O.BOX 1936
MILTON P.DEVANE JON T.HIRSCHOFF
JOHN H.FILER WILLIAM H.CHAMPLIN,III HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103-3488 NEW HAVEN,CONNECTICUT 06509
RICHARD G.BELL TIMOTHY W.BINGHAM
2031789-0700
WILLIAM S.ROGERS DAVID W.SCHNEIDER (203) 522-1 21 6
RALPH G.ELLIOT CARTER LAPRADE TELECOPIER(203)777-1181
GORDON S.FERGUSON ROBERT L.KEEPNEWS TELECOPIER (203) 278-3802
MICHAEL J.DORNEY RICHARD W.BOWERMAN
SAMUEL W.BOWLBY GEORGE E.O'BRIEN,JR. 3 LANDMARK SQUARE
BRUCE LEWELLYN ROBERT J.METZLER.II
ROBERT K.CIULLA RONALD J.COHEN STAMFORD,CONNECTICUT 06901
JOSEPH C.LEE MARGARET P.MASON (203)348-5555
JAMES G.KENEFICK,JR.
TELECOPIER(2031 348-3875
WILLIAM W.BOUTON.III EMMETT E.BROWN.III
VERONICA M.FALLON ALAN J.SOBOL' SUFFIELD VILLAGE
KATHY KIEFER PRIEST MICHAEL B.DASHJIAN
SUFFIELD.CONNECTICUT 06078
ALICE A.BRUNO SARA CHURCH DINKLER
RICHARD F.ORR JUDITH A.RAVEL (203)668-7326
MARY BETH FREDERICK KAREN KAPEL ASTRACHAN —_
MARK V.CONNOLLY SHEILA M.COOLEY OF COUNSEL
WILLIAM S.FISH,JR. MARGARET A.LITTLE November 10, 1986
CHARLES W.LLEWELLYN BEN A.SOLNIT HENRY W.PASCARELLA.P.C.
KEVIN McCANN PAUL A.MITCHELL
ROBERTA L.McCAW JEAN L.KELLY ��7� 'p�7-I(�j7�7 IT7�}� 2 GLEN COURT,P.0.BOX 1038
STANLEY E.PARESE MARK A.MILANO CERTIFIED MAIL RETL .V RECEIPTRE�yED GREENWICH.CONNECTICUT 06836
DAVID J.WIESE MARSHALL J.TOUPONSE
2031869-2000
LIVIA D.BARNDOLLAR
'NOT ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
Richard Sartor, Town Manager
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Dick:
I enclose a copy of the letter from Chemical Bank to me
dated November 7, together with the original of the extension of
the letter of credit to December 11, 1987, enclosed with that
letter.
Sincerely,
RGE:jrc
Enclosures
�.o
CKMICAL. .PIM
Real Estate Division Stephen D. Plavin
633 Third Avenue,New York,NY 10017
Tel:(212)8788969 Real Estate Finance Officer
NoverLer 7, 1986
Ralph G. Elliot, Esq.
Eyler Cooper & Alcorn
CityPlace, 35th fl.
Hartford, C� 06103
RE: Tam of South Ilindsor, U2
Letter of Credit Extension
Dear Hr. Elliot:
Pursuant to the reruest of James PI. Barlley of Helvin Simon & Associates,
Inc., enclosed please find a letter of credit amendment extending the
expiration date to December 11, 1987 for Cl:enical Bank L/C No. B-264645
in favor of the '.'am of South Windsor, Connecticut.
Sincerely,
9
ctephen D. Plavin
SDP:gr
Enc.
cc: James 11. Bartley, Esq.
Elliott Freed
CKMICALBANC NOVEMBER 061 1986
Trade Services Group L/C NO.: B-264648
P.O. Box 44, Church Street Station AMENDMENT NO: X3 cn�
New York, N.Y. 10008 Cable Address: Chemsarn New York �--
Advising Bank
y APPLICANT:
DIRECT TYTYY�MYY;� ;r MELVIN SIMON E ASSOCIATES9 INC.
MERCHANTS PLAZA
115 W. WASHINGTON ST
INDIANAPOLIS9 IN 46204
M Beneficiary
THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR9
IL CONNECTICUT TOWN HALL
� 540 SULLIVAN AVENUE
r SOUTH WINDSOR9 CONNECTICUT '
0
IN ACCORDANCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS RECEIVEDY THE ABOVE—REFERENCED LETTER OF
CREDIT HAS BEEN AMENDED AS. FOLLOWS:
1 — THE EXPIRATION DATE IS EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 119 1987.
2 — ANY REFERENCE IN THIS" LETTER, OF CREDIT AS AMENDED9 TO THE
EXPIRATION DATE OF DECEMBER 119 19867 IS DELETED AND SUBSTITUTED BY
DECEMBER 119 1987.
ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CREDIT REMAIN UNCHANGED.
,v
i
I
-a
Auth Ized Slanature
B-264648— —008—A1-01-01-01
Provisions appllcablo to this credit _ 1
This credit is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits(1983 Revision.) International Chamber of Commerce Publication No.400.
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
HUGH MEADE ALCORN,JR. BARRY C.HAWKINS CITYPLACE 205 CHURCH STREET
WILLIAM R.MURPHY IRVING S.SCHLOSS 35TH FLOOR P.O.BOX 1936
MILTON P.DEVANE JON T.HIRSCHOFF
JOHN H.FILER WILLIAM H.CHAMPLIN,III HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06 1 03-3 488 NEW HAVEN,CONNECTICUT 05509
RICHARD G.BELL TIMOTHY W.BINGHAM
WILLIAM S.ROGERS DAVID W.SCHNEIDER (20,3) 522-1 21 6 (203)789-0700
RALPH G.ELLIOT CARTER LAPRADE TELECOPIER(203)777-1181
GORDON S.FERGUSON ROBERT L.KEEPNEWS TELECOPIER (203) 278-3802
MICHAEL J.DORNEY RICHARD W.BOWERMAN
SAMUEL W.BOWLBY GEORGE E.O'BRIEN.JR. 3 LANDMARK SQUARE
BRUCE LEWELLYN ROBERT J.METZLER,II
ROBERT K.CIULLA RONALD J.COHEN STAMFORD,CONNECTICUT 06901
JOSEPH C.LEE MARGARET P.MASON (203)348-5555
JAMES G.KENEFICK,JR. TELECOPIER(203)348-3875
WILLIAM W.BOLTON.III EMMETT E.BROWN.III
VERONICA M.FALLON ALAN J.SOBOL' SUFFIELD VILLAGE
KATHY KIEFER PRIEST MICHAEL B.DASHJIAN
ALICE A.BRUNO SARA CHURCH DINKLER SUFPIELD,CONNECTICUT 06078
RICHARD F.ORR JUDITH A.RAVEL (203)668-7326
MARY BETH FREDERICK KAREN KAPEL ASTRACHAN
MARK V.CONNOLLYR. SHEIMAR A M. A.LIT November 7, 1986 OF COUNSEL
WILLIAM S.FISH,JR. MARGARET A.LITTLE
CHARLES W.LLEWELLYN BEN A.SOLNIT HENRY W.PASCARELLA,P.C.
KEVIN McCANN PAUL A.MITCHELL
ROBERTA L.McCAW JEAN L.KELLY 2 GLEN COURT.P.0.BOX 1038
STANLEY E.PARESE MARK A.MILANO GREENWICH.CONNECTICUT 05836
DAVID J.WIESE MARSHALL J.TOUPONSE
LIVIA D.BARNDOLLAR (203)869-2000
'NOT ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
Richard Sartor, Town Manager
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Town of South Windsor - State Traffic Commission -
Buckland Hills
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Dick:
I have obtained from the State Traffic Commission, and
enclose to you a copy of, the new Buckland Hills application for
a traffic certificate, which is now under review. It is
important that your Planner, Police Chief, and others promptly
review this in detail and ascertain what problems, if any, this
application if granted would cause South Windsor, and what we
would want the State Traffic Commission to do to prevent that
harm. That is to say, your local experts should be preparing our
case promptly. I note that in the memo from Mr. Stoeckert to Mr.
D'Addabbo dated October 30, he notes a 120 day review period,
expiring February 25, 1987; and therefore is targeting an agenda
of February, 1987, for STC action. I am confident that the
"action" he is contemplating did not, as of October 30, include
an adversary hearing with South Windsor participating. If that
occurs (as we have requested) it might move things up a bit.
That is why you need to start work on this now.
Sincerely,
RGE:jrc
Enclosure
ti
/,?
S/
October 30, 1986
Mr. Stephen F. Mitchell, P.E.
Fuss b O'Neill, Inc. .
210 Main Street
Manchester, Ct. 06040
Re: STC# 076-8610-02
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
Subject: Certificate Application
Buckland Hills Expansion
Tam of Manchester
The Application for Certificate and supporting data submitted
pursuant to Section 14-311 of the General Statutes of Connecticut
as revised, will be reviewed by the Department of Transportation.
You will be advised by this office if additional information is re-
quired.
Upon oompletion of the review, a report will be prepared for
Presentation to the State Traffic Commission.
The owner, tam officials and you will be advised of the sub-
sequent action of the Commission.
Very truly yours,
FBRohde/bc ld Z
William W. Stoeokert
Executive Director
cc: Chief Robert D. Lannan
Mr. Russell Davidson
Hamart Development Co.
bec: Robert W. Gubala
Earle R. Munroe
James F. Sullivan
Frank M. D'Addabbo- Please investigate for STC.
566-5228
FUSS&O'NBLL
consulting engineers
October 23 , 1986 85-315
Mr . William W. Stoeckert
Executive Director
State of Connecticut
Traffic Commission
24 Wolcott Hill Road
P.O. Drawer "A"
Wethersfield , CT 06109
RE: Certificate No . 603 , Buckland Hills
,Manchester, Connecticut
Dear Stoeckert:
In response to your request for additional information , we are enclosing
F:;ur ( 4 ) copies of the following items for your use:
Application Form
Figure 10A-R through 1QI-R - 1989 P.M. Combined Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes
Figure 11A-R through 111-R - 1989 Saturday Combined Peak Hour Traffic:
Volumes
Capacity Analysis Worksheets
The revised combined trafic plates show both the previously reported
combined peak hour traffic volumes and the new peak hour traffic
volumes , resulting from the increase in mall size to 785 ,000 square
feet . The old numbers have been crossed out and the new numbers added
to these plates so .that a comparison can be made between them.
Capacity analyses for the peak hour combined traffic volume conditions
have been conducted at the four intersections closest to the site ,
where the largest percentage of site generated traffic will result .
The results of these analyses are as follows:
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE/V/C RATIO
P.M. SAT .
pIECE1VED ORIG. REPORT* REVISED ORIG. REPORT* REVISED
Pleasant Valle & C B/0 .64 C B/0 .53
I-8 4 W OAT ►09 1
Pl e a s Z k7E1Wf%y0�An��10& C C/0.6 6 C C/0 .7 3
Buckland St.
210 MAIN STREET / MANCHESTER, CONN. 06040 / TELEPHONE (203)646-2469
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT•WASTE WATER SYSTEMS•EROSION CONTROL•WATER SYSTEMS•HYDROLOGY and DRAINAGE SYSTEMS•SITE PLANNING
HIGHWAYS and BRIDGES•SURVEYING•LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE•TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC• PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT•HYDROGEOLOGY
y.i
l
FUSS&O'NEIL U
Mr . William W. Stoeckert
Page 2
October 23 , 1986
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE/V/C RATIO
P.M. SAT .
ORIG . REPORT* REVISED ORIG. REPORT* REVISED
Buckland St . & C A/0 .47 C B/0 .50
South Access Rd .
Suckland St . & C/D B/0 .68 C B/0 .51
7-84 Ramps
* Original report used 1965 Highway Capacity Manual Techniques .
By comparing the levels of service provided , it is demonstrated that
the additional traffic generated by the change in mall size will have
no adverse impact on the intersections immediately surrounding the
site . At other intersections , which are further away , the amount of
additional site generated traffic is so small that it can be safely
disregarded . It is clear that no substantial impact will result at any
of the intersections surrounding the site because of the introduction
of additional traffic generated by this increased development.
We trust that this information will be suitable for your needs .
However, if you require any additional information or if you have any
questions, please contact us at any time .
Very truly yours
Ste hen F. Mitchell , P.E.
Director of Traffic Section
/dkh
5 .45
Enclosure
cc: Joe LeDuc
Ron Berliant
Dave Waterman
Frank Castrillon
Tom De Mille
subject Certificate Application z
STATE OF CONNECTICUT Buckland Hills Expansion
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Town of Manchester
STC# 076-8610-02
memorandum
OM- REV. 12/83 date October 30, 1986to 1
Frank M. D'Addabbo from William W. Stoeek ex 228
Manager of Traffic Executive Directo L'
State Traffic Commission
Enclosed are Application for Certificate, plans and traffic data
for the subject development.
Please review and comment upon completeness of application within
ten days of receipt of this request.
The 120 day review period for this application expires February 25, 1987.
Therefore, to allow the State Traffic Commission to make a decision
within that time period, the target agenda is February, 1987.
Enclosures:
' cc: James F. Sullivan- Please verify volumes within ten days of receipt.
i .
STATE OF CONNECTICUT „ENINERS
I' Comrer.wroer o!Tr.w.fwnawr,
TRAFFIC COMMISSION ComrrowdoerofPu.IrcS.uty
Department of Transportation Co!"r"r•wrreer of Naor teArcke
24 Wolcott HiU Road • P.O. Drawer A
Wethersfield. Connecticut 06109
Date October 24, 1986
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE
In accordance with Section 14-311 of the General Statutes of
Connecticut, as revised, and State Traffic Commission regulations,
a Certificate is hereby requested for:
Name of Facility:_ Buckland Hills
Location: Buckland Street
Town and Zip Number: .Town of Manchester, 06040
Square Feet' of Gross Floor Area:_785.000 S.F. Mall (35,000 S.F. IncreasE
Number of Puking Spaces: 4302
Start Of Construction f Date) Snrimr 1987
Opening Dane: Fall 1 88
• .r
Owners s Name: Homart DeveloTment to-. .&.idan-ches_t<er' I-84 Associates
Owner's Address. 99 E. •Center:Street
Town, State & Zip e-r Manchester, CT 06040
Authorized Representative, tO be contacted during review of
application.'
• Name: Stephen F. Mitchell, P.E. , Fuss & O'Neill, Inc.
Address: 210 Main Street "
Town, State &. Zip Number-: Manchester CT 06040
Phone: (20.3) 647-0799
Enclosed are eight (8) sets of the proposed development showing
the intorlaation 'required. (see attached)
SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS checklist to be included with application.
Agent for owner
1
1
4
sG
/L9
Z
\ 9F �e I O�
do
f
ELLINGTON RD.
s
W2 -� W 3
4J9
55 —7 ix p frNo
")w � R�
v IN
� N
2
Q
J � '
Y
U
a
9�tRD.
PLEASANT VALLE�f
6V N '�-
e�-
le
t
I$ .
JL-84 W8. EXIT
I-84 W.B. ENTRANCE FIG. NO. IOA-R
0
'NBLL
WAMCNEiTE1F. CONIIECTICUT
1989 P.M- COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT BUCKLAND HILLS
MANCHESTER,CONNECTICUT
►•W no 85-315 DATE SEPT 19815 SCALC
5
o=1
h M
N $ 129
J l A 5W
-5" .w—*?-LL 805
PLEASANT VALLEY RD f—"93 DRIVEWAY TO SITE
639 1e*29
��-
4 97 � r
�
N N
� 1
Z a
J
Y '
v
m
M0 co
RO
Lo
DRIVEWAY TO SITE
484 &44 0--4
467 43a- co
r
140
m
cr. 1
W
H �
M
J N.
N
FIG. NO. 108-R
FUSNC S&Owau C U T
1989 PM. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT BUCKLAND HILLS
MANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT
r*OJ Mo 4 5-315 GATE SEPT. 1985 SCALE
4---440 77445'.�
DEMING i-e♦305 ST.
905-.�--► r
0
0 T �
N
Ul
J
Q
a
a
m
1�
N
�gT ee 214
" 95
DR WAY TO SfTE
1r .
o _
Zl 0
ofJ �
Y
m _
FIG NO. IOC-R
Q
J V 1t C`S&O', C,� p�L NNECTICUT
1989 P.M. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT BUCKLAND HILLS
MANCHESTER,CONNECTICUT
POW Mo 85-315 OAT[ SEPT 1985 SCALE
r
x '7
40
to W
1 '
Q
N
in
JiL f-544 852
DEMING f---240 ST.
1274 14 3--?
IIWoo
1110 21
ti 1n
Z-84 W.B. EXIT
I-84 W.B. ENTRANCE -
m
N
1 �
I-84 E.B. EXIT of o I-84 E.B. ENTRANCE
H
1
Z
JiN FIG NO IOD-R
Y
v FUSS&O'NE 1 I
YANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT
1989 PM. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT BUCKLAND -HILLS
MA NCHESTER,CONNECTICUT
�_mw 04085-315 DATE SEPT 19813SCALE
y
v,
o
a
1 J
/ Y
U
M (�
O A
ti M
N M
�137
0 --181 4-471
TOLLAND f-153 TPKE.
1436 546 544.
t45% 504—
386cr� 0
co 14
w A N
H a
Vf
W N
Z m
Of
N
cr
W
H
Moof Q
N N
N .
�jas �31T
IZg TPA
TQ�-LAID
4Z� '
its
FIG. NO. 10 E-R
N'"CNE1TE11. COMMIECTICUT
1989 PK COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT BUCKLAND HILLS
MA NCHESTER,CO NNECT IC UT
IRCd 010 85-315 oATE SEPT 1985 SCALE
r-l20 145
25 TPKE.
TOLLpND
200
408 �� 20 8 —�
� N -
H
Z
0 N
Z N
Q
1-8 4 E.B. EXIT I-84 E.B. ENTRANCE
ioa .
sr
f -307 TOLLAND TPKE.
1265 541$6b_�
m
n
to
o
_ G. NO.IOF-R
Q Cf
Y m ,l FUSS&& I YEJ:
OWAMCHESTEIt. C-QMMECTICUT
1989 P.M. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT BUCKLAND HILLS
MAN C H ESTER,CON_N ECTICUT
POW NO 85-315 oATt SEPT.1985 scALE:
T.
I�
. IN
Z
0
z
N m
J L
10�
214 --a---5 71
-"0-297
NORTH MAIN STREET
T92 14
779
n
r~
J _
• O
O
U
df
O
�—*Z
L
. 330
• �173
NORTH tN STREET
�
904 378 —�
and —�
pia
FUSSUMBLL
MANCNEST911. CONNECTICUT
• N
1989 P.M. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT BUCKLAND HILLS
MAN CHESTER.CONNECTICUT
POW. "* 85-315 *ATE SEPT 1985SCALE
1C
0
e
�o
�N
m �
cm
NORTH MAIN ST.
&J 4 10 305
H t�
co
a �
Z
Q
J
Y
Q
O
o _
OC
J
W
o a
0 Q
a =
U
M p
po
—I92 407
�--- 215
2.3 TOLLAND TURNPIKE
65 4 —� 631�
FIG. N0.10 M a
Y USS&O' C�C TIC U T
1989 P.M. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL Ar BUCKLAND HILLS
• MANCHESTER.CONNECTICUT
POW NO 85-31S oATc SEPT.1985scALt ��
F��Nc
' e?
PLO
k
a
�- t
e -
t3o
S)b
f16. N0. 10-I•-R�R
MANCHESTER
CONNSCTICYT
1989 P.M. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
• TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT BUCKLAND HILLS
. MANCHESTER,CONNECTICUT
►004•1110. e3-315 DAT[-JAN.1966 SCALE: NT.S. �l
►3
�G
f ,�O
lop No
ELLINGMN RD. ���
� 99
403, F230
13s�
� aRD
2
a
IS8 II
1122
--w _{Goa
PLEASAJtT VALLEY- �� RD.
192�y
�. � 1 r
x:
I-84 W.B. EXIT
I-84 W.B. ENTRANCE
FIG. NO. IIA-R
0FUSSW7qEK.L-
NANCHISTER. CONNECTICUT
' . 1989 SAT. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
'THE MALL IC SUCKLAND HILLS
MAN CHESTER,CON NECTICUT
vz--mO. 85-31S "TI:SEPT.198S SCALE:
N
M
h
ti
184
4we�2_ 118143+
PLEASANT VALLEY RD f--+3&139 DRIVEWW TO SITE
254 17
� 9-
1 i r
� a
a �
Q
Y
V
m O
12
. o as 4�
{�O.
J 1L . o
DRAfEWAY TO SITE
TOS 4996—,
00
W
Q �J
of
FIG. N0.116-A a
�V YA��• CCTICYT
1989SAT. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT SUCKLAND HILLS
MANCHESTER,CONNECTICUT
►Ro, no 4 a_315-DATE sEK. 1985
SCALE:
'4
4--407 827
DEMING f ST.
662--i 3 � --�p
N
A
C fpp
� la
W p
J
. Q
169
—46& `31111
DRIVEWAY TO SITE
�tr
Z
J 2
L
lD .
FIG. NO. i 1 C-R D
�� FUSS&O'11E7L,L;
MANCN<STIN. CoNNECTICUT
11989 SAT. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT SUCKLAND HILLS
MANCHESTERs CONNECTICUT
rnw.No 85-315 @ATE SEPT 1985SC 9: ��
U)
N W
Oi y
. la
PIO A
L 147 697
�—at& 329 of 696
DEM IN G i-221 ST.
1052 ` a 9—�
1635--b 9539W----*
O
IN
A�
N
m
` I-84 W.B. EXIT
I-84 W.B. ENTRANCE
w
1
I-84 E.B. EXIT I-84 E.B. ENTRANCE
t
11110,
o m1
J g FIG-NO. 11 D-
. Y R
V
MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT
_ 11989 SAT. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
• THE MALL AT SUCKLAND HILLS
MA NCHESTER,CON NECTICUT
rnow.No.85-315 a1Tz•SEPT. 1985 SCAL9 L
i2
o
n Z
O Q
jJ
Y
V
m
� N
j L t—_102
—195 —'* 406
TOLL AND —
TPKE.
,OQ 327 3F8
221
253�
tY K
W - •f
Q �
Vf
• W
Z
m
W
Q
�p J
4
N �21 ��33T
.ls"l is TPyE.
T03-1-A� '
31
110
FIG. NO.I i E-R
�O
rAllCNtiTtll, CONN<CTICYT
11989 SAT. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT SUCKLAND HILLS
MA NCHESTER.CO NNECT IC UT
►wa 010 85-315 Dart SEPT 1985 SCALE
f6
103 1te
23 TPKE-
7OLLOD �21 �♦'' .
36� `�► 240
NN
2
O n
Z a
I-84 E.S. EXIT I-84 E.B. ENTRANCE
7 3 1073
st: �—�4A5a2�•—f9-7•it
5" f--45e TOLLA N D TPKE,
1244 252--��
c e
1-z
f/f
Z ti FIG. NO.1 I F-R
0
OMANCNNSTtA, CONNECTICUT
11989 SAT. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
• TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT SUCKLAND HILLS
MAN CHESTER,CON N ECTICUT
P*w 00 85-315 DATE SEPT 1985 SCAR c
n
N f.:
N
Z
O
Z
N
40 A
J L
-240
-!-5 46
NORTH MAIN STREET
360 12--!
3447-�
t~
• J
O
O
2
V
N
O
NZ
iL �3
.0 199 - 446
�--2 44
NORTH ---jAIN STREET
519—� s
337--- 11tr
-� *�
i=
N
FIG N fill
a FUSS&O'NEILL
0 MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT
A
1989 SAT. COMBINED PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT SUCKLAND HILLS
MAN CH ESTER,CONNECTICUT
r*OJ NO 85. 315 DATE SEPT 1985SCALE
1 -
ti
0
r`
0
NORTH MAIN ST.
� l
50L--o 3t7_j
• 134 '-� .t
N
•
N J
Q ti
Z b
a
J
Q
O
0
J
W
o a
A Q
2
U
t9
� O
L-172 •
4---227 -399
TOLLAND TURNPIKE
291 - 282—►
FIG. No. I I H
FWAussB�o�n+a4
MCNElTE • COMNE T
CTICU 11
COMBINED PEAK HOUR
.,, TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE- MAL%6AT BUCKLANO HILLS
MANCHESTERO CONN ECTICUT
POW.No- 85•315 GATE EEPT.19858CALE:
OF�iNG
�Q
PLO .
v
:r
o
1
Saab
�aa
o
<< set
FIG.r qti
a
FIG. NO. II-I-R
RisswWaLL
MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT
ae 1989 SAT. COMB IN E D PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
THE MALL AT SUCKLAND.HILLS
MANCHE STER,CONN ECTICUT
p; Mo 8S-315 DATE JAN. 1986 SCALE: NTS.
4
`r
FUSS&O'NFJU PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO.
consLAting engineers BY BY loci�
VA/
SUBJECT: p(.r-fl c A r aU Y Ph �1 4 k �? ►'F'*R f`- �9 SHEET NO.
CO/► MIAEI�, -r7y——= 1 of z
1-. LANE 4 X AoS�t:TE�
vows VOLUME F�ow
r` I gz 1.00 1 4- r—Z3 --�oi9
rao
-�—
�a,
63-5,
l03�� SzS—s
BIZ -1 4 77
-�-- 1 213
Z &off
gz 1.ov 7S3
s-a4- wb
Li
2. �'• SC N x -pw Y—Twe )f. �3 X� v. X--CML Y_To_ %J., }Liar = 5
SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
LANE GROUPS AD FACTORS
O O O O O O O O O
® ��L
Appr. line Ideal Na d Lane Heavy Grade Pkg. Bus Area Right Ldt
Sat Lanes Width 1kh toc�aBr 7yy� Turn Tum Rats
Moveo+em Flow f ! ! ! f f ftT I !
(Pcph6d) N Tableable Table Maik Table �vP�SI 9-5 9-6 9-7 9-8 9-9 9-10 9-11 9-12
41 /P.+oo boo -'m /,o /.b /.c 1,0 /.o ,95- /6 -
r18 .96 r.o r.c vo ro ,9 1.4 16,0
I rco Z
l.o 1,0
l.o /.o /,D IPS�
wP 4;r- Z J.00 ,9�, v /.o !.o 1.0 /.o .9 324(0
` ���� PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE
O :�c]cV�IVF.ILL TE PROJECT NO.
cawifiv eni BY BY &O-Z R
SUBJECT: Ab. T-9,4- ob R/,�'PS M SHEET No.
! - GcrosjNED T-RAr z o1Z
i� , --
-i. _ :_ . . . . . . . . . .
3.UP. APT SAT. FLQw/ cRincgL LANE
A wsa yRo P PaAsE FLOW FLow RA-nD. F'v",5 9/C V/C , -
3 IFS I&-4C- .067;1
I +3 I&c4- ��� �S9 po /D 'A TG.�6CG}I0� �IIC= .6,YZ
I -;IIZ 4& .--ZO ✓ 7'L 16-3Z 64e7,
SyM A Fe4_7&V
.. _ . . 3
♦.UNCL CAVW Fit* rmDday Seomd'hcm 'ibtal icI=
0 O O . O O O O 4)
Lane v/c Ccam Cie Delay Line Delay Pmgmdon Line Line Appeadt AppL
Gmip Ratio Ratio Lath do Croup do Factor QVW GroW Delay L06
Ito� X g/C C (sec/veh) Cap" (sec/veh) PF Dday LOS (uc/veh) Table
° p *C) c Table 9-13 (sec/vdn) Table y.l
( ) X M 9-1
�j •639 .W 90 30.07 /4g 5.9� 1.0 36,0
KIg -/o ,shi 90 'it. 00 100 0. oc 1.0 %- 00 11.61
.�Q4 90 1 9. 12 120 C. . Fr l-0 /9, 9 C� G 19.96
+ ./10 ,gil 2 1 5�0 ±
ws . 692 -.1912 90 13 68 /532-
p, g.6
i
William Stoeckert
October 29, 1986
Page 2
in it and may wish to say or do various things of interest to the
Commission and in the interests of the Town concerning it.
Very truly yours,
RGE:j rc
�tawN sf4<�
'Tawn o-P South
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074
soe•co� AREA CODE 203/644-2511
RICHARD J. SARTOR
Town Manager
October 24 , 1986
Atty . Ralph Elliott
Tyler Cooper & Alcorn
CityPlace , 35th Floor
Hartford , Connecticut
Dear Atty . Elliott :
Re : Town of South Windsor vs . State Traffic Commission
In recent weeks , I have become aware (through newspaper articles )
that the Developers of Buckland Mall have sought many changes in
the initially proposed design of the Mall . These changes appear to
be increasing the commercial development on the site--and , in turn ,
creating the possibility of significant additional traffic activity
that would impact South Windsor streets .
I attach copies of the most recent newspaper articles referring to
these changes in the proposed development , and the additional
bonding and road construction the Town of Manchester is considering
to facilitate this increase in traffic volume .
Following your examination of this information , please prepare a
"draft" letter to the State Traffic Commission requesting that , in
light of the additional traffic impact on South Windsor resulting
from Manchester ' s altered proposal , the Commission revise its
original approval , and require traffic capacity and safety
enhancements that would protect the residents of South Windsor .
If you require further input from this office , please contact me .
Very tru yours ,
iG
Town Manage
RJS :prb
Attmts .
the meeting,was part ofanewnigntmwvmc
the union plans to take to nip problems in the
bud before they become major issues.
He said the union's complaints boil down to
problems with apparatus—firefighting vehi-
� g M cles—and fire stations,some of which were
" built in the 1920s and 1930s and haven't been
renovated since.
For example, he said, the department
needs a new ladder truck because one of the
two its owns is frequently in the shop for
repairs and the other has started to break
down too.
AP PHOTO
His last look Gerber pu rchE
Barbara Hicks, 49, stands at the window in her bedroom through which she
shot and killed a 'peeping tom,' who she says had skulked outside her Denver
home for five years. Twenty-five-year-old Ricky James Curry of Denver was B EILEEN McNAMARA
found dead in an alley behind Hicks' home early Sunday. Y
Journal Inquirer staff write
SOUTH W NDSOR — Gerber Scientific
Inc.has purchased a 42,000-square-foot build-
M a i i backer wins zone change ing on Nutmeg Road North, where the com-
pany will move part of its products division,
company spokesman Stanley Levin said
industrial complex. today.
By TINKER READY Although Monday's action does not directly Although Gerber's$1.4 million purchase of
Journal Inquire staff write affect the mall site, Homart Development the industrial building and the 5 acres around
Co.,builders of the proposed mall,have said it came at about the same time the company
MANCHESTER— The Planning and Zon- they would apply for a change to the new withdrew it plans to build a new plant in
ing Commission Monday approved a change regulations if they were approved.If they are Manchester, Levin said the purchase has
in the zoning regulations which would allow granted the zone change,the developers have nothing to do with Gerber's efforts to find a
the developers of 250 acres near Interstate-84 said .they will eliminate the 516 units of site for a new plant, which are continuing.
— including the site of the proposed Mall at housing which were approved as part of the He said the Nutmeg Road North facility
Buckland Hills—to develop the area without mall site plan late last year. was purchased from its builder, Andre
any housing During recent deliberations over the Charbonneau, adding that he's not sure yet
The PZC approved a change in the mixed- town's master plan of development, PZC how many people will be employed there.
use Comprehensive Urban Development zone members deleted provisions which would He said the company will use the building
which eliminated a minimum housing re- have allowed high-and medium-density hous- to store and maintain some of the parts
quirement for the zone and allows phased ing in the southwest corner of town, where Gerber Scientific manufactures. Gerber has
rather than simultaneous development of much of the town's vacant land is located.To been renting the building since.the spring and
projects within the zone. justify the deletion of the multifamily hous-
The original CUD regulations required that ing provisions, which were public criticized Gas fumes m es spur ev
70 percent of an project in the zone consist by a group of local homeowners, the PZC
y p 1
of
residential construction. members cited the area around the mall as
The change in the regulations was proposed appropriate for multifamily housing. WINDSOR—Fire officials had to evacuat(
by developer John Finguerra, a former Town officials have said the mall de- and ventilate an apartment building at the
partner in the mail project and the owner of velopers included the housing in their Chateau Woods complex Tuesday night after
the 134-acre mall site off Buckland road preliminary plans in order to gain prompt discovering containers of gasoline in tht
which is zoned under the existing CUD re- approval of the project last year when they basement.
gulations. were competing with rival mall developers in The Hayden Station Fire Department wa:
In addition to the change in the regulations, South Windsor. The preliminary approval of summoned to the building shortly after V
Finguerra was granted a zone change to the the mall site plan allowed the developers to p.m. by residents who said they smelled ga:
new CUD zone for two parels adjacent to the obtain a permit from the State Traffic Com-
mall site. The change was granted to a 19- mission, which they credit with pushing the Consumer counsel hope
acre parcel off Buckland Road and the 97- South Windsor developers to abandon their
acre Red Rock Golf course site where mall project and agree to a joint venture in
Finguerra is planning a hotel, office and Manchester. BY TM Associated Press
High speed chase ends in arrest NEW BRITAIN -State utility regulator
have been asked to prohibit Southern Nee
ELLINGTON — A Stafford man was ar- Riley refused to heed the officer's request England Telecommunications Co. from shu!
rested for multiple traffic violations after to pull over and drove off at high speed on ting off service to customers who do not pa
engaging police in a high-speed chase '!ties- Route 140, police said. their long-distance phone bills.
day in the Crystal Lake area, authorities Riley subsequently drove into the police State Consumer Counsel James F. Meeha
cruiser, which had boxed him in on South filed a petition Tuesday with the Departmmer
said. of Public UtilityControl, saying terminatio
The chase, which covered about 1 mile, Road at White Streep�lice said. of local telephone service should not be use
began at 7:42 p.m.when a state police officer In addition, a passenger in the vehicle, of a l to orce le to the
observed Michael A. Riley, 23,of 15 Ash St., Joseph Hennesey, 18, of 181 Main St., Staf- American Telephone &Telegraphpeople
Co. lon
Stafford, operating a vehicle without a rear ford,was charged with third-degree criminal stance bills. pi
license plate, police said. mischief
personnel file, Burke sat
superintendent"must assume the
tion of responsibility in this matter.
chairman said Mager could not abdic
responsibility for the fiasco simply becau
he had delegated supervision of Crane to
Cassotta and the school systems former
a business manager, Alfred Dreyer.
Burke also revealed Wednesday that the
board had considered firing Mager, who has
been superintendent for 14 years. Burke said
members told Mager and Cassotta of the
K< probable action against them during the early
stages of the board's five-hour executive
session Tuesday night,the last three hours of
which they spent refining the action without
ever taking a vote.
k The chairman said today the censure of
Mager and Cassotta will be formalized in a
k vote on Oct. 27.
Mager said today the Crane affair"showed
that important procedures can't be
minimized in any way,because of what we
n PHOTO BY AuKE AoAsw►vEe ' might feel are the exigencies of the moment.
Bovine express "I'm a better superintendent this morning,
Oct. 16,1986,than at any time in my career,"
A worker from the McKnight farm watches as a herd of dairy rustic look of the daily occurance could change soon as the he added. He said he could have taken the
cows cross Muddy Brook Road in Ellington recently. The road may be paved because of nearby development. board's action as a negative one but chooses
to look at it as a "growth experience."
for Manchester malleve opers revise plans .
by Homart Development Co. of Chicago. ings and a small commercial area are included in the original mall plan in order to
TINKER READY The original site plan,which was approved proposed for the west side of the site. A low- speed the approval process. With the
nal Inquirer'staff Writer by the Planning and Zoning Commission in rise office complex and a retail area,which is preliminary approval of the mall plan,
December, featured 516 units of single- and tentatively planned as a movie theater and Homart was able to obtain a permit from the'
ANCHESTER — The developers of the multifamily housing, including. a a seven- furniture store,are proposed for thevast side state Traffic Commission, which developers
posed Mall at Buckland Hills filed revised story building, surrounding the mall. of the site. consider the catalyst that brought to an end a
plans Wednesday that include a 625-seat The revised site plan also reduces the In addition to eliminating the housing re- year-long battle between Homart and rival
urant, a movie theater, a hotel and scope of the project. The orginal mall site quirement, the amended CUD zone also al- mall developers in South Windsor.
eral office buildings. plan approved in December covered a 138- lows for phased rather than simultaneous Following .the. approval of the traffic
e revised plans eliminate more than 500 acre site which included the Red Rock Golf development. According to the new site plan, permit the developers of the competing
s of housing from the original plan. Course. However, developer John Finguerra the mall would be built'as the first phase of Winchester Mall in South Windsor agreed to
e proposed change in the mall site plan has withdrawn as a partner in the mall pro-
ows a revision in the zoning regulations jest and is planning a separate housing,com- the project-while the remaining development -join efforts with Homart by building one mall
or the would be built during a second phase. on the Manchester site and developing the
the Comprehensive Urban Development mercial and industrial development i
e approved earlier this month by the golf course located to the north of the mall The change in the CUD zone was proposed South Windsor site as a smaller,commercial
ning and Zoning Commission, which site. by Finguerra, who also obtained a CUD de- project.
inated a requirement that any CUD pro- The new site plan covers a 93.7-acre parcel , signation for the 97-acre golf course and a 19- South Windsor, claiming the traffic from
consist of 70 percent housing. between Buckland Street and Slater Road. acre parcel off Buckland Street to the west of the• mall would cause road congestion
e new proposal for the 750,000-square- The mall remains the centerpiece of the the mall site. problems in the neighboring town. has filed
regional shopping center was submitted project while a restaurant,hotel,office build- Town officials have said the housing was an appeal of the traffic permit.
.�..-_��____._,_�_�.���..�-�.�.M_._.._•_-_.--.----�--._�_._._._..-.-._._._ ---•---^- _.-_.�__.� .e:u•Lea,�:.1.v•e.w•�-+..•eras•�JLls:a•!'ji�r.1,..Ivsl.a�.I:..I.1.��1s'a....1..a.�
A.C
Rules
Revised
Changes Will Ease
Restrictions for Mall
At Buckland Hills
B MATTHEW MOSER
Courant Staff Writer
MANCHESTER—Developers of
the proposed Mall at Buckland Hills
gained a sweeping revision Monday
of the town's zoning regulations for
large tracts of undeveloped land.
The Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion voted unanimously to revise the
regulations for comprehensive ur-
ban-development zones such as the
one established for the mall site in
northwest Manchester.
The new rules ease some restric-
tions on developing land in so-called
comprehensive urban development
zones.They eliminate a requirement
that 70 percent of the mixed-use
zone be devoted to housing,and they
allow phased*development of the
property.
"The intent of the [comprehen-
sive]regulations is to permit greater
flexibility and, consequently, more
creative and imaginative design for
development than generally is possi-
ble under conventional zoning," the Anthony Gen
new regulations say. with his Toren
The planning board spent close to
four months reviewing the new regu-
lations, which were sought by John Gusi
Finguerra, the general partner in
Manchester I-84 Associates one of
the mall's developers.The
proposals II i
were backed by the Homart Devel-
opment Co. of Chicago, another of Courant
the malls developers; the Capital
Region Council of Governments;and Cold,gusting i
the town's planning department. blew into the rel
Planning board members had ex-, ing Power failui
pressed concern that the new regula- as temperaturei
bons would leave them with little More than 25,1
control over the planning process. ities customers l
Their concerns were addressed by mph gusts of i
Mark Pellegrini,the planning direc. limbs across the
tor,who assured them that the new ern Massachuse
rules gave them plenty of opportuni. Among the 1
ties to shape a project were Fairfielc
The rules establish a three-step 12,000 Northeas
approval process for projects in a ers lost power,i
comprehensive urban development and Pittsfield ai
zone. After the land is rezoned, a se ;Mel Goldst
preliminary land-use plan and a fi-: Weather Center
See Zoning,Page D2
John' son,
Amenfi
f By MICHELE JACKM Dozynki Harvest l
11'1d111:11Ci�LCi nuVibub LJ�Jjling negula,ilon►s son, she is as comfortable�in�the �50000
l _ethnic clubs of New Britain as in the headquart
Continued from Page D1 The board agreed to rezone from to it"the finest undeveloped piece of tastefully furnished manses of Litch- Amenta is
rural residential to comprehensive . commercial property in southern field County. and the
nal development plan must be ap- urban development a 97-acre parcel New England." _ A political unknown,Johnson ran Party he
proved. on Slater Street that includes the The preliminary plans for the for the state Senate in 1976. To ev- known thr
During its meeting Monday night, Red Rock Golf Course and a 20-acre mail call for a 750,000-square-foot eryone's surprise, she won, ousting ty district
the planning board also approved tract on Buckland Street. regional shopping center,with shops Amenta and becoming the first Re- outside N
two zoning changes that Finguerra In applying for the zoning changes on two levels.The developers hope to publican elected to the Senate from Amenta
requested for land adjoining the 138- in June, Finguerra called the 138- break ground in the spring and to ew Britain in 30 years.She served ing the
acre mall site near I.84. acre mall site and the 117 acres next—open the mall by 1989. three terms and, in 1982,.defeated Bristol,E
Democrat William E. Curry Jr. for ville, Sou
the 6th District congressional seat. Johnson,h
! Two years later,she crushed Arthur munities t
Crisis Teams Help Pupils Open Up H.H° � "She's b
"Of the last 135 aldermen in New rates peop
2 Britain, two were Republican. But. average g
Continued from Page D1 said having a formal crisis team is death of a student by murder;sui- Nancy Johnson took New Britain. to know an
a good idea. -•-cide or car accident,she said. three times for the state Senate and cy,"said J
helped the students cope. "From the experience I've had, James Fallon,principal of East in her 1984 run for Congress," said mer camp
"No school system is immune that is definitely something that Hartford Middle School said hon- Joseph Shilinga,a leading New Brit- state Capi
from these types of things," Wis- not only Norwalk, but other esty is a key in dealing'wifh chil- ain Republican. Amenta'
niewski said. "So there's a choice: schools should consider,"he said. dren. For Amenta, a onetime "wild- labor. At
Either you can react in a hit-or- Jean Campbell,a consultant for "Kids today don't want you eyed liberal"who now calls himself vention in
miss way or in an organized, school social-work servicgs for the stone-walling on anything," he a moderate"progressive,':this.con- adopted a
thoughtful way." state Department of Education.,,✓,,._said..."When.xov.Jan. -+—•.—
t /
i
£ aa, # e s '� $ b; '• � ri t` w staff Peter
S. w
intervened x 4`
►ur-month_ ` �i �' Peter S.Spi
r Page C2 lington VL,with
`ate i`b J, G t `•',` friends when he
Yon in
� ��*' a ,gyp 4 �a �, � q * Y! "� ♦ ,, .?F g
a .� r e; j d r•'s r*.. " .'4 fi * •• '" { '� k d..Y.,fir, ►S tmer
Pi gay
f } �d�.' £x ' a �.-:* His wife was a
a *as asked If She
L i
petition. She
ERA worker
�r It wasn't so
was shocking as
� r ► rationale: "No
m
"my husband
re' Sometimes it
tress to shed
titer "^ a proceedings.
Defense a
A crucial fr t was seeking a
DO workers `" $10,000 to $I,
as reached Superior Court in
less than It is a request J
JnIonJeadl D - Puerto Rican Grou Accused of Tar etin
v England S�t hearing con
Union,Dis- At that
ed after a courtroom was
n that end- By GEORGE GOMBOSSY a plan to blow up a ship in Old San Sixteen people, 15 from Puerto ments that were taken from Los ness for nearly a
as District Courant Staff Writer Juan Harbor. Rico,have been charged in the Wells Macheteros safe houses that relate an electrical
being con- Outside of court Dabrowski re- Fargo robbery case.Prosecutors say to other criminal Investigations. courthouse.
at 21 other A militant Puerto Rican indepen- fused to discuss the document and most of the defendants are high- Dabrowski said he does not have "I guess
[eyerson,a dense group tied to the $7 million would not give any details about the ranking officials of Los Macheteros, to disclose to defense attorneys or to with you," one a
[eyersy West Hartford Wells Fargo robbery plans or the alleged target. an underground group seeking the the judge evidence seized in the raids the darin>eas"
ursda"he had plans to blow up a ship in Puerto Defense attorneys, who Da- Independence of Puerto Rico. that does not involve the Wells Fargo When n
i e ut he Rico a federal prosecutor said browski said had been given the doc- Prosecutors say the 1983 robbery robbery case but may be used in lawyer,W1111am
I other Thursday ument,said they did not know what was conducted, in part, to finance other investigations. note,"Let the
veryro Assistant U.S. Attorney Albert S. Dabrowski was talking about. They Los Macheteros. He used the alleged plan about defendant was
p lam- Dabrowski told U.S. District Judge said Dabrowski's disclosure was an The disclosure about the ship was blowing u the shipas an example of came back
,es,and we T. Emmet Clarie that documents attempt by the government to por- made during arguments in Hartford other criminal investigations being won stand.
homes_ seized in an April 1984 search of a tray their clients as terrorists,while federal court over whether the gov-
n, Water- "safe house"in Puerto Rico included_ they say they are freedom fighters. ernment must show the judge docu- See Maeheterm.Page C2 It was no big
dgeport—
WPOP rafta.m.Mon-
it covers Manchester Mall Plan Includes Hotel Theaterripped off an old
!rs and di Hartford-
rees at the Courant
MOSER preliminary development plan sub- square feet. required in a comprehensive urban 'To whom t
Center in ourant Staff Writer mitted by Homart Development Co. Details of who would operate the development zone such as the mail Ila wrote on a
e Manor in of Chicago. commercial establishments were site. "I have taken my
Convales- MANCHESTER — The develop- The plan,which needs approval of not included in the plans. John Finguerra,one of the mail's now that I have
ers of'the proposed Buckland Hills the town's Planning and Zoning Homart's proposal, released developers,sought the rule changes would take my
achieved mall disclosed plans Thursday to Commission before it can proceed, Thursday,contains none of the hous- this summer, arguing that the best one has stoke IV
e negoti- build a 1,600-seat movie theater and also includes 100,000 square feet of ing plans contained in its earlier use of the land was for commercial, Now in public
a 200-room hotel surrounding their offices, a 30,000-square-foot furni- drafts.Under a revised set of zoning retail and light industrial purposes. FraudsH
shopping center in northwest Man- ture showroom and three restau- regulations approved by the town's Homart's preliminary plan re- Mobilia aai6e
chThe proposals were included in a rants with seating for 625 people. Planning and Zoning Commission 1968`old boom
The shorpitig center itself is 785,000 two weeks ago,housing is no longer See Man,Page C2 He is not off
J 1
The minimum wage for a nursing sions,"he said. the three nursing homes tnat ..�.��
home worker at the g be innin o ���
g f the Workers also resolved several lo- reached an agreement.
third year of the contract will be cal issues at the three nursing homes The committee overwhelmingly
g Meyerson
=8.28, compared with =7:15 now, that will cost management an addi- approved the settlement,
Meyerson said. tional 2 percent of the collective said. .; ,r Que
wages,Meyerson said. Workers at the Manchester and
The union also won mandatory g y Waterbury nursing homes ratified
training for workers who have to Union members will receive an the agreement ihomes
Thursday, s said.ratified
40"Chest Sale=199
handle violent patients. Meyerson additional holiday,better scheduling said did not taasaid. in
said the training provision is the first and improved vacation and sick- y problem
of its kind for nursing homes in Con- . leave benefits, Meyerson said. ratification at the Meriden home.It
oecticut and is important because of Health benefits also were improved, was not known when that would oc- '-
the increasing number of mentally -he said. cur.
Mall Plan Includes Hotel, Theater ; --
Continued from Page C1 Homart, a subsidiary of Sears, fic and noise to the largely residen- ---
Roebuck &Co., plans to begin con- tial area. They have filed suit in
fleets that shift, dropping 516 units struction in the spring and to open Superior Court seeking to block the
of single- and multi-family housing the mall in 1989. It will be located projects.
in favor of more office and retail between Buckland and Slater The preliminary development Pair Twin Beds Sale$199 :
space. streets,north of I-84 near the South plan includes detailed traffic and
"That's not a surprise,"town Gen- Windsor line. environmental studies.
eral Manager Robert B.Weiss said. Mayor Barbara B.Weinberg said Walter S. Fuss said in the studies
"Ever since we've been talking with Thursday that she expected multi- that the proposed mall"will not have """~" '^ Lingerie Chest Sa
the Homart people, they've said— family housing to be built near the a significant adverse impact on the
and we've agreed—that their par- mall, possibly on land rezoned two environment," provided that steps - You can travel arou
cel would be best for other than weeks ago to comprehensive urban were taken to protect the 34 acres of value. But you'll pr
residential use." development, the town's special wetlands included in the site. Rock'collection.A
The preliminary plan reflects an- classification for large tracts of un- He also said that the"traffic gen- real wood. No im
otber shift, too. Instead of building developed land. erated by the Buckland Hills project through.Authentic
the mall, the offices and the hotel Neighbors of the Buckland Hills will not disrupt the continuity of charm and deep s
simultaneously,offices
the zoning regu- site and another proposed shopping traffic flow on the adjacent roadway = Perfect for the ro
lations had required,the developers center in South Windsor have been system," again provided that a se- Student Desk Sale$199 room and even su
propose building the mall first,then fighting the plans,saying the devel- ries of improvements are undertak- Rock'and land a b
adding buildings to the perimeter. - opments would bring too much traf- en.
' trist Testifies ThatMacheteros AccusedPSyChlaOf Targeting Ship .y
- Manfredi Was Mentally Ill Continued from Page Cl Hutch
Top
+ Sale 149
By DAVE DRURY On the night of his wife's death, conducted by federal agents. Chest
Writer Manfredi sustained a sudden, vio- However, defense attorneys said
Courant Stc4ff the rosecution should not be per- Sale $199
lent, ,emotional explosion, Borden P
mitted to judge what is relevant to Compact, attrac- Desk/Chest
With the jury out of the courtroom, said. Borden called the condition s their case They said that, at the
a forensic psychiatrist testified "catathymic crisis,"which he said is minlmum,P tive units for stor
.�• prosecutors must submit 3 drawers. To
Thursday that Dr. Russell F. Man- more generally known as an isolat- the documents to Clarie so the judge age and display. writing surfac
fredi was mentally ill and unable to ed,explosive impulse disorder." could decide whether they are rele- Chest has 3
control his actions on the night that Assistant States Attorney Her roomy drawers.
_ co admits he killed his wife. bert G. Appleton argued that Bor- vant. Chest 30wx30h,
Dr. Walter A. Borden, a key wit- den's diagnosis did not find a single Diane Polan,New Haven defense top 30wx48h.
Hess for the defense in Manfredi's mental disease or defect,as defined attorney, said an appellate court Immedi
murder trial,outlined his findings as by state law.
could not determine whether the
of an extensive legal argument An "isolated, explosive impulse prosecution was right about with-
een rosecution and defense at- disorder" is similar to compulsive holding the documents from defense
P attorne if the judges could not see
over a motion filed by the gambling,which federal courts have them for themselves.
Other
elude or severely restrict ruled is not sufficient for a defense of Clarie said he wanted to see a Contempora
�: Is-an] incanity. ADoleton said. -..._- -<4-U- ,,.,:,4,,,,,,n hafnre AP- stvies. Oak,
domorebe a--&a Y.Js YYY nlY4VYY ass&"=avvw- wituisacaupiuanriymousuyarn. mecountry.
won of an -':T��+ ' ��� Rivera beca
rnoes task i pert on the
institution people who wo
Manchester Road Project Draws..P,rotestswith her son ho
Mrs.Rivera
enous leader in
i an interim B MATTHEW MOSER side of the street and a 5-foot-wide the widening,said its co-chairwom- comments into the public record of- ela L. Moye, a
the institu- ' familiar with
s regarding ourgnt Staff Writer sidewalk on the south side. an,Catherine Lankford.That group the project. "Janet River
Within days of the hearing, resi- is arguing that the work would lower Many letters come from residents woman.She rad
rs also have MANCHESTER—When the town dents formed a group—the Tolland property values. along the turnpike who flatly oppose love of life,"Mo
unveiled its plans two months ago to Turnpike Property Owners — to Milton C. Shaw, engineer of mu- the plans.
Lion of the For several
�Gener- rebuild Tolland Turnpike, the rent- lead their protests,and they collect- nicipal systems for the state Depart- Joyce R. Senkbeil,of 769 Tolland home, on statey
lion was fairly muted,falling some- ed titions opposing the plan. ment of Transportation,said he was Turnpike, argued that residential
iscal Anal- two children.
teview and where between a yawn and a sigh. a opposition seems to be paying not surprised by the protests.But he neighborhoods were being sacrificed
„ ceived Social
e. But when word spread that the off. said,"There's probably other groups to commercial developers.
of the Con- $4.1 million project.meant taking At last week's Board of Directors in town that would want this "The interstate highway,I-84,has payments. But,
pled Amy- land from as many as 87 homeown- meeting, General Manager Robert project." been made wider,'she said. "Buck- wedidn't want to r
iy's revels- e� the yawns quickly turned to B.Weiss said the town was giving up The town's planning department land Street has been made wider and welfare, I w
about the me of on on�its plans for a bike-way. also favors the work,saying it fits in' straighter,Tolland Turnpike west of better."lmost t
d handling At a public hearing last month, The bike-way will no longer be a with the plan of development for the BucklandCenter has been made wid- Raul's conditi
ots and es- residents turned out by the dozens, part Hof our recommendation, he nest 10 to 15 years.At the September er.Surely all of this should be capa- proved,she of
end that the crowding into the Senior Citizens said. Were not interested 1n hurting hearing, Planning Director Mark ble of transporting the extra traffic Oak Medicag
Center to denounce the proposal to any neighborhood in town. Pellegrini raised the possibility of projected to be generated by the new Oak Terrace ho
ve director, widen and rebuild a 2-mile stretch of The dispute now turns on whether further widening the two-lane road shopping malls,etc:It seems plausi- she lives,as a
��, De- their road between North Main and to build sidewalks and,more broad- to four lanes between Union and ble that there has to be a line where cal-records libr
t — one Deming streets. They said the ly-, whether to move ahead with the Slater streets to accommodate traf- residential property must be pro- She brought
project was intended less for them project in the face of so much neigh- fie from the proposed Mall at Buck- tected from this malignant growth." month.With tha
layete that
s or- than for the developers planning to borhood opposition. land Hills near I-84. James P. Kennedy, superinten-
Ia that the build in northern Manchester, and During the weekend a second Edward J. Tomkiel, the town dent of schools,took another view. month .Her lit
the home's— make it.Her they zeroed in on proposals to build group,the North End Property Own- clerk, continues to receive letters M
an 8-foot-wide bike-way on the northers Association,was formed to fight_ from le who want.tp insert their See Manchester,Page C4 cut off after fo
or,Page CZ y _ . __-- mop - requires,but sh
"I was paying
expenses,so it w
Granby Parents Worrzy Over AIDS ma�git�ehmloor Wax ClosesSocial Security
By JON ELSEN "There are too many unanswered Southergill's husband, Gerald, duced Raul's ch
r West Hartford and KATHARINE RILEY questions,"said Linda Southergill,a said,"I want to think of this situation $180,and finally,
Courant.Staff Writers trained nurse who has four children in facts,not with emotions.The facts Michael Blum
s section of for vehicle violations,police said. GRANBY—As a child with AIDS- in the school system,one of them at ' are that AIDS is contagious. It is -.visor of the H
hours Mon- There was no evidence the truck attends Kelly Lane School today, Kelly Lane School. fatal,and there is no cure.It cant be
of the Social
ailer over- had mechanical problems, they school officials hope for calm de- Southergill said the petition cam- treated like mumps or chicken pox.I Bon, said he co
> rats case but sai
wax on the said. spite a campaign by some parents to paignminis asks the school board and ci. don't want my son's name di end up check had been s
of the park The truck was owned by Triple have the afflicted child removed ministration to rescind their deci- in some medical journal disputing
rtford.Sev- A Trucking of Trenton,N.J. from class. sion to permit any AIDS victim to currently held views." veW had reach
ddents oc- Police said the accident was "We will to conduct-school as attend any of the Granby schools as a Acting on a review of the child's Without that
try her own medics
of highway not far from the sites of thr a usual," said School Superintendent student or staff." case by the school's infectious-dis- month or more
other tractor-trailer accidents in 'Pasquale E. Starble Monday, while We make this request with the eases committee,school officials no-
cleanup ef- June,but said there was no indi- in another part of town a don par- desire to safeguard our children tified teachers and residents late by.She quit her j
ighway was cation that causes of the acci- ents were meeting to start a petition from a disease which is a proven last week of their decision to allow nine months,an
welfare this mon
state police dent.were similar. campaign against the child's attend- killer and about which little is the child to attend classes. There's no
A Department of Transports- ante• known, the petition says. _ See AIDS,Page C2 even to look fo
our traffic tion spokesman said additional . - angrily.
Kippur, speed limit signs and signs re-
stricting crossover$ from an en- Panel ClmaJrsbawmaker in Conflict Case bleOn forstate disabililtt
trance ramp to an exit on the will receive abo
CATHERINE WARREN broadened laws allowing salvage, only business.
other side of the highway have Do the numbe
Courant Staff Writer wrecking and towing companies to Plofsky said that the commission
been installed at Park Road. working,paying
use dealer plates on their trucks.The initiated an investigation of Balduc-
A June 9 accident occurred NPWTNf:TAN—RtatP RPr, Rieb- lnncely monitored nlates effectively ci's votes at the end of Julv after ting only $336
r
bor district, which Washingt6h University: -
- - — End Property Owners Assoclatlon,a nelguboTilem �•••� �---- --
group trying to stop the proposed widening of Tol- affected stretch of road:
Hebron Group
le 's Manchester Draws Protests
area and allow for proper bus-load- ing there for many years or just to
is in Mr. Reed's court as far as what he Continued from Page Cl ing stations." benefit the money-makers (busi-_
up the beach. All we will be doing is "The Board of Education's admin- The school district's bus contrac- who sses,r t to invade our c d 'rural
istrationis in favor of including side- tor,•Manchester Bus Service Inc.,
re can to improve recreational activities at walks in any proposed reconstruc- called for sidewalks on both sides of plans for their monetary benefirhood and dictate (not way-out
tion of Tolland Turnpike and North the street. p
Clark Bailey Main Street to Jefferson Street,"he Dorothy said
Bolton,of widening
Tolland ours)prop which
owo r both a�ally and
said. Turnpike, said the widening proba- property q
President of Hebron Tax District Without sidewalks on the turnpike, blq would damage her underground emotionally?" _
he said, buses.were forced to give well—as she said happened with the off c officials the said,the final planniect moves ng and
id to pay more than Reed told lake-area residents he students door-to-door service,an ex- rebuilding of I-84. engineering would take anothercon=
e lake and some wa- would buy the lake and a parcel of pensive and time-consuming chore. Is the widening of Tolland Turn- le of ears,with construction con'
Ll
iley said. enough waterfront
landpthat is not wide "Sidewsafety of alks would scho children living in the . the homike rove, theleowners whophav tbeen llv timing into the early 1990s.
eed's court as „But if there ever does become
to fix will
the Enterprise
Zone Plan Onere
1 we npr be development on the land next to the H.. tford improve property Reed is buying,no matter jl ,
ake." who does develop the land he would
,.,,__ 4-n ,.,._. fn pew-d to bmv the ...........+.~%V TWO T" Tnly rn„ee and several part- grand plan he and Wardlaw have
1
�tOwN
� � 7
.4 7-awn Ole S-0� V4601�
C
9 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
SOR-Co AREA CODE 203/644-2511
October 24 , 1986
Mrs . Anne Conde , Executive Director
Housing Authority of South Windsor
50 Elm Street
South Windsor , Connecticut
Dear Anne :
I was pleased to receive your letter of October 20 , in which you
indicate that the South Windsor Housing Authority has resolved to
apply for a Grant to construct elderly housing .
Personally , I am in support of any proposal that will provide
additional housing opportunities for South Windsor ' s fixed income
senior citizen population . I sincerely hope that your application
can be filed expeditiously , so that this most needed housing will
be available at the earliest possible date .
Very truly yours ,
Jolyh J . M ' chel
M yor
JJM: prb
<0'"" sf4< HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH WINDSOR
R
50 ELM STREET • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074
o �G
liriOSOR.CpC��
October 20, 1986
Mayor John J. Mitchell
c/o Mitchell Fuel Company, Inc.
1209 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Mayor Mitchell,
At the regular monthly meeting of the South Windsor Housing Authority
on October 16 the Commissioners made a resolution to apply to the
Connecticut 8epartment of Housing for a grant of funds to construct
forty (40) units of elderly housing to be placed on Town owned
land at the intersection of Oakland Road and Foster Street.
We ask if you, your Task Force, or any subsequent corporation
formed by your group will support this application.
If you feel that you cannot support the application, we ask
that you contact the South Windsor Housing Aubhority as soon
as possible so that we may attempt to resolve any possible
conflict.
Yours very truly,
Anne Conde
Executive Director
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
HUGH MEADE ALCORN.JR. BARRY C.HAWKINS CITYPLACE
205 CHURCH STREET
WILLIAM R.MURPHY IRVING S.SCHLOSS 35TH FLOOR P.O.BOX 1936
MILTON P.DEVANE JON T.HIRSCHOFF
JOHN H.FILER WILLIAM H.CHAMPLIN,III HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-3488 NEW HAVEN,CONNECTICUT 06509
RICHARD G.BELL TIMOTHY W.BINGHAM
WILLIAM S.ROGERS DAVID W.SCHNEIDER (203) 522-1 2 1 6 (203)789-0700
-RALPH G.ELLIOT CARTER LAPRADE TELECOPIER(203)777-1181
GORDON S.FERGUSON ROBERT L.KEEPNEWS TELECOPIER (203) 278-3802
MICHAEL J.DORNEV RICHARD W.BOWERMAN
SAMUEL W.BOWLBY GEORGE E.O'BRIEN,JR. 3 LANDMARK SQUARE
BRUCE LEWELLYN ROBERT J.METZLER,11 - STAMFORD,CONNECTICUT 06901
ROBERT K.CIULLA RONALD J.COHEN
JOSEPH C.LEE MARGARET P.MASON (203)348-5555
JAMES G.KENEFICK,JR.
TELECOPIER(203)348-3875
WILLIAM W.BOLTON,III ALAN J.SOBOL•
VERONICA M.FALLON MICHAEL B.DASHJIAN SUFFIELD VILLAGE
KATHY KIEFER PRIEST SARA CHURCH DINKLER - SUFFIELD,CONNECTICUT 06078
ALICE A.BRUNO JUDITH A.RAVEL
RICHARD F.ORR JOHN F.WYNNE.JR. -(203)668-7326
MARY BETH FREDERICK KAREN KAPEL ASTRACHAN
MARK V.CONNOLLY SHEILA M.COOLEY -
2 2
WILLIAM S.FISH,JR. MARGARET A.LITTLE October , 1986 OF COUNSEL
CHARLES W.LLEWELLYN BEN A.SOLNIT HENRY W.PASCARELLA,P.C.
KEVIN.McCANN PAUL A.MITCHELL
ROBERTA L.McCAW CHARLES E.RORABACK 2 GLEN COURT,P.O.BOX 1038
- STANLEY E.PARESE JEAN L.KELLY GREENWICH.CONNECTICUT 06836
DAVID J.WIESE MARK A.MILANO
LIVIA D.13ARNDOLLAR MARSHALL J.TOUPONSE (203)869-2000
EMMETT E.BROWN.III
'NOT ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
Richard Sartor, Town Manager
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: TP&Z Application of Bronson & Hutensky
and
Town of South Windsor and William R. Ryan v State
Traffic Commission of Connecticut, Docket No.
CV 86-0319641S
Dear Dick:
I enclose our statements for services rendered and
disbursements for the period from September 1, 1986 through
September 30, 1986 in the above-entitled matters.
Sincerely,
RGE:j rc J, I
Enclosures i d
(�... C)7
\ V0
a
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
t COUNSELLORS AT LAW
CITYPLACE
October 22, 1986 35THFLOOR
HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-3488
FEDERAL I.D.#i
Town of South Windsor 06-0640143
TO TYLER COOPER&ALCORN, DR.
To professional services rendered in
connection with representation of
Town of South Windsor and the South
Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission
with respect to Winchester Mall and
related proceedings for the period
from September 1, 1986 through September 30,
1986, including telephone conferences;
conference with client; drafting of briefs
and correspondence to client $ 1, 053 .40
To disbursements including Superior Court
record fee and postage $ 16.20
TOTAL $ 1,069. 60
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
>: COUNSELLORS AT LAW
CITYPLACE
October 22, 1986 35TH FLOOR
HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-3488
FEDERAL I.D.#
Town of South Windsor 06-0640143
TO TYLER COOPER&ALCORN, DR.
To professional services rendered
in connection with Town of South
Windsor and William R. Ryan v.
State Traffic Commission of
Connecticut, Docket No. CV
86-0319641S including review of
file and documents and the drafting
of briefs $ 680.80
TOTAL $ 680.80
D LI
1 /
ll
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
HUGH MEADE ALCORN.JR. BARRY C.HAWKINS CITYPLACE
WILLIAM R.MURPHY JON T. 35TH FLOOR 205 CHURCH STREET
S.SCHLOSS
MILTON P.DEVANE JON T.HIRSCHOFF P.O.BOX 7936
JOHN H.FILER WILLIAM H.CHAMPLIN.III HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-3488 NEW HAVEN,CONNECTICUT 06509
RICHARD G.BELL TIMOTHY W.BINGHAM
WILLIAM S.ROGERS DAVID W.SCHNEIDER (203) 522-1 216 (203)789-0700
RALPH G.ELLIOT CARTER LAPRADE TELECOPIER(203)777-1181
GORDON S.FERGUSON ROBERT L.KEEPNEWS TELECOPIER (203) 278-3802
MICHAEL J.DORNEY RICHARD W.BOWERMAN
SAMUEL W.BOWLBY GEORGE E.O'BRIEN,JR. 3 LANDMARK SQUARE
BRUCE LEWELLVN ROBERT J.METZLER.11 -
ROBERT K.CIULLA RONALD J.COHEN STAMFORD,CONNECTICUT 06901
JOSEPH C.LEE MARGARET P.MASON (203)348=5555
JAMES G.KENEFICK,JR.
TELECOPIER(203)348-3875
WILLIAM W.BOUTON,III ALAN J.SOBOL-
VERONICA M.FALLON MICHAEL B.DASHJIAN SUFFIELD VILLAGE
KATHY KIEFER PRIEST SARA CHURCH DINKLER SUFFIELD,CONNECTICUT 06078
ALICE A.BRUNO JUDITH A.RAVEL
RICHARD F.ORR JOHN F.WYNNE,JR. (203)668-7326
MARY BETH FREDERICK KAREN KAPEL ASTRACHAN
MARK V.CONNOLLY SHEILA M.COOLEY
WILLIAM 5.FISH,JR. MARGARET A.LITTLE OF COUNSEL
CHARLES W.LLEWELLYN BEN A.SOLNIT October 21, 1986 - HENRY W.PASCARELLA,P.C.
KEVIN MCCANN PAUL A.MITCHELL
ROBERTA L.McCAW CHARLES E.RORABACK 2 GLEN COURT,P.0.BOX 1038
STANLEY E.PARESE JEAN L.KELLY GREENWICH,CONNECTICUT 06836
DAVID J.WIESE MARK A.MILANO
LIVIA D.BARNDOLLAR MARSHALL J.TOUPONSE (203)869-2000
EMMETT E.BROWN,III
'NOT ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
Richard Sartor, Town Manager
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Town of South Windsor and William R. Ryan v State
Traffic_ Commision, et al
Dear Dick:
Both Homart and I-84 Associates, the developers of Buckland
Hills, filed motions to dismiss our appeal, claiming we had no
standing because under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act
only those who are parties to "contested cases", or only those
cases in which the law required an administrative hearing, could
be subject to an appeal; and, as we know, the State Traffic
Commission's statutes do not require a hearing before a
certificate is issued, and none was held.
These motions will be argued before some judge, identity yet
unknown, on October 27 at what is called "short calendar" in
Hartford Superior Court. I enclose our brief in opposition to
both of them. After the argument, the judge will usually several
weeks or several months later, render his decision in a written
opinion.
Sincerely,
RGE:j rc
Enclosure
r
I
I
i
i
I
i
i
j
CV-86-0319641S
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR SUPERIOR COURT
AND WILLIAM R. RYAN
VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD/ NEW BRITAIN
i AT HARTFORD
STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION,
ET AL. OCTOBER 22 , 1986
PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS' MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS'
• TWO MOTIONS TO DISMISS
This action is an appeal taken by the plain-
tiff-petitioners Town of South Windsor and William R. Ryan,
i
Chief of Police of the Town of South Windsor (hereinafter
the "Chief of Police") from a decision of the defen-
dant-respondent State Traffic Commission (hereinafter the
"STC") granting a certificate purportedly
p y pursuant to j
I j General Statutes Section 14-311 to the Homart Development ,
i
Co. and Manchester I-84 Associates (hereinafter collectively
j
referred to as "the developers") . As alleged in the Appeal,
il
the facility for which the certificate was issued is a
�I
ii
proposed multi-use development generally known as Buckland
i
Hills, which includes a 750,000 square foot shopping center
hand 513 residential dwelling units in the Town of
i
Manchester, to be located on a parcel of land that is j
contiguous to the Town of South Windsor.
Developers, as the developer of Buckland Hills, applied
to the STC for a certificate under General Statutes Section
14-311, which requires, inter alia, that:
No person, firm, corporation . . . shall build,
expand, establish or operate any . . . shopping
Pp g
center or other development generating large
volumes of traffic, having an exit or entrance
on, or abutting or adjoining, any state highway
or substantially affecting state highway traffic
within this state until such person or agency
has procured from the state traffic commission a i
certificate that the operation thereof will not
j
imperil the safety of the public.
On June 3, 1986, the STC, without a hearing, issued to
developers a certificate purportedly under General Statutes
Section 14-311, subject to certain conditions and require-
ments. The plaintiff-petitioners seek judicial review of
the decision to rant that certificate i g pursuant to General +
Statutes section 14-311 (e) and the constitutions of the
I� United States and of the State of Connecticut.
1I
Both Homart and I-84 Associates have filed Motions to
Dismiss this appeal asserting as the ground for dismissal a
j
I. lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I-84's motion, filed
it
i�
ii later, purports to be a joinder of Homart's, with a brief
i
Ii
r
i
-2-
i
i
I
i
i
I
citing additional arguments. The thrust of Homart's motion
is:
(1) this is not a "contested case" within the purview
it
of the UAPA; and
i
(2) the plaintiff-petitioners are not aggrieved by the
decision of the STC and therefore do not have standing.
The plaintiff-petitioners oppose both Motions to
Dismiss, and present this Memorandum in Opposition to show
j that they have met their burdens of pleading facts which i
!! give rise to a cause of action over which the court does
indeed have subject matter jurisdiction.
i
ARGUMENT
I. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS HAVE AN INDEPENDENT STATUTORY
RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE STC TO THIS COURT
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY ADDITIONAL RIGHT TO APPEAL GRANTED
IN C.G.S. §4-183 .
A. §14-311(e) Provides an Independent Grant of
�i Authority for Judicial Review
i!
Homart asserts in its brief that it assumes that this
appeal is brought "under" the provisions of the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Act, General Statutes §4-166 et
ii
Ii sea. (hereinafter the "UAPA") . From that assumption it
it
I I
'I
I
-3-
i
I
i
fastens upon the provision in §4-183 (a) providing for
appeal by "a person. . . who is aggrieved by a final decision
in a contested case. . . ". From this defendant proceeds to
i
the conclusion that plaintiffs have standing only if the STC
proceeding was a "contested case", something they claim it j
I
was not because the proceeding was neither one in which the
opportunity for a hearing was required by statute nor one
wherein a hearing was in fact held. Defendant therefore
claims plaintiffs have no standing. I
Homart has arrived at an erroneous conclusion that
i
flows ineluctably from its initial incorrect assumption.
The statute that gives plaintiffs their right to appeal is
not the UAPA. That statute may provide an additional basis
for appeal. In the case of many state agencies it provides
the sole authority for any right of appeal. And it clearly
prescribes the methods and incidents by which the appeal is I
taken and pursued. But in the case of the STC, it does not
constitute either the sole or the primary statutory authori-
ty for appeal.
That right --- as defendant I-84 Associates correctly
recognizes in its brief (p. 2) ---
is expressly accorded
i
i�
I'
-4-
�I
I
i
i
I
plaintiffs b General Statutes §14-311 e
P Y ( ) , a statute whose
li history long antedates the UAPA and a statute which the
!' General Assembly has seen fit to continue even after enact-
ment of the UAPA. It provides as follows:
(e) Any person aggrieved by any decision
1
of the state traffic commission hereunder may
appeal therefrom in accordance with the provi-
sions of section 4-183 , except venue for such I
appeal shall be in the judicial district in !
i which it is proposed to operate such establish-
ment. The provisions of this section except
insofar as such provisions relate to expansion
shall not apply to any open air theater, shop-
ping center or other development generating
large volumes of traffic in operation on July 1,
I 1967 .
(§14-311 was most recently amended by Public Act No. 85-498
in 1985; as recently s last year, however, the General
Assembly left intact and unamended subsection (e) ) .
j
§14-311 (e) provides a right of appeal to "any person
aggrieved by any decision of the state traffic commission".
Defendant Homart makes much of the fact that §14-311 "does
I�
not require that a hearing be held by the state traffic
commission before issuing a certificate of operation"
ii
(Homart brief, p. 4) . We agree that the statute does not
it
is
11 have such a hearing requirement. Under §4-183 (a) such a
�! hearing requirement would have made an STC decision a
i
i
I
I i
"contested case". The significance of §14-311(e) is thus
manifest: it grants a right of appeal from "any" decision
I
of the STC even though it neither requires nor contemplates
any hearing --- even though, that is to say, by its very
terms it recognizes such a decision would not be in a i
!
"contested case" within the meaning of the UAPA.
Homart's underlying assumption, of course, is that any
i
appeal from any administrative agency can only be pursuant
!
to the exclusive authority found in §4-183. Defendant
ignores the clear holdings of our Supreme Court in two cases
that recognize that just the opposite is so. In McDermott
V. Commissioner of Children and Youth Services, 168 Conn.
435, 440-441 (1975) the Court held that the UAPA
i
was designed for two purposes. First, it j
provides for uniform standards by which all
non-exempted agency action is to be judged;
second, it provides a vehicle for judicial
review as an alternative to preexistinct statutes `
or in situations in which no appellate review
was previously provided Thus, where a party
appeals pursuant to the jurisdictional grant of
the UAPA, the agency action is measured by the
standards contained within the UAPA. Similarly,
where a party relies upon a separate statutory
authorization . . . for judicial review, the
reviewing court must then look to the UAPA to
weigh the correctness of the agency action.
i�
(Emphasis added) .
!i
!!
11,
i
!i
i�
I
li
(j -6-
i
II
I� �
j
I
I
i
i
The court reiterated this pronouncement of the dual
i
purposes of the UAPA in Hopkins v. Pac, 180 Conn. 474
i
(1980) . There, in deciding whether the Indian Affairs
i
I
Council was an "agency" under the UAPA, the court held:
I�
�I
If
i
Resolution of this issue must be made in light
of the scope and object and the two-fold purpose
underlying the UAPA in providing "uniform
standards by which all non-exempted agency
action is to be judged" and in providing a
"vehicle for judicial review as an alternative
to pre-existing statutes or in situations in
which no appellate review was previously provid-
ed. " McDermott v. Commissioner of Children &
Youth Services, 168 Conn. 435, 441, 363 A.2d
103 .
Id. at 477 (other citations omitted) .
Thus, our Supreme Court has clearly recognized (1) the
'! continuing vitality and validity of pre-UAPA statutes as
authority for appeals from particular administrative agen-
cies; and (2) the function of the appeal rights set forth in
!i the UAPA as (a) an alternative grant of authority or, (b)
i
where no appellate review was previously provided, as the
n
sole authority.
Clearly, § 14-311 (e) falls into the first category. It
I
has existed since 1951 Public Act No. 109, §2 :
It
i'
i
-7-
I
i
I
SEC. 2 . Any person claiming to be ag-
grieved by any decision of the state traffic
commission hereunder may, within ten days Ys from
the rendering of such decision, appeal therefrom
to the superior court for the county in which it
is proposed to operate such open air theatre or,
in case said court shall not be in session, to
any judge thereof.
The very existence of such a pre-existing and continu-
ing statutory grant of a right of appeal distinguishes this
case from the two cases on which Homart relies in its brief.
1 Reitzer v. Board of Trustees of State Colleges, 2 Conn App.
196 (1984) ; and Rvbinski v. State Employees' Retirement
Commission, 173 Conn. 462 (1977) both dealt with purported
appeals from the State Employees Retirement Commission; see !
I
General Statutes § 5-155a et sec , Chapter 66. That Chapter
contains no statute analogous to § 14-311 (e) . There is no i
independent statutory authority for an appeal from the
Retirement Commission as there is from the STC. Indeed, the
Court in Rybinski expressly upheld the plea in abatement
"Because there was no other statutory authorization for an
appeal". Id. , at 473 . (emphasis supplied) .As to the
Retirement Commission, therefore, §4-183 supplies the only
�I
i
grant of appeal authority, as in category 2 (b) above.
is
r
ij
I�
-8-
i
The question will then be asked: what is the purpose
and effect of the phrase in §14-311(e) "in accordance with
i
the provisions of section 4-183"? The answer to that
11 question is found in the text and legislative history of the
Act that added that phrase, Public Act No. 77-603 . That Act
!! contained 124 sections. It dealt with what is now
§14-311 (e) in Section 38 by amending it as follows:
Ij
Any person aggrieved by any decision of the state
i! traffic commission hereunder may [within ten days
from the rendering of such decision] appeal
therefrom [to the court of common pleas for]IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4-183, I
AS AMENDED BY SECTION 1 OF THIS ACT, EXCEPT VENUE
FOR SUCH APPEAL IN the county or judicial district
in which it is proposed to operate such estab-
lishment [or, if said court is not in session, to
any judge thereof] . The provisions of this
section except insofar as such provisions relate
to expansion shall not apply to any open air
theatre, shopping center or other development
generating large volumes of traffic in operation
I
on July 1, 1967.
A review of that statute shows that it took the various
and sundry time limits for appeals from actions of various
!I state agencies and departments, and standardized them
utilizing the procedures of the UAPA. In reporting the
legislative bill out of committee to the floor of the
Senate, Senator DePiano remarked: "This Bill makes a 30 day
I
I I
-9-
appeal period uniform for all appeals from administrative
agencies. " 1977 Sen. Rep. pp. 2513-14, Remarks of Sen.
DePiano, May 19, 1977.
Thus, when Public Act No. 77-603 amended General
IlStatutes Section 14-311(e) it did not repeal the grant of
Ithe right to appeal provided by that section. It merely
i!
replaced the previous ten day appeal provision with the
I; standardized reference to the provisions of the UAPA, which
I
! provide a 30 day appeal period. The sole purpose and effect
i!
of the phrase was thus to provide uniformity of procedures
in taking and pursuing administrative appeals, whether the
,, right to take them derived from pre-existing statutes or
from §4-183 itself. And as the McDermott Court held, where, !
i
!
! as here, there exists a _separate statutory grant of the
i
I
'' right to judicial review, §4-183 provides the criteria the
,' reviewing court must apply "to weigh the correctness of the
:, agency action". See supra, p. 6.
B. The Plaintiff-Petitioners Have a Right to Bring
This Appeal Pursuant to the Constitutions of the
United States and Connecticut.
Even if the plaintiff-petitioners did not have an
l�
express statutory right (which they do) to appeal the
ii
Ii
I
-10-
decision of the STC, they would still be entitled to bring
this appeal pursuant to the fifth amendment to the Constitu-
tion of the United States and article first, section 11 of
the Constitution of Connecticut, which protect against
,, public taking of property without just compensation, and the
fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United
i,! States and article first, section 10 of the Constitution of
i
. Connecticut, which guarantee against any injury or depriva-
;
jtion of rights without due process. The Supreme Courts of
Connecticut and the United States have recognized that
actions of public agencies are reviewable for constitutional
;
; infirmities even absent a statutory declaration of an
�i
; express right to appeal.
There is a strong presumption that legislative
i bodies do not intend to prohibit all p judicial
review of agency decisions. Dunlop v.
Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 567, 95 S. Ct. 1851, 44
L.Ed. 2d 377 ; Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner,
i 387 U.S. 136, 140, 87 S. Ct, 1507, 18 L.Ed. 2d
681. Even "unreviewable" decisions of adminis-
trative bodies may be reviewed to determine
whether the body has performed its statutory
i duty, has acted in excess of its delegated
powers, or contrary to a specific legislative i
prohibition. Railway Clerks v. Employees Assn. ,
i 380 U.S. 650, 661, 85 S. Ct. 1192 , 14 L.Ed. 2d.
133 ; Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184, 79 S. Ct.
II 180, 3 L.Ed. 2d. 210.
I
-11-
I
i
iHirschfeld v. Commission on Claims, 172 Conn. �
603 , 607 (1977) .
Among the grounds for appeal alleged by the
plaintiff-petitioners are precisely the statutory and
constitutional infirmities for which the court in Hirschfeld
u
is
'i held agency action to be reviewable.
is
Accordingly, the Appeal properly sets forth independent
constitutional bases for review.
,I
II. THE PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS HAVE ALLEGED SUFFICIENT FACTS
!' TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE
STC AND THAT THEY HAVE STANDING TO BRING THIS APPEAL. I
The motion to dismiss, like its predecessor the motion
,,: to erase, admits all well-pleaded facts, and the Appeal must
be construed most favorably to the plaintiff-petitioners.
' American Laundry Machinery, Inc v State, 190 Conn. 212, i
i
217 (1983) ; Brown v. Cato, 147 Conn. 418, 419 (1960) .
I
"[E]very presumption must be indulged which favors the
I
: jurisdiction of the court. " Brewster v. Brewster, 152 Conn.
i
!; 228, 233 (1964) ; Fairfield Lumber & Supply Co v Herman,
139 Conn. 141, 144 (1952) . Facts which are necessarily j
implied by the pleading need not be expressly alleged. f
iTrichilo v. Trichilo, 190 Conn. 774, 779 (1983) ; Wexler
i
1�
-12-
1
I
I
I
Construction Co. v. Housing Authority, 144 Conn. 187, 193 i
(1956) .
A. The Plaintiff-Petitioners Have Alleged a Colorable
Claim of Direct Injury Sufficient To Satisfy the
Requirements of Standing.
l
The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that:
Standing is not a technical rule intended to
keep aggrieved parties out of court; nor is it a
test of substantive rights. Rather it is a
practical concept designed to ensure that courts
and parties are not vexed by suits brought to
vindicate nonjusticiable interests and that
judicial decisions which may affect the rights
of others are forged in hot controversy, with j
!; each view fairly and vigorously represented.
These two objectives are ordinarily held to have
been met when a complainant, makes a colorable
claim of direct injury he has suffered or is
j likely to suffers in an individual or represen-
tative capacity.
i
;; Maloney v. Pac, 183 Conn. 313 , 320-21 (1981) (citations I
i
omitted; footnote and emphasis by the court) . (�
-----------
We emphasize that the question of standing is not i
an inquiry into the merits. Standing is not shown never to
I have existed when a plaintiff loses his suit. Standing
jl requires no more than a colorable claim of injury; a
plaintiff ordinarily establishes his standing by allegations
of injury. Similarly, standing exists to attempt to
vindicate "arguably" protected interests.
1
-13-
I
i
i
i
i
j
The plaintiff-petitioners have alleged direct injuries
which they have suffered and are likely to suffer, as
required in Maloney, supra.
"'Agrievement is established "if there is a possibili-
ty, as distinguished from a certainty, that some legally
;, protected interest has been adversely affected. "'
;, Hall v. Planning Commission, 181 Conn. 442, 445, 435 A.2d
975 (1980) ; O'Leary v. McGuinness, 140 Conn. 80, 83 , 98 A.2d
l
660 (1953) . " Bakelaar v. West Haven, 193 Conn. 59, 66
i (1984) .
I
Homart and I-84 have incorrectly looked solely to
,, paragraph 14 of the Appeal for allegations of aggrievement. I
See Defendant Homart's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion
to Dismiss, pp. 6-9 . The Appeal must be read as a whole.
i
In particular, paragraphs 1, 6, 13 and 14 establish the
I
'; rights and duties of the plaintiff-petitioners constituting
,: their "legally protected interest" and the violations of
.; those rights and interference with and impingements on those
` duties by the action of the STC which have "adversely
H affected" them. .
it
i'
I
(
1
-14- i
i
i
B. The Plaintiff-Petitioners Are Within the Class of
Persons to Whom a Right to Appeal Is Granted By General
Statutes Section 14-311(e) .
is
Section 14-311 (e) provides a right of appeal to "[a]ny
person aggrieved by any decision of the state traffic
.I
llcommission hereunder. " That grant of the right to appeal is
;, much broader than the grants of rights to appeal from the
( actions of some other agencies. See, e.g. , General Statutes
!! Section 5-242 (concerning the appointment and tenure of
,j
teachers in state institutional schools) , which provides in
i;
Ij subsection (e) that "any employee aggrieved by the decision
of an employer . . . may appeal . " (Emphasis added) .
Similarly, section 10-145b (concerning teaching certifi-
cates) provides in subsection (g) that "[a]ny teacher
! aggrieved by the decision of said board may appeal . . ."
i
(Emphasis added) . Similarly, section 10-187 (concerning
fl
appeals from decisions of a hearing board re school atten-
li
!; dance) provides that "[a]ny parent or guardian or emancipat-
ed minor or a pupil eighteen years of age or older or local
11or regional board of education aggrieved by the finding of
!� i
1! the hearing board established by the state board of educa-
tion may appeal therefrom . . . " (Emphasis added) .
i
!
�I
-15-
�l i
Unlike these examples of statutes which provide an express
right of appeal to only a limited class of aggrieved per-
sons, General Statutes Section 14-311 (e) does not restrict
i
the types of persons who may appeal decisions of the STC.
These differences in the class of persons with the
statutory right to appeal certain actions of certain agen-
cies has not gone unnoticed by the legislature. Section 17
of Public Act No. 77-603 (the very statute amending § 14-311
i
to conform its time periods to the UAPA) amended General
Statutes Section 29-158 to broaden the class of persons who
,: may appeal the suspension or revocation of a private detec-
tive's license from "any licensee whose license has been
suspended or revoked" to "any party aggrieved by an order of
1
;! the commissioner hereunder. "
Thus, the legislature has consciously determined that
ij
Il certain appeals should be taken only by certain classes of
I!
;; persons, while other appeals may be taken by any person
�i
aggrieved. An appeal under General Statutes Section I
14-311 (e) is in the latter category. The plain-
1
�i
tiff-petitioners in this appeal need not show any particular
type or manner of aggrievement; they need only show some
j
-16-
i
i
I
i
i
i
i legal interest which has been impaired, and they have so
; alleged.
C. The Plaintiff-Petitioners Have Alleged Their Legal
ij Interests Which Must Be Protected.
Paragraphs 1, 6, and 13 of the Appeal allege the status
i�
of the Town of South Windsor as a municipal corporation, the
H
;! status of the Chief of Police as the Town's traffic authori-
Ilty, the fact that Buckland Hills is contiguous to the
; boundaries of the Town, and the powers and duties of the
'I
l
:: Town of South Windsor and the Chief of Police to regulate
.. and prohibit the traffic and the operation of motor vehicles
,; upon the streets and highways of the Town of South Windsor.
Specifically, paragraph 13 alleges as follows:
�i
Among the powers and duties of the Town under
law are the regulation and prohibition of traffic, i
the operation of vehicles on streets and highways
and off-street parking. The powers and duties of
j the Chief of Police as South Windsor's traffic
authority are set forth, inter alia, in General
(� Statutes chapter 249.
1! These powers and duties are found, inter alia, in General
Statutes § 7-148 (c) (6) (C) and (7) (B) .
I� These are allegations of a "specific, personal and
i�
illegal interest in the subject matter of the decision as
it
-17- i
i
distinguished from a general interest, such as is the
ii
concern of all members of the community as a whole" Nader
�I
v. Altermatt, 166 Conn. 43, 51 (1974) , thus satisfying the
jfirst prong of the test of standing cited by defendant I-84 .
The powers and duties described above are specific. They
I
are personal to the Town as a municipal corporation and its
traffic authority (here, Chief Ryan) . No one but the Town
and the Chief are statutorily charged with these powers,
: duties and responsibilities. Certainly, the people of South
i' Windsor at large are not. It is for their benefit that the
General Assembly has imposed these traffic and parking
i
': duties on the municipal corporation and its traffic authori-
. ty. Since only the Town as a municipal corporation and
! Chief Ryan as its traffic authority have these legal powers,
duties and responsibilities, only they have the requisite I
standing to bring this appeal to remedy the special injuri-
ous effect this STC decision has had upon those legal
_ I
interests.
I
Necessarily implicit in pleading the powers and duties
of the plaintiff-petitioners with respect to the roads and
�I
;; highways of the Town of South Windsor are their
n
'I
�I -18-
;I
responsibilities and potential liabilities arising from
; those powers and duties. As just one example, municipali-
ties in Connecticut have a responsibility to keep their
i� roads in reasonably safe condition for travel, which can
H give rise to legal liability. Mausch v. Hartford, 184 Conn.
i
467, 469 (1981) . Consequently, the Town of South Windsor
j
and its traffic authority have a direct, personal and
substantial legal interest in making sure that the discharge
of their responsibilities with respect to streets and
'', traffic regulation are neither interfered with nor rendered
I
ineffective. Paragraph 14, however, discloses a series of
ways in which the STC and its decision have specially and
injuriously affected plaintiffs' legal interests. I
Defendant I-84, in attacking the Town's standing here,
; has curiously cited Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424 i
i
(1980) and Athanson v. Grasso, 411 F. Supp. 1153 (D. Conn. ;
j1976) for the proposition that a Connecticut town (and its
�Ipolice chief) may not challenge the constitutionality or
(! legality of a state statute. The citations are inapposite.
i
( Plaintiffs here are not attacking the constitutionality or
illegality of §14-311 or any other state statute. Indeed,
I�
I!
�i
-19-
._ II
i
!
I
I their very right of appeal derives from §14-311 (e) , as I-84
concedes. What they are challenging --- and what no case
is questions their right to challenge --- is the action of a
I! state agency purporting to act pursuant to state law. They
,I
1; question the interpretation by the STC of the laws governing
its exercise of jurisdiction --- something Santaguida
specifically authorizes towns as plaintiffs to do --- and
I'
the legality and constitutionality of the agency's exercise
of its powers under law.
Neither, it should be noted do plaintiffs p purport to
' sue in any "representative" capacity as representatives of
I
South Windsor residents. They sue --- as only they can sue
i
--- to vindicate their own personal legal interests granted
W and imposed by statute and confirmed by common law against
the injurious effects of the STC decision. This being so,
i;
II-84 's three out-of-state lower court citiations ---
Snelling, Joseph, and Victoria Corporation (I-84 Brief, p.
11-14) --- are totally inapposite.
The allegations of the Appeal clearly show substantial
:; injury by the decision of the STC, for reasons more particu-
larly set forth in Paragraph 14 .
I�
II
I
-20-
I l
i
I!
I
i
D. The Plaintiff-Petitioners Have Alleged Colorable Claims
j: That They Have Suffered Or Are Likely To Suffer Direct
!I Injury To Their Legal Interests.
it
1. The Plaintiff-Petitioners Have Alleged That They
Are Injured By The Unjust Taking of Property
il Without Just Compensation.
!I
The taking of property by a public instrumentality
f without just compensation is a violation of the fifth and
fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United
States, as well as a violation of article first, section 11
of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut.
A "taking" in the constitutional sense does not require
actual confiscation. Actions of public bodies which have
i
the effect of permanently restricting the use of property
for an reasonable
y purpose amount to a taking; and if done i
11 without compensation they are unconstitutional and impermis-
sible. Bartlett v. Zoning Commission, 161 Conn. 24, 31
(1971) ; Horwitz v. Waterford, 151 Conn. 320, 324 (1964) .
i The Supreme Court of Connecticut has gone farther than just
it
recognizing a taking in the constitutional sense from
regulation which prevents any reasonable use resulting in a
"practical confiscation. " In Brecciaroli v. Commissioner of
Environmental Protection, the court held:
-21-
I
I
1
I
1. 1
1
Short of regulation which finally restricts
the use of property for any reasonable purpose,
resulting in a "practical confiscation, " the
determination of whether a taking has occurred
must be made on the facts of each case with
consideration being given not only to the degree
of diminution in the value of the land but also
I to the nature and degree of public harm to be
prevented and to the alternatives available to
the landowner. Horwitz v. Waterford, supra,
323-24 ; see Vartelas v. Water Resources Commis-
sion, 146 Conn. 650, 654, 153 A. 2d 822 .
168 Conn. 349, 356 (1975) .
The plaintiff-petitioners have alleged at least two
I
!! takings which have resulted from the STC's actions. Para-
graph 14 (a) of the Appeal alleges that the effect of the
traffic to be generated on the roads of South Windsor
i
amounts to a taking. In light of the consideration that
1
must be given "to the nature and degree of public harm to be
I
I
prevented, " this allegation satisfies the requirements of
pleading a taking in the constitutional sense. Brecciaroli,
supra.
i
Paragraph 14 (f) (1) of the Appeal alleges that the STC
i
requires cul-de-sacing of Slater Street, and alleges that
i
; such action terminates a long-established connector route
!! between two main arteries, disrupting long-established and
i
proper traffic flow and penalizing South Windsor residents.
�j
�I
II
-22-
I
w �• � f
i
i
�i
The plaintiff-petitioners thus have alleged that the actions
of the STC will permanently prevent them and the people of
the Town of South Windsor, whose safety they have a judi-
cially recognized duty to protect, from using Slater Street
It
H for the very purpose for which it is designed --- that of a
connector route between two major traffic arteries. The
i
: termination of that route would not only practically destroy
' the value of the road, it would also cause extensive and
;` grave harm to the public, as alleged in the Appeal.
As pointed out above, it is not necessary at this time j
'; to decide whether or not the allegations of an unconstitu-
Itional taking will be proven; the focus of the inquiry on
: the motion to dismiss is on whether the plain-
'� tiff-petitioners have alleged facts which, if proven, show
the possibility that some legally protected interest has
i! been harmed. Maloney v. Pac, supra; see also, Reitzer v.
�i Board of Trustees of State Colleges supra,it , 2 Conn. App. at
!; 201.
it
Standing does not require an inquiry into the merits of
I
' the case. It merely requires pleading a colorable claim of
injury to an interest which is arguably
j Y g y protected by statute
-23-
.r
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
or constitution. Data Processing Service v Camp, 397 U.S.
is
150, 153 (1970) ; Maloney v. Pac, sulora, at 200. The allega-
tions of the Appeal satisfy those criteria.
2 . The Plaintiff-Petitioners Have Been Injured
By the Refusal and Failure of the STC To Hold
a Hearing or To Provide an Opportunity to Be
Heard or To Present Evidence.
Paragraph 14 (b) of the appeal alleges the failure and
'.i
refusal of the STC to hold a hearing or otherwise to provide
an opportunity to be heard or to present evidence. That
denial of an opportunity to be heard substantially injured
: the plaintiff-petitioners by denying them due process
guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and 1.
Connecticut. i
For more than a century, the central meaning of
procedural due process has been clear. "Parties
whose rights are to be affected are entitled to I
be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that
right they must first be notified. " Baldwin v.
Hale, 68 U.S. 223, 233 , 17 L.Ed. 531; Windsor v.
McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274, 23 L.Ed. 914 ; Hovey v.
Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S. Ct. 841, 42 L. Ed.
215; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 34 S. Ct.
779, 58 L.Ed 1363 . It is equally fundamental I
j that the right to notice and an opportunity to
be heard "must be granted at a meaningful time
and in a meaningful manner. " Armstrong v.
ii Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S. Ct. 1187, 14 L.
k Ed. 2d 62 .
i
I�
I'
(, I
-24-
I
i
�� I
Roundhouse Constructio
n Corporation v. Telesco
Masons Supplies Co. , 168 Conn. 371, 367-77
(1975) .
!` Plaintiffs have alleged that the property which was the
subject matter of the STC's deliberations and decision was
contiguous to the Town of South Windsor. Plaintiffs have
alleged their legally-mandated powers, duties and responsi-
bilities with respect to traffic, streets and parking within
the boundaries of South Windsor. Defendant Homart has
ii
appended to its brief on its motion to dismiss the minutes
of the June 3 , 1986, STC meeting disclosing all of the STC
actions incident to its decision affecting traffic in and
I
through South Windsor, affecting streets traffic and parking
in South Windsor --- matters reposed by law exclusively in
i
i
;; plaintiffs' jurisdiction and matters as to which plaintiffs
and no one else will be held legally answerable. Plaintiffs
in their Appeal, especially in Paragraph 14, have alleged
;i
, the injurious effect upon their legal interests under law of
�I
the STC's procedures and decision.
it
I-84, with a dismissive wave of its developer's heavy
i
hand, deprecates the injury to plaintiffs as generalized or
speculative grievances. But no one can doubt that the STC
�I
I�
I
-25-
I
II
I
decision does affect how plaintffs can exercise their powers
�i
and duties and fulfill their legal responsibilites. No one
can dispute that what the STC did with respect to South
Windsor streets and traffic flow --- all as more fully
alleged in Paragragh 14 (f) of the Appeal and shown in the
aforesaid June 3 minutes --- has a direct, immediate and
injurious effect upon plaintiffs, in whom the law vests
exclusive jurisdiction over streets, traffic and parking
i
within South Windsor. And if it is claimed that the fact of
26 accidents, 11 of them involving personal injury, between
1983 - 1985 at the Route 30 - Foster Street intersection is
speculative or a generalized fear, let the doubters ask the
victims, whose numbers the STC decision bids fair to in-
' crease, and the legal liability for which will be placed
upon the plaintiff Town and Chief of Police as responsible
: for town streets and traffic.
All of these indicate that the STC knew, or should have
:' known, that plaintiffs had rights that would be affected by
i'
its decision. Roundhouse, supra. This being so, they
;; should under due process of law have been afforded an
;i
Hopportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a
ii
�i
I
-26-
it �
I
i
I
! I
i
!I
meaningful manner". Ibid. Plaintiffs allege that they did
not sit and wait to be invited, either: they asked for an
�i opportunity to be heard, and none was afforded. And it is
no answer to say, as defendants do, that § 14-311 does not
i
I� require a hearing. § 14-311 is a statute; due process is a
li
constitutional command. STC had the power and discretion to
hold a hearing. Plaintiffs asked it to do so. It failed to
I I
do so. It proceeded to render a decision eviscerating the !
i ,
power of plaintiffs under law effectively to fulfill their
i
legal responsibilities. That abuse of discretion and
i
dereliction of duty cannot escape judicial review.
All of the matter comprehended in Paragraph 14 falls j
within the provisions of General Statutes § 4-183 (g) .
I
Plaintiffs have simply sought to be more specific than they
would have had they merely cited that statute.
Regardless of whether the right to appeal from the
it actions of an agency arises under the UAPA or elsewhere, all
li
state agency action is to be governed and guided by the
' UAPA. McDermott v. Commissioner of Children & Youth Servic-
Ives, supra, 168 Conn. at 440; New Haven v. State Board of
i
IILabor Relations, 36 Conn. Sup. 18, 23 (Sup.Ct. , Berdon, J. ,
i
,i
I
i
I
-27-
i
i
11 Oct. 5, 1979) . The UAPA sets the standards by which all
state agencies must make decisions which affect substantial
i
ii rights (such as the rights of the plaintiff-petitioners) as
i; follows:
�i
The court may reverse or modify the decision if
substantial rights of the appellant have been
prejudiced because the administrative findings,
inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1)
In violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory
authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful
procedure; (4) affected by other error of law;
(5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the whole
record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or
characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion.
f C.G.S. §4-183 (g) .
Paragraph 14 of the Appeal alleges that the actions of
" the STC were in violation of the standards set forth in
General Statutes Section 4-183 (g) as quoted above, causing
prejudice to the plaintiff-petitioners' substantial rights.
Accordingly, the plaintiff-petitioners have sufficient-
ly alleged their colorable claims of injury to their legal
interests.
III. IF THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE
i PARTICULARITY WITH WHICH THE APPEAL IS STATED, ITS
REMEDY IS A REQUEST TO REVISE RATHER THAN A MOTION TO
DISMISS.
I
ii
i
I
i -28-
i
II 1
As the first pleading in an appeal from the actions of
an administrative agency, an Appeal, like a Complaint, need
only set out the matters in question "in such a way as
fairly to apprise the adverse party of the state of facts
( which it is intended to consider." Kovner v. Dubin, 104
( Conn. 112 , 116 (1926) ; Sun Oil Co. v. Keane, 2 Conn. Cir.
524, 528 (App. Div. , Mar. 10, 1964) .
I
ii If, however, defendants remain in any doubt as to the
issues plaintiffs are raising by this appeal, its remedy is
jfound in the Practice Book. Since administrative appeals
,, are civil actions for purposes of the Practice Book Rules,
i' P.B. §256; defendants may file a request to revise under
i
P.B. §147 askingfor
greater particularity in plaintiff's
l
;.' complaint. While plaintiffs believe the issues they raise
: have been clearly stated, they will be happy to amplify
ii
11their complaint pursuant to § 147 if defendanta are unhappy
jor in doubt. Defendants has but to file their Request to
it Revise.
ii
ii
Ii
I
I
i,
-29-
II
I�
I
it
CONCLUSION
Tested by the standards by which a motion to dismiss
must be judged, the defendant-respondents Homart and I-84
have failed to meet their burden of showing that the
plaintiff-petitioners have failed to allege a colorable
claim of injury they have suffered or are likely to suffer.
Il Consequently, the motions to dismiss must be denied.
I
i!
�I
THE PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS
I
Town of South Windsor and I
William R. Ryan j
i
By
Ralph G. liot, of
Tyler Cooper & Alcorn
CityPlace - 35th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3488
Juris No. 00362
Tel. (203) 522-1216
Their Attorneys -
I
�I
is t
!I
I�
li
-30-
w II
II
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has
been sent this 22nd day of October, 1986, via U.S. Mail,
postage prepaid to: Michael D. Neubert, Esq. , Updike Kelly
& Spellacy, One State Street, P.O. Box 31277, Hartford, CT
i 06103 ; Susman & Duffy, P.C. , P.O. Box 1684, 234 Church
Street, New Haven, CT 06507 and Robert T. Morrin, Assistant
( Attorney General, 90 Brainard Road, Hartford, CT 06114.
j�
'! Ralph G lliot
f
i
it
!i
i
I)
I
i�
20, 1986
To the Mayor & the Town Council of South Windsor-,Ct.
Oct.The Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Association and residents of the south eastern
section of South Windsor are very concerned regarding the traffic on our streets.
The newly opened exit from I-86 going west to Buckland road which opened in Aug.
1986, we are experiencing increase of traffic on Chap&1 Road,Pleadant Valley Rd,
and Clark Street; as our roads serve as a short cut to Bissell Bridge, which
is toll free to I-91. With the increase of developments and other devvelopments
either proposed or presently under construction in the South Eastern seutipn of
our rural residential area. The generating traffic volumes especially trucks
our local streets are being severly impacted by these projects creating safety
hazards to both pedestrains and vehicular travelers. The people's cnncerns also
are noise and air pollution. this will greatly effect and change the nature
of the existing rural residential environments by this increase of traffic and
thereby resulting in depreciated residential property values. The larger trucks
traveling our residential streets are 14 418 cwheelers. The 14 wheelers weigh
50,000 to 60,000 lbs, the 18 wheelers-1weigh 80,000 to 100,000 lbs. With the
deregulation of trucks these weights caay be even higher. A truck transporting
frozen food due to the thickness of the walls may weigh more. With this type of
truck traffic and the increase of car traffic will the culverts handle this
weight? There is one on Clark Street, two on Pleasant Valley Road, and the
bridge by the Veterans Memorial Park.
Exiting onto Pleasant Valley Road from I-86 signs are missing indicating which
way to turn onto Buckland Road and Route 30. The State of Conn. Dept. of
transportation was called, we were referred to the Manchester Police Dept. ,
and spoke with a Mr. Woods of the road division. No sign as yet. Called
on 9-12-86.
Attached are traffic counts taken on the following days:
8-19-86 4:10P.M. to 5:00 P.M. Intersection of Amato Drive & Pleasant Valley.
87 trucks, 32 vans,
8-20-86 4:OOP.M. to 5:00 P.M. Same location.
69 trucks, 40 vans, 14 Bronco' s,Jimmy' s Ram Charger etc.
This was taken by Melaine Cunningham of 1104 Pleasant Valle*.,-Rd.
8-26-87 3:30P.M. to 4:30P.M. Counted from 1164 Pleasant Valley Rd.
491 cars, 9 trucks, 3 trailer-.-trucks, 9 motorcycles.
P-12-86 3:30 to 4:30P.M. same location.
511 cars, 4 trailer trucks, 11 trucks, 6 motorcycles.
This was taken by Frank Coggshall of 1164 Pleasant Valley Rd.
We are asking the South Windsor Town Council to petition the Governor
to expedite construction of the I-291 connector from Bissell Bridge,So.
Windsor to Manchester which will serve to divert increase in traffic
away from local residential neighbrboods therby negating potentially
harmful effects of air and noise pollution, property depreciation, and
the loss of presently-,enjoyed rural residential atmosphere and insure
the Public Safety of our residents.
Sincerely,
r
(Mrs)Rose Pastula
President, The Pleasant Valley Neighorbood Association
CC; file _
30� ✓Baca/
i
I'
thus terminating a connector street between two very impor-
tant arteries, Tolland Turnpike and Route 30, a
long-established collector route, thus disrupting
long-established and proper traffic flow and penalizing South
Windsor residents) ; and (2) the creation of an extraordinari-
ly and life-threateningly dangerous condition at the inter-
section of Foster Street and Route 30, where during the
calendar years 1983-1985 there were a total of 26 separate
accidents at the intersection, 11 of which involved personal
injury. All of the aforesaid has the effect of inter alia
imperilling the safety of the public.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff-petitioners appeal from the deci-
sion of the STC and petition the court to review that deci-
sion, to enter judgment reversing it or remanding for further
consideration, and to grant such further legal and equitable
relief as the Court deems appropriate; and make application
for leave to present additional evidence in support of that
appeal which is material, because plaintiff-petitioners were
afforded no hearing before the STC at which to present any
evidence.
-8-
i
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 1st day of July,
�i
1 1986.
I
I
I.
THE PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS
I TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, AND
WILLIAM R. RYAN
i
By ,
R 1ph G. lliot, of
Tyler Cooper & Alcorn 00362
CityPlace - 35th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3488
(203) 533-1216
!� Their Attorney
I
i
I,
i
-9-
I
I'
II
RETURN DATE: JULY 15, 1986
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR SUPERIOR COURT
AND WILLIAM R. RYAN
V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD-NEW BRITAIN
AT HARTFORD
STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION,
HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
AND MANCHESTER I-84 JULY 1, 1986
ASSOCIATES
BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, the Town of
South Windsor, Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South
Windsor, Connecticut, as principal, and William H. Champlin
III, CityPlace - 35th Floor, Hartford, Connecticut, as
surety, are holden and stand firmly bound and obliged,
jointly and severally unto the State of Connecticut and the
other defendants, in the penal sum of $250, to be paid to the
State or its certain attorney and to the other defendants; to
which payment we do bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and
administrators, firmly by these presents.
� r
i'
i
i
ii
I
I!
li
The condition of this obligation is such that whereas
the above bounden principal has appealed from an order of the
State Traffic Commission dated June 3 , 1986, and mailed June
4, 1986 which granted a certificate under General Statutes
Sec. 14-311 to the other defendants returnable to the
Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford/New
Britain at Hartford on July 15, 1986.
Now therefore, if the principal shall prosecute this
(appeal to effect and shall pay all costs in case it fails to
isustain such appeal, then this bond shall be void, otherwise
to remain in full force.
Dated at Hartford and South Windsor, Connecticut this
, 30th day of June, 1986.
PRINCIPAL
THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
By4i� %!
Ric and J Sartor,
Town Manager and
Chief Executive Officer
SUR Y
Will ' Champl n I
-2-
i
�i
�I
RETURN DATE: JULY 15, 1986
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR SUPERIOR COURT
AND WILLIAM R. RYAN
V• JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD-NEW BRITAIN
AT HARTFORD
( STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION,
HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
AND MANCHESTER I-84 JULY 1, 1986
ASSOCIATES
BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, Richard J.
Sartor, Town Manager and chief executive officer of the Town
of South Windsor and appointing authority of William R.
Ryan, the traffic authority, of Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan
Avenue, South Windsor, Connecticut, as principal, and William
H. Champlin III, CityPlace - 35th Floor, Hartford, Connecti-
cut, as surety, are holden and stand firmly bound and
obliged, jointly and severally unto the State of Connecticut
and the other defendants, in the penal sum of $250, to be
paid to the State or its certain attorney and to the other
I
I
i�
l
defendants; to which payment we do bind ourselves, our heirs,
executors and administrators, firmly by these presents.
The condition of this obligation is such that whereas
,the appointee of the above bounden principal has appealed
from an order of the State Traffic Commission dated June 3 ,
1986, and mailed June 4, 1986 which granted a certificate
junder General Statutes Sec. 14-311 to the other defendants
I
( returnable to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of
�IHartford/New Britain at Hartford on July 15, 1986.
Now therefore, if the appointee of the principal shall
prosecute this appeal to effect and shall pay all costs in
case it fails to sustain such appeal, then this bond shall be
void, otherwise to remain in full force.
-2-
II
i
II
II
II
Dated at Hartford and South Windsor, Connecticut this
30th day of June, 1986.
PRINCIPAL
RICHARD J. SARTOR,
TOWN MANAGER AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF SOU WINDSOR
B
� Y
Richard J. /a—rto—r, —
Town Manager and
Chief Executive Officer
SU ETA'
William H. Cha lin III
-3-
RETURN DATE: JULY 15, 1986
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR SUPERIOR COURT
AND WILLIAM R. RYAN
e
V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD-NEW BRITAIN
AT HARTFORD
STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION,
HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
AND MANCHESTER I-84 JULY 1, 1986
ASSOCIATES
CITATION AND SUMMONS
TO ANY PROPER OFFICER, GREETING:
BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby
commanded to summon the State Traffic Commission, at State
Department of Transportation, 24 Wolcott Hill Road,
Wethersfield, CT 06109; Homart Development Company, a
foreign corporation, and Manchester I-84 Associates, a
Connecticut limited partnership, both giving their address as
"c/o Attorney John Fitzgerald, 99 E. Center Street, Manches-
ter, CT 060400, to appear before the Superior Court within
and for the Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain at
l
Hartford on July 15, 1986, then and there to answer unto the
foregoing petition and appeal of The Town of South Windsor, a
Connecticut municipal corporation having offices at Town
Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, CT 06074 and
William R. Ryan, Chief of Police of the Town of South
Windsor,- with his office at Police Department Headquarters,
Sand Hill Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 by serving upon each
a true and attested copy of the appeal and petition, bond,
and of the citation and summons in the manner prescribed for
the service of civil process, at least twelve days before
said return date, and due- return make.
Hereof fail not, but of this writ with your doings
thereon make due service and return.
-2-
i
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 1st day of July,
1986.
By
Z7��
Ralph G. lliot, o
Tyler Cooper & Alcorn 00362
CityPlace - 35th Floor-
Hartford, CT 06103-3488
(203) 522-1216
Please enter the appearance of:
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
CityPlace -- 35th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3488 (203) 522-1216
as attorneys for the plaintiffs
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
Juris No. 00362
By
Ral h GE. Fliot
A Member of the Firm
-3-
RETURN DATE: JULY 15, 1986
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR SUPERIOR COURT
AND WILLIAM R. RYAN
V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD-NEW BRITAIN
AT HARTFORD
STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION,
HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
AND MANCHESTER I-84 JULY 1, 1986
ASSOCIATES
APPEAL
To the Superior Court for the Judicial District of
Hartford-New Britain at Hartford on July 15, 1986, come the
Town of South Windsor, a municipal corporation of the State
of Connecticut with its offices at Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan
Avenue, South Windsor, CT. 06074, and William R. Ryan, Chief
of Police of the Town of. South Windsor, with his office at
Police Department Headquarters, Sand Hill Road, South
Windsor, CT 06074, appealing from a decision of the State
Traffic Commission and petitioning this court for judicial
review of that decision, and complain and say:
1. Plaintiff-petitioner the Town of South Windsor
(hereinafter referred to _ as "the Town") is, and at all
F •
� c
relevant times herein was, a municipal corporation of the
State of Connecticut. Plaintiff-petitioner William R. Ryan
is the Chief of Police of the Town and is by law its traffic
authority, appointed as such by the Town Manager Richard J.
Sartor who, in turn, is the chief executive officer of the
town. _
2. Defendant-respondent State Traffic Commission
(hereinafter referred to as "the STC") is a public agency of
the State of Connecticut created pursuant to General Statutes
Sec. 14-298, and having the powers and duties prescribed in,
inter alia, chapter 249 of the General Statutes.
3 . Among the powers and duties of the STC are those
set forth in General Statutes Sec. 14-311 with respect to
applications by those proposing to build 'shopping centers or
other development generating large.volumes -of traffic" for "a.
certificate that the operation thereof will not imperil the
safety of the public".
4. Under date of October 22, 1985,
defendant-respondents "Homart Development Co. and Manchester
I-84 Associates c/o Attorney John Fitzgerald, 99 E. Center
Street, Manchester, CT. 06040" (hereinafter collectively
-2-
C
referred to as "Homart" or "the developers") as owners of a
facility called "Buckland Hills, Buckland Street, Town of
Manchester 06040" filed an application for the aforesaid kind
of certificate with respect to that facility under General
Statutes Sec. 14-311.
5. The application stated that the facility would have
4,302 parking spaces; that construction would start on July
1, 1986; and that the opening date would be June 30, 1988.
6. The facility in question is generally known as
Buckland Hills. It will be a multi-use development in the
Town of Manchester on the-east side of Buckland Street
between Interstate 84 and the South Windsor town line. The
subject property is contiguous to the Town, because the
aforesaid town line forms one of. the subject property's
boundaries.
7. The parcel of land consists of approximately 138
acres, and is to be developed into a shopping mall having
gross leasable area of 750,000 square feet, and a total of
513 residential dwelling units (22 single-family, 76 duplex,
and 177 townhouse and 238 high-rise units) .
S. The proposed mall would be directly across Buckland
Street from the Winchester Mall, located on 57 acres of land
-3-
primarily in South Windsor, which would, like Buckland Hills
Mall, be a regional shopping mall of similarly large retail
square footage. On February 5, 1985, the South Windsor
Planning and Zoning Commission had, with significant condi-
tions attached with respect to traffic-related improvements,
granted the application of Winchester Mall's developers for a
change of zone and approval of a general plan of development.
9. The STC designated the Buckland Hills application
STC No. 076-8510-01.
10-. The STC held no public hearing on the Buckland
Hills application. that would have afforded interested per-
sons, including plaintiff-petitioners, an opportunity to
present facts and evidence the STC should have considered
before rendering its decision. w
11. The STC under date of June 3, 1986, issued to
Homart purportedly under General Statutes Sec. 14-311 Certifi-
cate No. 603 for the aforesaid Buckland Hills, subject to
conditions and requirements set forth in an attached report
and plans.
12. Notice of this final decision was mailed under date
of June 4, 1986, by William W. Stoeckert, Executive Director
of the STC.
-4-
i
(I i
13 . Among the powers and duties of the Town under law
are the regulation and prohibition of traffic, the operation
of vehicles on streets and highways and off-street parking.
The powers and duties of the Chief of Police as South
Windsor's traffic authority are set forth, inter alia, in
General Statutes chapter 249.
14. The plaintiff-petitioners are aggrieved by the
STC's aforesaid decision issuing the certificate in that the
decision was in violation of the Constitutions of the United
States and the State of Connecticut, in excess of the STC's
statutory authority, made. upon unlawful procedure; clearly
erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial
evidence on the whole record; or arbitrary or capricious or
characterized by an abuse of, or clearly unwarranted exercise
of, discretion in some or all of various respects, including
the. following:
a.- In that the effect upon the Town of the roads
and traffic generated in South Windsor as a result of the
decision will effectively constitute a taking of property of
the Town without just compensation.
-5-
b. In that the STC failed, neglected and refused
to hold a hearing on the application or to give
plaintiff-petitioners and other interested persons a reason-
able alternative opportunity, to afford interested persons,
including plaintiff-petitioners, an opportunity to be heard
and present evidence on the adverse effect granting-the
certificate would have on the Town, despite the request for
such a hearing or opportunity made by the
plaintiff-petitioner Ryan.
c. - In that the STC failed to include in its
consideration of. the Homart application the factors required
by law, reason and due process to be considered, whereas had
they been considered the STC could not legally have rendered
the decision it did. }
d. In that the STC failed to include in its
consideration the significantly adverse effect granting the
certificate would have on South Windsor in light of the
effects anticipated from the previously-approved Winchester
Mall, whereas if such consideration had been given, the STC
could not legally have rendered the decision it did.
-6-
e. In that the STC has failed to adopt regula-
tions, as the statutes require it to do, promulgating and
adopting rational (or any) standards for making decisions
such as the issuance of the Buckland Hills certificate.
f. In that the STC ignored, and/or failed ade-
quately to protect South Windsor against, the significantly
adverse effect upon South Windsor of the traffic which would
be generated by the Buckland Hills facility, whereas had it
done so it would have denied or substantially modified the
Buckland Hills certificate. Among the conditions to the
certificate which the STC-should have required the developers
to accomplish prior to the opening of the Buckland Hills
Mall, but did not require in an abuse of its discretion or a
clearly unwarranted exercise of that discretion, are certain
improvements on Smith Street, Wheeler Road', and Clark
Street/Pleasant Valley Road. Among the other aspects of the
certificate which constitute an abuse of the STC's discretion
or an unwarranted exercise of it, or are arbitrary or capri-
cious are (1) the manner in which it deals with Slater Street
and the increased traffic to be generated by the Buckland
Hills Mall (The STC requires cul-de-sacing Slater Street,
-7-
i
I
thus terminating a connector street between two very impor-
tant arteries, Tolland Turnpike and Route 30, a
long-established collector route, thus disrupting
long-established and proper traffic flow and penalizing South
Windsor residents) ; and (2) the creation of an extraordinari-
ly and life-threateningly dangerous condition at the inter-
section of Foster Street and Route 30, where during the
calendar years 1983-1985 there were a total of 26 separate
accidents at the intersection, 11 of which involved personal
injury. All of the aforesaid -has the effect of inter alia
imperilling the safety of the public.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff-petitioners appeal from the deci-
sion of the STC and petition the court to review that deci-
sion, to enter judgment reversing it or remanding for further
consideration, and to grant such further legal and equitable
relief as the Court deems appropriate; and make application
for leave to present additional evidence in support of that
appeal which is material, because plaintiff-petitioners were
afforded no hearing before the STC at which to present any
evidence.
-8-
fi
i
ii
�I
I� Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 1st day of July,
1986..
THE PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, AND
WILLIAM R. RYAN
_ _
i
II
I By
II R 1ph G. lliot, of
Tyler Cooper & Alcorn 00362
CityPlace - 35th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3488
(203) 533-1216
Their Attorney
-9-
1
RETURN DATE: JULY 15, 1986
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR : SUPERIOR COURT
AND WILLIAM R. RYAN
V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD-NEW BRITAIN
AT HARTFORD
STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION,
HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
AND MANCHESTER I-84 JULY 1, 1986
ASSOCIATES : .
BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, the Town of
South Windsor, Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South
Windsor, Connecticut, as principal, and William H. Champlin
III, CityPlace - 35th Floor, Hartford, Connecticut, as.
surety, are holden and stand firmly bound and obliged,
jointly and severally unto the State of Connecticut and the
other defendants, in the penal sum of $250, to be paid to the
State or its certain attorney and to the other defendants; to
which payment we do bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and
administrators, firmly by these presents.
r
1
I
The condition of this obligation is such that whereas
the above bounden principal has appealed from an order of the
State Traffic Commission dated June 3, 1986, and mailed June
4, 1986 which granted a certificate under General Statutes
Sec. 14-311 to the other defendants returnable to the
Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford/New
Britain at Hartford on July 15, 1986.
Now therefore, if the principal shall prosecute this
appeal to effect and shall pay all costs in case it fails to
sustain such appeal, then this bond shall be void, otherwise
to remain in full force
Dated at Hartford and South Windsor, Connecticut this
30th day of June, 1986.
PRINCIPAL
THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
By
4%G
Richard J Sartor,
Town Manager and
Chief Executive Officer
S Y
Willi Cham'pl n Irl
-2-
RETURN DATE: JULY 15, 1986
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR SUPERIOR COURT
AND WILLIAM R. RYAN
V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD-NEW BRITAIN
AT HARTFORD
STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION,
HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, s
AND MANCHESTER I-84 JULY 1, 1986
ASSOCIATES
BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, Richard J.
Sartor, Town Manager and chief executive officer of the Town
of South Windsor and appointing authority of William R.
Ryan, the traffic authority, of Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan
Avenue, South Windsor, Connecticut, as principal, and William
H. Champlin III, CityPlace - 35th Floor, Hartford, Connecti-
cut, as surety, are holden and stand firmly bound and
obliged, jointly and severally unto the State of Connecticut
and the other defendants, in the penal sum of $250, to be
paid to the State or its certain attorney and to the other
defendants; to which payment we do bind ourselves, our heirs,
executors and administrators, firmly by these presents.
The condition of this obligation is such that whereas
the appointee of the above bounden principal has appealed
from an order of the State Traffic Commission dated June 3 ,
1986, and mailed June 4, 1986 which granted a certificate
under General Statutes Sec. 14-311 to the other defendants
returnable to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of
Hartford/New Britain at Hartford on July 15, 1986.
Now therefore, if the appointee of the principal shall
prosecute this appeal to effect and shall pay all costs in
case it fails to sustain such appeal, then this bond shall be
void, otherwise to remain in full force.
-2-
Dated at Hartford and South Windsor, Connecticut this
30th day of June, 1986.
PRINCIPAL
RICHARD J. SARTOR,
TOWN MANAGER AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF SOU WINDSOR
By
Richard J. Partor,
Town Manager and
Chief Executive Officer
S T
William H. Ch lin III
-3-
TYLER COOPER & ALCORN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
HUGH MEADE ALCORN,JR. JAMES G.KENEFICK,JR. 205 CHURCH STREET
WILLIAM R.MURPHY BARRY C.HAWKINS CITYPLACE
MILTON P.DEVANE IRVING S.SCHLOSS P.O.BOX 1936
JOHN H.FILER JON T.HIRSCHOFF 35TH FLOOR
RICHARD BELL MH.CHAMPLIN, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-3488
III
WILLIAM S.
TIMOTHY
NEW HAVEN,CONNECTICUT 06509
ROGERS TIMOTHY W.BINGHAM (203)789-0700
ROBERT E. W.IA
NNOTTI CARTER LAPRADE
THORNENE AVID W.SCHNEIDER
LAWRENCE W.IA (203) 522-1216 TELECOPIER(203)789-2133
RALPH G.ELLIOT ROBERT L.KEEPNEWS TELECOPIER (203) Z78-3802
GORDON S.FERGUSON RICHARD W.BOWERMAN
MICHAEL J.DORNEY GEORGE E.O'BRIEN,JR. 3 LANDMARK SQUARE
SAMUEL W.BOWLBY ROBERT J.METZLER,II SUITE 310
BRUCE LEWELLYN RONALD J.COHEN
ROBERT K.CIULLA MARGARET P.MASON STAMFORD,CONNECTICUT 06901
JOSEPH C.LEE
(203)348-5555
WILLIAM W.BOUTON,III LIVIA D.BARNDOLLAR TELECOPIER(203)348-5555
VERONICA M.FALLON EMMETT E.BROWN,III
KATHY KIEFER PRIEST LEONARD C.BOYLE
ALIGE A.BRUNO MICHAEL B.DASHJIAN
SUFFIELD VILLAGE
JEFFREY G.MAGUIRE SARA CHURCH DINKLER SUFFIELD,CONNECTICUT 06078
RICHARD F.T FR PAUJUDI T.A.
RAVEL
June 27, 1986 203)668-7326
MARV BETH FREDERICK JUDITH A.RAVEL
MARK V.CONNOLLY JOHN F.WYNNE.JR.
JOHN F.CULLINAN KAREN KAPEL ASTRACHAN
WILLIAM S.FISH,JR. SHEILA M.COOLEY
OF COUNSEL
CHARLES W.LEEWELLYN MARGARET A.LITTLE HENRY W.PASCARELLA,P.C.
KEVIN McCANN BEN A.SOLNIT
ROBERTA L.McCAW PAUL A.MITCHELL 2 GLEN COURT,P.O.BOX 1038
STANLEY E.PARESE CHARLES E.RORABACK GREENWICH,CONNECTICUT 06836
DAVID J.WIESE
(203)869-2000
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Richard Sartor, Town Manager
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Pleasant Valley, et al v. South Windsor Planning and
Zoning Commission, Docket No. CV-85-0302537S
Dear Dick:
At your request I have drafted, and enclosed a copy of, a
resolution which the Town Council might consider adopting at the
June 30 meeting. At its request, I shall plan to attend the
meeting at 7: 30 on June 30.
Sincerely,
RGE:j rc
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the State Traffic Commission on June 3, 1986, issued
Certificate No. 603 pursuant to General Statutes Section 14-311 to
Homart Development Co. and Manchester I-84 Associates; and
WHEREAS, the said Commission failed to hold a hearing to take
evidence from, inter alia, the Town of South Windsor and other
interested and affected persons on the adverse effect upon them of
the traffic and other incidents to be generated by the development
whose planning made the certificate necessary; and
WHEREAS, the said Commission failed to take into consideration the
criteria the law requires it to consider before issuing the
permit, including but not by way of limitation the effect of
traffic expected to be generated by the proposed and approved
Winchester Mall in South Windsor; and
WHEREAS, the Town is aggrieved by the issuance of the Certificate
and its interests will be adversly affected by the traffic
generated and traffic patterns and flow permitted under said
certificate; and
WHEREAS, the Town has been advised that the only way its interests
in this regard can be protected is by appealing to the courts from
the Commission decision.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of
South Windsor that the Town Manager be and he hereby is authorized
and directed to take all action necessary and proper to institute
and pursue in the name of the Town and appropriate others an
appeal to the court from the aforesaid State Traffic Commission
Certificate, and to retain the law firm of Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
to institute and pursue said action.
a SOW N SF,`
y'. 7-0-WI-2- aP Saudi
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
���soe•C0 AREA CODE 203/644-2511
RICHARD J. SARTOR
Town Manager
June 27 , 1986
Ralph Elliot , Esq .
Tyler , Cooper & Alcorn
CityPlace , 35th Floor
Hartford , Connecticut 06103
Dear Atty . Elliot :
Re : STC Approval of Buckland Hills Traffic Proposal
Attached is a copy of a Memorandum from Ms . Marcia Banach , South
Windsor ' s Acting Director of Planning , regarding several
concerns that were not adequately addressed in the Buckland
Hills Proposal , or STC ' s traffic approval .
Additionally , I have included herein a copy of a letter from the
State of Connecticut Traffic Commission to Police Chief
William Ryan , dated June 23 , 1986 , indicating in the first
paragraph that a copy of Certificate No . 603 had been forwarded ;
and , in the second paragraph , that Town of South Windsor
officials had been advised at a June 3 meeting that requests for
revisions and/or additions to the Certificate could be filed
with that office .
I have spoken with the Town staff members who were present at
that meeting , and they have indicated that they had not been
advised as indicated by Mr . Stoeckert ' s letter .
If I may be of further assistance , please call . I look forward
to seeing you on Monday , June 30 , at 7 : 30 p .m . , at the Town
Hall .
Very truly yours,
-7- �, -1-2 J,1pl,255z�;
Town Man I
r
RJS : prb
Attmts .
•�E„BFR�STATE OF CONNECT�ICUT
Commissioner of Ts:+r,.,ortaaon
TRAFFIC COMMISSION commissioner of Pub:i.Safe:}
Department of Transportation Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
24 Wolcott Hill RoaL • P.O. Draxi A
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 -t jo
June 4, 1986
Homart Development Co.
& Manchester I-84 Associates
99 East Center Street
c/o Attorney John Fitzgerald
Manchester, Ct. 06040
Dear Sir :
Subject: Buckland Hills
Buckland Street
Manchester, Ct. 06040
Certificate No. 603 and Traffic Investigation
Report No. 076-8510-01 detailing conditions of the
Certificate are enclosed.
An encroachment permit must be obtained from
the Bureau of Highways-District No . 1 office at
1107 Cromwell Avenue in Rocky Hill prior to per—
forming any work within the state highway right-
of way.
Very truly yours,
William W. Stoecker-t
Executive Director
cc : Chief Robert D. Lannan -
Mr. Russell Davidson
Chief William R. Ryan
Mr. Thomas D'Auria _
Attorney Thomas W. DeMille
Fuss & O'Neill, Inc.
P11011`': 566-5228
STATE OF CONNECTICUT '"EMBERS
Commissioner of Transportation
` TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of Public Safety
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
Department of Transportation
24 Wolcott Hill Road • P.O. Drawer A
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
ISSUED June 3, 1986
CERTIFICATE N0.603
ISSUED TO Homart Development Co & Manchester I-84 Associates
C/O Attorney John Fitzgerald-99 East Center Street
Town of Manchester, Ct . 06040
FOR Buckland Hills
Buckland Street
Manchester, Ct. 06040
pursuant to Section 14-311 of the General Statutes
of Connecticut, as revised and the Regulations
of the State Traffic Commission
The applicant is hereby ordered to comply with the conditions and
requirements as set forth in the attached report and plans .
Failure to comply with all conditions and the requirements will
constitute sufficient basis for revocation of the Certificate.
NO PERSON SHALL OPERATE THE DEVELOPMENT OR ANY PORTION THEREOF
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE ABOVE
UNLESS PERMISSION HAS BEEN REQUESTED AND RECEIVED FROM THE STATE
TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO OPERATE PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE CONDITIONS
AND REQUIREMENTS.
THIS CERTIFICATE SHALL EXPIRE ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE ISSUED
UNLESS ALL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE COMPLIED WITH WITHIN
THAT PERIOD OR PERMISSION IS REQUESTED AND OBTAINED FROM THE
STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE.
Upon due notice from this Commission, this Certificate may be
reviewed and modified °or revoked in the interest of public
caf ety.
J.WILLIAM BURNS
CHAIRMAN
William-W. Stoeckert
Executive Secretary
ri C W. STATE OF COr4NECTiCUT
Report By Smith Date 5/86 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S.T.C. No. nzr,-Rr,1n-ni
Robert S.
Checked ByT -iorkQ6 s ate 5,/86 -TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION Loc. No.
REPORT TO THE
STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION Date to S.T.C.
-Completion Dates- TOWN Manchester
Received By S.T.G.
LOCATION North-East Quadrant ��N
Signals Signs I-84 and Buckland Street . Date _ 1. F
Markings Ap
proved By S.T.C.
S.T.C. Notified REQUESTED BY
Homart Development Co. & Date JU
Memo No. .. - -�--Y. t
Manchester I-84 Associated
ti fi c
See Previous S.T.C. Report Cer
HOW REQUESTED
No. DATE
10/22/85 Executive Secretary
Recommendations
In accordance with Section 14-311 of the General Statutes
of Connecticut, as revised, and as directed by the State Traffic
Commission, issue a certificate to Homart development Company and
Manchester I-84 Associates for the Buckland Hills 41" to be located
in the Town of Manchester stating that the operation thereof will not
imperil the safety of the public. This recommendation is referenced
to plans prepared,-by Fuss & O`Neil Consulting Engineers, Inc. entitled
and dated as follows:
1 ) "Intersection Improvement Plan - Buckland Hills" dated
October 4, 1985 and revised May 30, 1986. (Sheet 7 of
10)
2) "Improvement Plan - Deming Street -- Buckland Hills" dated
January 1986 and revised May 30, 1986. (Sheets 1 ,2,3,4
of 4)
The recommendation is also based on the following conditions:
1 . That the developer construct a northbound right-turn
lane at the intersection of Buckland Street and the I-84
eastbound ramps as indicated on number one of the above
referenced plans.
2. That the developer construct South Access Road as indicated
on number one of the above referenced plans.
BY
DIVISION OF TRAFFIC
I BUREAU OF HIGUWAYS
a
- 2 -
3. That the developer construct a southbound left-turn storage
lane at the intersection of Buckland Street and: South
Access Road as indicated on number one of the
above-referenced plans.
4. That the developer construct a northbound right-turn
lane at the intersection of Buckland Street and South
Access Road. This lane should extend through the
intersection of Buckland Street and the I-84 High Occupancy
Vehicle lanes as indicated on number one of the
above-referenced plans.
5. That northbound Buckland Street be reconstructed between
South Access Road and the vicinity of the South Windsor
Town Line to provide continuity of •flow in two
through-lanes as indicated on number one of the
above-referenced plans.
6. That the developer close the existing median opening
opposite the northern drive to the commuter parking lot
on Buckland Street, as indicated on number one of the
above-referenced plans.
7. That the developer construct North Access Road as indicated
on number one of the above-referenced plans.
8. That the developer reconstruct Buckland Street to provide
a northbound right-turn lane at the intersection with
Pleasant Valley Road and North Access Road, as indicated
on number one of the above-referenced plans.
9. That the developer construct a southbound left-turn lane
on Buckland Street at the intersection with North Access
`Road and Pleasant Valley Road as indicated on number
one of the above-referenced plans.
10. That the developer construct an eastbound left-turn lane
on Pleasant Valley Road at the intersection with Buckland
-Street and North Access- Road as indicated on number one -
of the above-referenced plans.
11 . That the developer initially install plastic pavement
markings and lane-use control signing on Buckland Street
and intersecting roadways as indicated on number one
of the above-referenced plans.
12. That the existing Hale Road intersection with .RQute 30 be
closed and relocated and Hale Road be reconstructed as indi=
Gated on number two, Sheet 1#1, of the above-referenced plans.
- 3 -
13. That Hale Road be reconstructed to provide a four-lane road-
way between Route 30 and Slater Road.
14. That North Access Road be constructed from Buckland Street
to Slater Road.
15. That the intersection of Slater Road, Hale Road and North
Access Road be so constructed that Hale Road and North
Access Road is a through-road with stop control on the
Slater Road approaches.
lb. That the developer reconstruct Route 30 (Deming Street)
to provide two through-lanes eastbound beginning just
east of the South Windsor/Manchester Town Line and
extending easterly to match into the existing two lanes
east of the I-84 westbound ramps/Avery Street intersection,
as indicated on number two, Sheets #1 & 2, of the
above-referenced plans.
17. That the developer reconstruct Route 30 (Deming Street)
to provide two through-lanes and one left-turn lane
westbound beginning just west of. McIntosh Drive and
continuing westerly to the intersection with relocated
Hale Road, then continuing with two through-lanes tapering
back to a single westbound lane just west of the South
Windsor/Manchester Town Line, as indicated on number
two, Sheet #1 & 2, of the above-referenced plans.
18. That the developer provide an eastbound left-turn lane
on Route 30 (Deming Street) at the intersection with
Avery Street/I-84 westbound ramps as indicated on number
two, Sheet #2, of the above-referenced -plans.
19. That the developer reconstruct the I-84 westbound ramps
and Avery Street at the intersection with Route 30 to
provide the geometry and lane arrangement as indicated
on number two, Sheet #2, of the above-referenced plans.
20. That a westbound left-turn lane be constructed at the
intersection of Route 30 (Deming Street) and Tolland
Turnpike as indicated on number two, Sheet #3; of the
above-referenced plans.
- 4 -
a
21 . That- the developer reconstruct the intersection of Route
30 and 83 (Tolland Turnpike) and the I-84 eastbound
ramps/Oakland. Street to provide the geometry and lane
arrangement as indicated on number two, Sheet #4, of
the above-referenced plans.
22.That the developer initially install plastic pavement
markings and lane-use control signing on Route 30 and
intersecting roadways as indicated on number two of the
above-referenced plans. The lane-use control regulations
will be approved by the STC in a separate report.
23. That the developer install traffic signals at the following
intersections:
a) Buckland Street/South Access Road.
b) Route 30 (Deming Street)/relocated Hale Road.
..� c) Chapel Rorad/Tol larLd :Turnpike.
These signals are to be constructed in accordance with
Connecticut Department of Transportation specifications.
Traffic signal plans will be approved in separate reports.
24. That the developer revise the traffic signals at the
following intersections:
a) Buckland Street/Pleasant Valley Road/North Access
Road.
b) Route 30 (Deming Street)/Avery Street/I-84 westbound
ramps.
c) Route 30 (Deming Street)/Tolland Turnpike
d) Route 30, Route 83 (Tolland Turnpike)/Oakland
Street/I-84 eastbound ramps.
These signals are to be revised in accordance with
Connecticut- Department of Transportation specifications.
Traffic signal plans will be approved in separate reports.
25. That - the traffic signals on - Buckland Street at the
following intersections be interconnected to provide
a coordinated system:
a) Pleasant Valley Road/North Access Road.
b) South Access Road.
c) I-84 High Occupancy Vehicle lanes.
d) I-84 eastbound ramps.
5 -
26. That the traffic signals on Route 30 at the following
. intersections be interconnected to provide a coordinated
system:
a) Hale Road
b) Avery Street
c) Tolland Turnpike
d) Oakland Street
:e) Parker Street
27. That the developer be responsible for the installation
of traffic signals at the locations listed below if,
as a result of a study requested by the Town of Manchester .
through the STC, it is determined that signalization
is warranted, due to the addition of Mall generated
traffic:
a) Slater Road/Hale Road
b) Union Street/Tolland Turnpike
c) Slater Road/Tolland Turnpike
d) Union Street/North Main Street
28. All pavement markings and signing shall conform to
standards contained in the "Manual On Uniform Traffic
Control Devices For Streets and Highways" as revised.
29. Thai all roadway improvements be subject to review and
approval by the Department of Transportation and all
requirements satisfied prior to the issuance of an
encroachment permit.
30. Where utilities are to be relocated or where traffic
is moved closer to an existing utility, the utilities
shall be moved in compliance with current Department
of Transportation practice and at no cost to the State.
31 . That all drainage requirements be satisfied prior to
issuance of a permit by the Department of Transportation's
District' I office. "
32. That sight lines based upon current Department of
Transportation's standards, at all newly constructed
roadways and driveways, in areas disturbed by construction,
be provided.
33. That the developer deed land along the east side of Buckland
Street to the Town of Manchester in conjunction with proposed
widenings in this area as indicated on number one of the
above referenced plans.
6 -
4
34. That in the event that the Town of South Windsor finds
it necessary to cul-de-sac Slater Road at the South
Windsor/Manchester Town tine to prevent through traffic
to and from the Mall , the developer will be responsible
for this construction and cost.
35. That the developer equitably participate in a future
project to reconstruct the intersection of Route 30,
Route 194, Route 74 and Buckland Road, that is above
and beyond the scope of the improvements scheduled under
Project Numbers 132-100 and 132-102, if such action
is deemed necessary. The developer's participation
shall be to the extent necessary to adequately handle
the additional traffic that was either projected or '-
found to be actually generated by the Buckland Hills
development, whichever is applicable.
36• That the developer be responsible for the cost and
construction'' of any : additional improvements deemed
necessary by the State Traffic Commission, due to traffic
distributions of Buckland Hills development generated
traffic, that is significantly different from those
submitted with the certificate application.
37. That approximately one year after the opening of the
Buckland Hills Mall , during the time period between
Thanksgiving and Christmas, the developer obtain turning
movement traffic counts for the :p.m. peak hour on a
typical shopping day at the following locations:
a) Buckland Street at North Access Road and Pleasant
Valley Road
b) Buckland Street at South Access Road
c) North Access Road at Slater Road and Hale Road
d) Pleasant Valley Road at I-84 westbound ramps
e) Buckland Street at I-84 eastbound ramps
f) Route 30 at Hale Road
g) Route 30 at Route 194, Route 74 and Buckland Road
38. That the State Traffic Commission reserves the right
to require additional traffic improvements or changes
as deemed necessary due to the development's.. traffic
in the future. The cost of any additional improvements
or changes shall be borne by the developer.
- 7
Mr. Stephen F. Mitchell , the Developer's representative
was . in agreement with these recommendations when contacted on May 30,
1986.
Officer Gary Wood, representing Police Chief Robert D. Lannan,
Legal Traffic Authority for the Town of Manchester was in agreement
with these recommendations when contacted on May 30, 1986.
Police Chief William R. Ryan, Legal Traffic Authority for-
the Town of South Windsor was in agreement with condition Nos 33 through
37 when contacted on May 30, 1986.
REPORT OF`FINDINGS
TOWN OF MANCHESTER
BUCKLAND HILLS
STC #076-8510-01
Site Description:
Buckland Hills will be a multi-use development on the east
side of Buckland Street between Interstate 84 and the South Windsor
Town Line in the Town of Manchester. The parcel , which consists of
approximately 138 acres, is to be developed into a 750,000 square foot
(gross leasable area) shopping mall and a total of 513 residential .
dwelling .units (22 single-family, 76 duplex, and 177- townhouse and
238 high-rise units. )
The mall is to be a ,regional shopping facility with major
access to be provided by -Interstate-84 via Exits 62 and 63. In addition,
several major arterial roads and local collector/distributor routes
surround the site and will provide a comprehensive traffic network
to serve site-generated as well as through-traffic in the area.
Parking spaces to be provided are shown below:
Mall Parking = 3511 spaces
High-rise Apartments = 357 spaces for 238 units
Group Dwellings = 356 spaces for 178 units
Additional parking for single-family and duplex
units
Existing Area Roadways:
a. Interstate 84
Interstate 84 is a major east/west facility in the Hartford
area which carries traffic from the eastern regions of the State to
and from the City of Hartford. Over the past several years, this highway
has been reconstructed from the Massachusetts State Line to the Town
of Manchester. The remaining sections of the roadway in the Town of
Manchester and the City of East Hartford are currently under construction
and are expected to be completed within the next three years: In the
Buckland Hills area, the completed facility will consist of three
through-travel lanes in each direction and a separated high occupancy
vehicle lane (HOVE) in each direction in the center median. In addition,
collector/distributor roads are to be constructed on each side of the
highway through the Town of Manchester between the Interstate 384
connector at the East Hartford City Line, and the Buckland Street
entrance and exit ramps adjacent to the mall . It is expected that
this important facility will carry the majority of site-bound traffic.
2 -
b. Buckland Street/Buckland Road
Buckland Street,. which services an average daily traffic
of 11 ,400 vehicles, is immediately adjacent to the site and has been
recently reconstructed in conjunction with the Interstate 84 project
to provide two through-lanes in each direction separated by a raised
median with left turns provided where necessary. In some cases, dual
left-turn lanes are provided where the left turn volumes are sufficiently
high. In the Town of South Windsor, this facility is known as Buckland
Road.
Buckland Road intersects Routes 30, 74 and 194 at the "Five
Corners" intersection in the Wapping section of the Town of South
Windsor.
In the Town of Manchester, Buckland Street intersects Pleasant
Valley Road at a T-intersection adjacent to a newly constructed 700
vehicle commuter parking lot. -
South of the site, Buckland Street passes
under I-84 where a T-intersection with the HOVL ramps are located.
An intersection with the eastbound exit and entrance ramps at a
signalized intersection is located south of I-84, and further south,
Buckland Street intersects Tolland Turnpike and New State Road at a
recently reconstructed intersection with traffic control provided by
an eight-phase, fully-actuated signal .
c. Connecticut Route 30
Connecticut Route 30 is a two-lane facility which extends
from U.S. Route 5 on the west through the Wapping Five Corners, the
Town of Manchester and into the Town of Vernon. A major east/west
facility carrying a 1983 ADT of 8000 vehicles, Ellington Road (as it
is known west of Five Corners) intersects Chapel Road at a signalized
intersection and Pleasant Valley Road at an signalized intersection.
East of the Five Corners, Route 30 is known as Oakland Road, Deming
Street and Hartford Turnpike. I-84 interchange Nos. 63 and 64 are
located on Route 30. Although basically a two-lane facility, Route
30 becomes a four-lane undivided highway between Hale Road and the
old "Vernon Circle" , except for a short unimproved section near the
Manchester/Vernon Town Line. _ -
d. Connecticut Route 83
Connecticut Route 83 is a major north/south route through
the Town of Manchester extending from the Glastonbury Town Line northerly
(as Main Street) , to North Main Street and continuing northerly (as
Oakland Street) to Route 30. Here, Route 83 joins Route 30 in a
northeasterly direction until Route 30 splits at the "Vernon Circle"
to head easterly, and Route 83 continues northerly through the Town
of Vernon.
3 -
Although it is only two lanes wide throughout most of its length,
Route 83 is a major collector route through the Town of Manchester
servicing a 1983 ADT of 14,000 vehicles.
e. Connecticut Route 194 (Sullivan Avenue)
Sul-livan Avenue is a two-lane road which extends from U.S.
Route 5 southeasterly to the Wapping Five Corners. ; This route carries
12,900 vehicles per day (ADT) and is a major route for through traffic
in the area.
Local and Collector Roads
There are several local collector .roads in the vicinity of -
the site. These include:
a. Pleasant Valley Road - a. two-lane local road which widens
to four 1 artes in the vicinity of the westbound 1-84 ramps
_ and the comruter parking lot. This road runs directly
into the northern access road into Buckland Hills and
carries a 1983 ADT of 3700 vehicles.
b. _ Chapel Road - a two-lane collector road which extends
betweeri U.S. Route 5 and the Manchester Industrial Park
(where a four-lane divided road connects Chapel Road
to Tolland Turnpike. ) l"his road is approximately 28
feet wide and is signalized at Route 5 and Route 30.
c. Slater Road - a two-lane north/south road which connects
Route 30 with Tolland Turnpike. The width of this road
varies between 17 and 22 feet and underpasses I-84.
Project No. 132-92 has been initiated ' to install . a
fully-actuated signal at Route 30 and Slater Road at
the foot of a negative 10.5% grade on Slater Road.
d. North Main Street - a two-lane east/west collector road
which connects the Tolland Turnpike/Buckland Street
intersection with Route 83 (Main Street) .
- 4 -
e. Tolland Turnpike - a local road which runs parallel to
I-84 between North Main Street and Route 30, crossing
over I-84 and extending into East Hartford as Tolland
Street. -This- facility carries a 1983 ADT of 3600 vehicles
and is, signalized at Buckland Street, J. C. Penny Drive,
Caldor Drive and Routes 30 and 83.
f. Union Street - a two-lane -local road which connects North
Main Street and Tolland Turnpike. The width of this
road is 20 to 21 feet and is lined with single family
homes. Midway through this connector is an "S" curve
with a skewed bridge over the Hockanum River.
Accident Experience:
There is no evidence of any accident trends or patterns in
the area affected by traffic generated by the proposed facility.
Generated Traffic:
Generated traffic is expected to result , in 2759 trips during
the p.m. peak hour (4:30 - 5:30 a.m. ) with 1412 vehicles entering and
1347 vehicles exiting the site. The Saturday peak hour (11 :30 - 12:30
p.m. ) is expected to service 3915 vehicles, of which 1944 are entering
and 1971 are exiting.
It is anticipated that the Buckland Hills development will
generate 30,400 vehicle trips on an average weekday and .36,500 vehicle
trips on an average Saturday.
Traffic Distribution:
The distribution of traffic is as follows:
From: I-84 eastbound 44% via Exit 62 and Buckland Street
I-84 westbound 18% via Exit 63, Route 30 and-Hale Road
New State Road 5% via Buckland Street
Tolland Street 5% via Buckland Street
Chapel Road 5% via Tolland Street and Buckland Street
(Entering Pleasant Valley Road 2%
Site) Ellington Road (Route 30 eastbound) 2% via Buckland Road
Sullivan Avenue (Route 194 southbound) 5% via Buckland Road
Ellington Road (Route 74 southbound) 2% via Buckland Road
Main Street (Route 83 northbound) 7% via North Main Street,
Union Street, Tolland Turnpike and
Slater Road
5 -
Woodbridge Street 3% via North Main Street, Tolland Turnpike and
Slater Road
Routes 30 and 83 (Hartford Turnpike) 2% via Deming and Hale Road
To: I-84 westbound 44% via Buckland Street, Pleasant Valley Road and
Exit 62.
I-84 eastbound 18% via Hale Road, Route 30 and Exit 63.
(Exitin New State Road 5% via Buckland Street
Site Tolland Tolland Street 5% via Buckland Street
Chapel Road 5% via Buckland Street and Tolland Street
Pleasant Valley 2%
Ellington Road 2% via Buckland Road
(Route 30 westbound)
Sullivan Avenue 5% via Buckland Road
(Route 194 northbound)
Ellington Road 2% via Buckland Road
(Route 74.porthbound)
Main Street A2 via Slater Road, Tolland Turnpike, Union Street:
(Route 83 southbound) North Main Street
Woodbridge Street 3% via Slater Road, Tolland Turnpike, Union Street
North Main Street
Routes 30 and 83 2% via Hale Road and Route 30
(Hartford Turnpike)
The above traffic generation and distribution has been reviewed and
approved by the Department's Bureau of Planning.
Internal traffic controls have been reviewed with Officer Gary Wood of
the Manchester Police Department and he has indicated that controls will be
reviewed and established by the Town of Manchester.
- 6 -
Connecticut State Department of Transportation Improvement Projects
Project Number Description
76-88 I-84, upgrade expressway from the vicinity of the
Hockanum River to the vicinity of east of Slater
Road.
FDP 7-82
ADV 10-82
COMPL 12-86
76-135 Route 83 reconstruction from Charter Oak Street
to Ford Street.
FDP 11-86
ADV 11-87
76-143 Route 83, improvement of railroad grade crossing
n500-825M, between Woodbridge-'Street and No. Main
Street crossing 7#500-825M.
76-146 Improvement of.railroad grade crossing at Oakland
Street grade crossing T500-826U between Woodbridge
Street and Apel Place.
FDP 8-84
CCD 15-99
76-147 I-291 , New expressway. Turning roadways from their
junction with I-84 westerly to and including bridge
over Tolland Turnpike.
FDP 6-86
ADV 11-91
76-148 Replace bridge and approaches on Union Street from
Kerry Street to N/0 bridge over Hockanum River.
FDP 12-87
ADV 6-88
76-151 Various traffic operations improvements.
Intersection and alignment fmprovements at seven
locations in Manchester.
FDP 5-87
ADV 7-87
76-152 Tolland Turnpike reconstruction from North Main
Street to 1200 ft. west of Deming Street (CT.30)
FDP 9-87
ADV 11 -87
- 7 -
76-154 Reconstruction of North Main Street from 200 ft.
east of Tolland Turnpike to 0.1 miles west of Main
Street.
FDP 8-89
ADV 6-90
132-83 CT 194 realignment from 0.1 miles south of Sand
Hill Road to 0.1 miles noth of Pierce Road.
FDP 4-85
ADV 8-85
CCD 9-86
132-89 Reconstruction of Chapel Road from U.S. 5 to
Manchester/South Windsor Town Line.
e�w FDP 5-87 Y
ADV 9-87
132-97 I-291 - New expressway from 1500 feet east of Route
30 in South Windsor to west of Tolland Turnpike
in Manchester.
FDP 12-87
ADV 11-90 "
132-98 CT 194 - Horizontal alignment from 0.1 miles south
of Sand Hill Road to 0.1 miles north of Pierce
Road.
FDP 12-84
132-100 Major widening on Buckland Road from Manchester
Town Line to Route 30.
FDP 4-89
ADV 6-89
132-102 CT 74 & CT 194 - Relocate CT. 74 1400 feet to
intersect with CT 194. Approximately 1200 feet
north of CT 30.
FDP 3-88
ADV 2-89
132-105 New highway from the intersection of Chapel Road
and Clark Street to Pleasant Valley Road vicinity
of Wheeler Road.
FDP 9-88
ADV 8-89
- 8 -
132-1H06 Reconstruction of Avery Street from Manchester
Town Line to Dart Hill Road.
ADV 14-99
PE FY 86
KEY:
FDP: FINAL DESIGN PLANS
ADV: CONSTRUCTION ADVERTISING
CCD: CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE
PE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Proposed Developer Improvements:
1 . To construct a southbound left-turn lane and a northbound right-turn
lane on Buckland Street at the intersection with Pleasant Valley
Road. Also, the existing traffic signal will be modified to
accommodate the turning movements.
2. To construct a southbound left-turn lane and a`northbound right-turn
lane on Buckland Street at the intersection with the South Access
Drive. An interconnected traffic signal to control access will
also be provf`=ded.
3. Widen the existing I-84 westbound exit ramp at Route 30 and Avery
Street to accommodate a dual left-turn lane for traffic turning
onto Deming Street. Revise the signal and layout as necessary
to accommodate the new turning lane.
4. Provide northbound right-turn lane on Buckland Street for traffic
entering the eastbound I-84 entrance ramp. Revise the traffic
signal head layout as necessary in order to accommodate this
additional lane.
5. Provide a new traffic signal and intersection layout at the
intersection of Tolland Turnpike and Chapel Road in accordance
with widening plans for Tolland Turnpike reconstruction under
Project #76-147.
6. Monitor the following intersections to determine if future traffic
signal warrants are met:
a) Slater Street/Hale Road
b) Route 30/Hale Road
c) North Main Street/Union Street
- 9 -
Other Departmental Concerns c
HALE ROAD
Hale Road intersects Route 30 (Deming Street) just west of
the I-84 westbound ramps in a T-intersection and will provide access
to the proposed mall from the east and north. Due- to the high volume
of traffic expected to enter the site from Hale Road, the Department
found it necessary to recommend that Hale Road be relocated further
to the west in order to provide the proper storage length between the
I-84 westbound ramps and relocated Hale Road.
To preclude future access from the abandoned Hale Road right-
of-way, the Department has suggested that the existing non-access line
be extended westerly across this right-of-way. Any full access to
development in this area could be detrimental to traffic operations
on Route 30 because Mall-bound vehicles traveling westbound on Route
30, stored to make a left onto Hale road, would often block access
to this point. During a :gpeeting--with Manchester officials on May 13,
1986, however, Mr. Robert Weiss, - -'own Manager, was very much against
the premature closing of access to "old" Hale Road, indicating that
land values in that area would sharply decline as a result. At that
same meeting, the Department and Town agreed that, as any of the land
adjacent to Route 30 in that area is developed, _ the Town of Manchester
will work closely with the Department to insure that safe and efficient
traffic flows can be provided.
SLATER ROAD CUL DE SAC
Slater Road, a north/south roadway which borders the site
on the east, begins at Tolland Turnpike in Manchester and heads north
to the South Windsor/Manchester Town Line. It proceeds northbound
through Deming Street and intersects with Route 30 (Oakland Road) where
it continues north as Foster Street. In a residential area between
Deming street and Route 30, Slater road experiences a 10.5% downgrade
approaching the Route 30 intersection.
The intersection of Route 30, Slater Road and Foster Street has been studied 1n the past. An accident study by the Department
of Transportation indicated thirteen total accidents at this intersection
between 1981 and 1984. Of these thirteen accidents, nine were angle-type
accidents involving vehicles exiting Slater Road onto Route 30. A
very poor sight li.ne on Slater Road, due to an earth embankment which
cannot be readily graded, along with the grade of the roadway itself,
are major factors in this accident pattern. As a result of the above
study, signalization of this intersection has been proposed by the
"epartment. Preliminary engineering of this signal is complete, no
installation date, however, has been scheduled.
r
10 -
The previously noted study was conducted without the impact
of the proposed Buckland Hills Mall . It can be expected that this
roadway will be extensive.iy used as a "short cut" to Route 30 from
the mall . In conjunction with this assumption, the Department has
suggested that Slater Road be made a cul-de-sac at the Manchester/South
Windsor Town Line to preclude access to and from the proposed mall .
It is felt that this action will increase safety and prevent any future
problems at this intersection.
The- developer, who would be responsible for the work, and
the Town of Manchester are agreeable with this scheme. The Town of
South Windsor, which would probably. be impacted the most by this action,
was sent a letter from the Department on May 15, 1986 regarding this
matter. South Windsor officials have indicated that a decision on
this matter cannot be made prior to the June 3 State Traffic Commission
meeting. Therefore, it should be noted that if the Town of South Windsor
finds it necessary to cul-de-sac Slater Road at the Manchester/South
Windsor Town Line to prevent through traffic to and from the mall ,
the developer be responsible for this construction.
-- SIDEWALKS
The issue of sidewalks on the east side of Buckland Street
was discussed at a May 2, 1986 meeting between all parties concerned.
Die to the extensive residential development at the Buckland Hills
site, the Department felt that sidewalks would.-. be necessary. The
developer noted that a bicycle path will be provided on the west side
of Buckland Street which would accommodate pedestrians also.
At a MaY 13, 1986 meeting with Town of-.Manchester officials,
Mr. Robert Weiss, Town Manager, indicated that the Town would address
the need for sidewalks along Buckland Street as property adjacent to
this town road was developed.
ROUTE 30 AT ROUTE 194, ROUTE 74 AND BUCKLAND ROAD
The Wapping Five Corners intersection in South Windsor has
been the topic of several discussions throughout the review process.
This intersection is formed by Route 30, Route 74, Route 194 and Buckland
Road (The only town-maintained leg) and operates at a level •of service
"E" during the p.m. peak hour. Three of the five corners are occupied
by historic buildings and substantial local support for no changes
in the area exists. Very little rights-of-way exists for road widening.
- 11
t
Based upon traffic counts supplied by the developer, 2912
vehicles use this 'intersection during the p.m. peak hour. It is
projected that the mall will generate 248 vehicles with 150
vehicles in . the critical lanes during this hqur. As a result of
this increased volume , the intersection falls from a level of ser-
vice "E" to a level of service "F" during the p.m. peak hour.
The developer acknowledges the fact that mall traffic is
adversely, affecting the intersection, yet , -due to rights-of-way
restraints , any practical or meaningful improvements cannot be per-
formed. He does , however , indicate two factors which may relieve
congestion of this intersection.
First and foremost are the future completion of State
Projects #132-100 and. # 132-102 which involve the widening of
Buckland Road from two' tanes -`te- :four lanes in South Windsor from
the Manchester Town Line to Route 30 (Five Corners) and relocating
Route 74 from the Five Corners intersection to Route 194 approxi-
mately 1200 feet north of Route 30. Both projects were initiated
by the Town of South Windsor which is using funds from the
Interstate Trade-I,n Program for these improvements . The widening
of Buckland Road is scheduled for advertisement in .Tune , 1989 and
the relocation of Route 74 is scheduled for advertisement in
February 1989 . Probable completion dates are 1990-1991 leaving a.
one to two year gap between mall opening and project completions .
Project #132-102 will change the intersection from five legs to
four legs which will provide for more efficient signal phasing , but
the volume of vehicles impacting the intersection will not neces-
sarily change.
Although the completion of these two projects will enhance
traffic operations at the "Five Corners" intersection , they will
not completely resolve capacity problems there. Subsequently , the
Department recommends that the developer be required to equitably
participate in a future project to reconstruct the "Five Corners'
intersection. The developers participation in this program will
be to the extent' by which Buckland Hills mall generated traffic
impacts the intersection.
The developer also indicated that if as much 'as 30 percent
of the traffic projected to use the "Five Corners" intersection
diverted to surrounding roadways , the additional impact on any one
location would be negligible. In the event that traffic projec-
tions are inaccurate , the Department suggested that at the discre—
tion of the State Traffic Commission , the developer be responsible
for improvements to any intersections or roadways that may be
significantly impacted by mall generated traffic.
_. _ _ _,. a
t
_.
` ( ��
cr-
Y„s,..
�t,vl�
� �I�L-(��/�l.tom.!/�2T-2,tnf-. J
� ��
�����
POLICE DEPARTMENT -
q ?dbu& t
�!CE ,
151 SAND HILL ROAD • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074-2784
AREA CODE 203/644-2551
June 3, 1986
William R. Ryan- Chief
Commissioner J. William Burns, Chairman
State Traffic Commission
Dear Chairman Burns:
I am in receipt of a letter from Frank M.D'Addabbo, Manager of Traffic,
Bureau of Highways, regarding a cul-de-sac treatment to Slater Road, in
response to controlling traffic from the proposed Buckland Hills Mall.
Inasmuch as the Town of South Windsor has been provided very limited in-
formation relative to Buckland Hills, it would be inappropriate at this
time to comment on the merits of this particular proposal.
You should be aware that the Town of South Windsor has not had an opportunity
to review any plans for the Buckland Hills development except briefly at our
March 11, 1986 meetings with Messrs. David Homick and Eric Smith of the Conn-
ecticut Department of Transportation. Additionally, we have not had an
opportunity to review data concerning existing and estimated traffic volume
or any road improvements that may be proposed or required to South Windsor
roads.
The Town's meetings with Messrs. Homich and Smith was held at our request.
At that meeting were discussed probable traffic implications resulting from
the proposed development. Slater Street was one of but many areas of traffic
concern discussed.
In 1985, Town of South Windsor approved a zone change and General Plan of
Development for another regional shopping mall of similar size and directly
across the street (Buckland Street) from the Buckland Hills development.