Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSummerwood Spec Ex/Site Plan of Dev : A vwn yr wv ra wuILavtc _ t'LAlYlYil7G ZQ1+tII'ICi C:U31SMiSSION o ~ SC APPLICATION FORM Application No: Official Receipt Date: Receipt No: APPLICANT: Horsesboe Tane Associates, LLC c r so ADDRESS: 18-3 Arthur Drive, �/` South Windsor, CT 06074, Tel' 644 960 OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: MG Realty Limited Partnership, c/o Arnold Greenberg ADDRESS: 61 South Main - �i P 2i7 Wes Har ford, CT nF,ln7 TP1 ��1 Fi�nBEFax �,�1 09 COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: South of Sharon Drive ASSESSOR'S MAP # 34 PARCEL# 22 ZONE A-20 NAME, ADDRESS,TEL& FAX # OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED: pp} South WfndGnr CT n6n74 Ti-1 291 8755 Fax Al 87 7, Email ! dpi rivi 1(a`,mi r-n THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check all that apply): ❑ Zone Change to (Public Hearing required and Certified Ietter to abutters required Q Subdivision/Resubdivision Q Open Space Subdivision (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Subdivision Q Minor Q Major Q Resubdivision (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Minor ❑ Major ❑ Conditional Approval ® Special Exception to Article 4.1.12 (Public Hearing, Certified letter to abutters required) ® Site Plan of Development ❑ General Plan of Development ❑ Earth Filling(Sec. 15) and/or Earth Removal (Sec. 14 - Public Hearing required) ❑ Regulation Amendment: Q Zoning Q Subdivision (Attach propotfed amendment) Temporary and Conditional Permit for +i ❑ Major Home Occupation for ❑ Other (explain in detail) An Application Pending sign is required to be posted on the property for all applications ten (10) days prior to being heard by the Commission_ A". roe ki , 1, 1 A&4 a- pplicant Signature of Property Owner (See reverse side for additional information) RECEIVO NOV 2 7 2002 South Mrrisor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION r ' MEMORANDUM g _ NOV 2002 To: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, Town EngineerUIH , From: Robert Deptula, Environmental Health Officer Date: November 6, 2002 Re: Town of South Windsor Mosquito Larvicide Program The Town has been involved in a mosquito control larvicide program for the past three years. A product called Vectolex CG has been applied to all catch basins several timest2) per""Mosquito Season"at the rate of approximately one teaspoon per basin. This is a r nul r r n i lied manually. It contains a biological organism called a s product and s a 9 P PP Y o9 9 Bacillus Sphaericus which is an effective larvicide specific to mosquito and black fly larvae. Based on the decreased number of mosquito complaints to date this seems to be an effective program. Adc1tionally, on several occasions over the past two years an adulticide (Resmythrin)Lsomy has been used at Town parks to decrease the mosquito population. This product is effective and quickly (within four hours) breaks down upon exposure to light, especially sunlight. The mosquito control section of the DEP Wildlife Division has indicated that, to date, there has been no correlation with any mosquito control product and lobster deaths. In fact, the scientific community has not found any mosquito products in the water or lobsters. RD/cm V�� 15 PLANNING.DEPARTMENT IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM TO: Matt Galligan, Fred Shaw, Michael Gantick, Thomas Field,Bill Lanning, Kris Lindstrom, Ray Favreau, Karl Reichle,Mel Stead,John Coll' winfJeffDoolittle FROM: Marcia A. Banach, AICP,Director of Planning x The Planning &Engineering Departments have received.plans for the following project: 0,� _ Location: 4 � j ] Site Plan O Subdivision No. Acres Zone—A:L0 O Industrial O Commercial Residential No. Lots/units Water: i"Public O Private Well Sewerage:'P(Public O Septic system(s) Project Description: e Future Town-owned property involved? /p Yes O No new street(s) O new detention area O new open space/recreation area O active O passive Planning Department notes: ?A, 1f'r V m A" 6" P Z C -4n U *Lk Please comment by D and return to the Planning Department. Senior Housing in South Windsor Development Location Type of # of units Name housing Wapping Mews Elm Street Apartments 30 Flax Hill Foster Street Apartments 40 Collins Crossing Collins Crossing Senior Residence 20 Development Collins Hill Collins Crossing Senior Residence 18 Development Porter Share Oakland Road Senior Residence 20 Develo ment Wyndemere Court Nevers Road Senior Residence 14 Development Pleasant Meadows Pleasant Valley Senior Residence 20 Development Wheeler Estates Wheeler Road Senior Residence 25 Development Strawberry Fields Sullivan Ave. Multi-Family 43 (Condo's) Watson Farms Oakland Road Apartments 72 * Berry Farms Oakland Road Apartments 102 # Summerwood Sharon Drive Senior Residence 17 Development • * -Approved, but not under construction • #-Pending with Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by the Planning Department 1/13/03 Stormwater Management Plan Summerwood South Windsor, Connecticut Prepared by Design Professionals,Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 DPI Project No. 01-1468 December 6, 2001 Table of Contents: Page# Introduction I Proposed Development 1 Off-Site Analysis 1 Peak Runoff control 1 Nonstructural Drainage System 1 Riparian Buffers 2 Erosion/Sedimentation Control Systems 2 Storm-water Runoff Quality 2 Conveyance System 2 Discharge at the Natural Location 2 Maintenance and Operation 2 Topographic Contour Maps 3 Floodplain Boundaries 3 Drainage Design 3 On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations 4 Conclusions 4 Appendices TR-55 Existing Conditions A TR-55 Developed Conditions-to basin B TR-55 Developed Conditions-bypass basin C Detention Basin Design D Detention Basin Routings E Storm Sewer Calculations F Introduction: The site is located to the north of Hilton Drive, and to the south of Sharon Drive in South Windsor, Connecticut, and consists of a single parcel totaling 6.4 Acres. The site is bordered on the north, south, and east by single-family lots, and on the west by vacant land. The site is generally fairly flat with a wetland area on the western end of the site. Proposed Development: The proposed development of the site includes the construction of 20 elderly housing units contained within 12 buildings. As part of the development, access roadways, parking, and driveways will be constructed. The site will be serviced by public sanitary sewer and water. The Storm drainage system proposed for the development includes the installation of storm-sewers within the proposed access street, vegetated drainage swales, a piped storm drainage system, and a Water Quality/Detention basin. Soil testing was conducted on the site to determine the feasibility of infiltration of storm runoff from the site. Due to the shallow level of mottling(which is an indication of peak groundwater elevation)in the soils, infiltration on this site is not practical. Due to the potential for tripping hazards, the site has been designed without the use of curbs within the private roadway areas. The grades from the houses to the streets have been designed to be at a minimum of 2%thereby insuring adequate surface drainage to the street. A Water Quality/Detention basin has been included in the design to provide additional water quality treatment. The Water Quality basin has been sized to provide extended detention for the first 1.25" of rainfall on the site, and to provide short-term detention for up to the 100-year design storm. The extended detention of the first 1.25" of runoff from the site, and the short-term detention of runoff from storms up to the 100-year frequency,will provide ample mitigation for water quality and detention of the developed site. Off-Site Analysis: The site presently drains to a catch basin via a swale on properties to the south of the site. Under developed conditions, the site will continue to drain to the existing catch basin. The intent of the design is to provide detention on site such that the peak runoff to the catch basin under developed conditions will be less than or equal to the peak runoff under existing conditions. With the proposed detention basin, there are no impacts off site anticipated due to this proposed development. Peak Runoff Control: The proposed detention basin will provide mitigation for peak runoff from the site under developed conditions such that there are no impacts off site anticipated due to the runoff from the proposed development. Nonstructural Drainage Systems: The site will make use of a number of nonstructural measures to help maintain the natural drainage patterns. The Water quality/Detention basin, which will provide extended detention for the first 1.25" of rainfall, will be constructed. Riparian Buffers: As part of the development of the site, a portion of the existing vegetation on site will be maintained within a buffer adjacent to the existing single- family residences. Erosion/Sedimentation Control Systems: An extensive erosion/sedimentation control plan has been developed as part of the site plan design. These measures include the following: 1. Installation of silt fence down-slope of disturbed areas. 2. Installation of silt fence around stockpiled materials. 3. Installation of silt fence around catch basins. 4. Use of the water quality/Detention basin during construction as a sediment basin. 5. Seeding and mulching disturbed areas as soon as practical during construction. 6. Limiting the areas of disturbance during construction. 7. Installation of construction entrance pads, and sweeping of roadways as needed. 8. Maintenance of the above measures. Stormwater Runoff Quality: A number of water quality measures have been integrated into the site design to provide for treatment of the stormwater runoff from the site. These include the water quality/Detention basin that will provide extended detention for the first 1.25" of rainfall on the site. In addition the swales will provide additional water quality enhancement Conveyance System: The on-site conveyance system consists of a piped stormwater system discharging to the water quality/Detention basin. The piped drainage system has been designed to accommodate the runoff from a 10 Yr design storm. The water quality/Detention basin has been designed to provide extended detention for the first 1.25" of rainfall on the site. Larger storm events will be detained for a shorter period of time. Discharge at the Natural Location: The site presently discharges to the swale on the properties to the south of the site which then drains to an existing catch basin. Under developed conditions, the site will continue to drain to the existing catch basin directly. Maintenance and Operation: The following maintenance operations will be required to ensure the proper and efficient operation of the Storm Water System, and Water Quality/Detention Basin. The following maintenance schedule is intended to be a minimum guide, and additional inspections and maintenance measures may be required following large storm events that could cause the deposition of excess debris in the system. Pipe Outlet Locations: The pipe outlets and associated riprap shall be inspected annually and cleaned of silt and or debris. The riprap shall be re-shaped and replenished as required. Catch Basins: The catch Basins within each lot shall be inspected annually. The sumps shall be cleaned when the depth of material within the sumps reaches 1'. Pavement Sweeping: The parking lots within each lot shall be swept at a minimum of twice per year. Once in the spring shortly after the end of the snow season, and once in the fall after the leaves have fallen. Basin Spillway: The stone spillway shall be inspected twice yearly. All large woody growth that may affect the flow of water or the stability of the spillway shall be removed. The spillway shall also be inspected after any flow passes through it. The riprap shall be re-arranged and added to as required to maintain the design as per the design plans. Topographic Contour Maps: Topographic contour maps have been provided showing the drainage areas for the site at a scale of 1"=40'. The maps showing the existing and developed conditions are included in the rear of this report. Floodplain Boundaries: There are no floodplain boundaries on the site. Drainage Design: The drainage design of the site has been completed utilizing a number of computer programs and generally accepted design methods. The runoff from the site under existing and developed conditions was developed utilizing the TR-55 computer program. The drainage piping on site was designed using the rational formula. The detention basin was sized using a computer program by Hydrographs called Hydroflow. The program allows for the development of hydrographs representing the developed flows into the basin, and the modeling of the basin with elevation/storage/discharge curves to represent the basin. The program than provides the routing of the hydrograph through the basin, and provides peak discharge and storage information. Under existing and developed conditions, the site drains to the south to the swale that runs along the properties south of the site. The swale drains to the southeast to an existing catch basin located on Lot 21 located at the southeast corner of the site. The developer of this site has obtained a drainage easement and rights to discharge directly to this catch basin. The TR-55 calculations for the existing runoff from the upland area to the catch basin are contained in appendix A. The total area draining to the catch basin under existing conditions is 12.8 AC. There is a low area on site that presently does not appear to drain to any location, and ponds water. Under developed conditions, 14.35 acres drains to the catch basin. This consists of two separate components. Undeveloped areas that drain to the catch basin, and proposed developed areas draining to the catch basin. The TR-55 analysis for the developed discharge to the catch basin is contained in appendix B. The TR-55 analysis for the undeveloped areas draining directly to the catch basin via the detention basin is contained in appendix C. The design of the detention basin is based on sizing of the detention basin to provide a discharge rate that when combined with the proposed undeveloped drainage is less than the existing discharge to the catch basin. A summary of the detention basin including the stage storage and storage discharge tables is included in appendix D. The routings for the 2-100 year storm events through the detention basin are included in appendix E. A summary of the results follows: Storm Peak Flow Peak flow Peak flow Peak Total Flow Existing Prop. Undeveloped Detention Out Devel. Conditions 2 1 0 0.79 0.79 10 6 1 1.51 2.51 25 10 2 3.31 5.31 50 13 3 6.45 9.45 100 17 5 9.71 14.71 The water quality/Detention basin has been designed to provide a volume of permanent retention equal to the volume of runoff from a 1.25" rainfall event. On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations: The storm sewer calculations for the storm piping within the proposed private roadway are included in appendix F. The storm sewer has been designed for a 10-year design storm utilizing the rational formula. Conclusions: The on-site stormwater system with the associated water quality/Detention basin will mitigate any potential water quality and quantity impacts from the development of the site. APPENDIX A RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/12/85 County HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS Subarea : 12.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75$ 2.98 (39) .14 (61) 2.98 (74) - OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Woods fair 3.27 (36) .16(60) 3.27 (73) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 6.25 .3 6.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 12.8 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 12.8 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 56* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project : URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/12/85 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sheet 3.2 50 .044 H 0.150 Shallow Concent'd 443 .0113 U 0.072 Open Channel 492 .7 0.195 Time of Concentration = 0.42* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes --- C Cultivated < 20 Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 Project URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/12/85 County HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS Data: Drainage Area 12.8 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 56 * Time of Concentration: 0.42 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- 1 Storm Number i 1 1 2 I 3 1 4 1 5 1 I----------------------1------1------1------1------1------1 1 Frequency (yrs) I 2 1 10 1 25 1 50 i 100 1 ! I I I I I I 1 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 1 3.2 1 4.7 ! 5.5 1 6.2 i 6.9 1 i I I I I I I Ia/P Ratio 1 0.49 1 0.33 1 0.29 1 0.25 1 0.23 1 1 Runoff (in) 1 0.28 1 0.89 1 1.31 1 1.72 1 2.15 1 I i I I I i f 1 Unit Peak Discharge 10.326 ► 0.542 10.589 10.606 10.620 1 I (cfs/acre/in) 1 Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 I 0.0 Ponds Used I I I I I I ----------------------1------i------(------I------1------1 1 Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 1 1 6 1 10 ► 13 ! 17 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX B RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/13/85 County HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITION - DEVELOPED Subarea : 8.05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75i 2.25(39) .13 (61) 3.58 (74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .28 (98) - i.81 (98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 2.53 .13 5.39 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 8.05 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 8.05 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 70* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/13/85 County HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITION - DEVELOPED -----------------------------------------------------=------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 3.2 40 .01 H 0.227 Shallow Concent'd 28 .01 P 0.004 Open Charnel 150 1.5 0.028 Open Channel 635 5.2 0.034 Time of Concentration = 0.29* --- Sheet FLOW Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fall-ow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes --- C Cultivated < 20 1 Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 i Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved ru�� E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCfUU GE METHOD Version 2.00 Pro; URSO - SH.ARO^: DRIVE User: .SEE. Date: 11/131 85 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtltie: PROPOSED CONDITION - DEVELOPED Data: Drainage Area 8.05 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 70 * Time of Concentration: 0.29 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE ! Storm Number ( 1 I 2 ! 3 ! 4 ! 5 !----------------------!------!------!------!------!------1 Fr (.._ ` 1 ! 25 50 ' 100 ------ Frequency �Y�s� , 2 ! 0 � , I 1 I I I I I 124-Hr Rainfall (in) 1 3,2 1 4.7 I 5, 5 ! E,2 I E,9 I 1 I 1 I t 1 l is/c Rati^v n n7 , n �o n 1 n 1A i i V.G i V.1V V.16 i V.lY i V.1G i I Runoff (in; ! 0,83 1 1 ,87 1 2,41 ( i,96 13.54 I I I ! I I I ! Unit Peak Discharge e 10.690 10.740 10.755 j0.765 10.774 1 (cfs/acre/in) ( I I ! I ! Pond and Swamp Factor! 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 i , n Ponds TTsed , �.,r�u .,w I----------------------1 ------I------I------I------1------ I 1 Paak T)i gcharrga lcfs) I 5 ! 11 ! 15 1 18 I 22 t * - Values; provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX C RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project URSO - SHARON DRIVE User• REF Date: 11/13/8S County HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITION - UNDEVELOPED Subarea : 6.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (La ns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75i 4.43 (39) .23(61) - - OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Woods fair - - 1.64 (73) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 4.43 .23 1.64 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 6.3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 6.3 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 49* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRA✓EL TIME Version 2.00 Project URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/13/85 County HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITION - UNDEVELOPED ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 3.2 100 .009 H 0.493 Shallow Concent'd 215 .005 U 0.052 Shallow Concent'd 60 .043 U 0.005 Open Channel 675 1.5 0.125 Time of Concentration = 0.67* --- Sheet Flora Surface Codes --- A .Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes --- C Cultivated <. 20 > Res. H Woods, Light P Paged D Cultivated > 20 A Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method (_RAPRTrAT. PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD versi nn 2,nn Project : URSO - SHAR.ON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/13/85 County . HARTFORD State. CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITION - UNDEVELOPED Data: Drainage Area 6.3 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 49 * Time of Concentration: 0.67 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number ! 1 ! 2 ( 3 ! 4 ! 5 ! !----------------------!------!------!------!------!------1 ! Frequency (yrs) ! 2 1 10 ! 25 ! 50 ! 100 1 124-Hr Rainfall (in) ! 3.2 ( 4.7 ( 5.5 1 6.2 1 6.9 ! i Ta/P Ratio 10.65 10.44 10.38 ! 0.34 ! 0.30 I Used ! 0.50 ! 0.44 0.38 ! 0.34 ! 0.30 ! I Runoff (in) 10.11 10.53 10.85 ! 1.17 1 1.52 ! I Unit Peak Discharge 10.271 10.332 10.400 10.441 l0.472 I ! (cfs/acre/1n) ! ! ! ! ! I ( ! ! I I I I Pond and Swamp Factor! 1.00 ! 1.00 ! 1.00 ! 1.00 ! 1.v,v ! ( 0.0� Ponds Used I I I ! ! ! 1----------------------i------l------l------!------i------i ! Peak Discharge (cfs) ! 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 ------------- * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX D Reservoir Report Page , Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Reservoir No. 1 - basin 1 Pond Data Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Conic method used. Stage/Storage Table stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cult) Total storage(cult) 0.00 65.00 8,225 0 0 1.00 66.00 10,010 9,102 9,102 2.00 67.00 11,885 10,933 20,035 3.00 68.00 13,830 12,844 32,879 4.00 69.00 15,940 14,871 47,750 5.00 70.00 18,110 17,012 64,762 Culvert I Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [Dl [A] [Bl [C] [Dl Rise in = 15.0 6.0 15.0 0.0 Crest Len ft = 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span in = 15.0 6.0 15.0 0.0 Crest El.ft = 67.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 No.Barrels = 1 1 1 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Invert El.It = 64.00 65.00 67.00 0.00 Weir Type = Riser - - - Length ft = 60.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Mu"tage = Yes No No No Slope% = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .000 Orif.Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a Yes Yes No Exfiltration Rate = 0.00 inthr/sqft Tailwater Elev.= 0.00 ft Now All outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet coMtol. Stage/Storage/Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation CIv A Clv B Civ C Civ D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Total ft cult It cis cfs cis Ifs cfs cis Ifs cis Cis; 0.00 0 65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 1.00 9,102 66.00 3.62 0.82 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.82 2.00 20,035 67.00 3.62 1.25 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 1.25 3.00 32,879 68.00 6.60 1.35 3.62 - 1.62 - - - - 6•60 4.00 47,750 69.00 11.89 0.36 2.28 - 9.24 - - - - 11.89 5.00 64,762 70.00 13.35 0.21 1.32 - 11.81 - - - - 13.34 APPENDIX E Hydrograph Report Page, Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 First Routing Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.79 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = basin 1 Max. Elevation = 65.94 ft Max. Storage = 8,597 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=22,685 cuft Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation CIv A CIv B CIv C CIv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EMI Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 11.90 0.90 65.05 1.84 0.02 - - - - - -- --- 0.02 12.00 1.97 . 65.11 3.62 0.04 - - - - - - -- 0.04 12.10 3.76 65.22 3.62 0.13 - - - -- - ----- -- 0.13 12.20 4.79<< 65.38 3.62 0.34 - - - - - - - 0.34 12.30 4.48 65.54 3.62 0.51 - - - - - -- - 0.51 12.40 3.64 65.68 3.62 0.62 - - - - - - - 0.62 12.50 2.70 65.78 3.62 0.69 - - - - ----- - --- 0.69 12.60 2.01 65.85 3.62 0.73 - -- -- ---_ - --- -- 0.73 12.70 1.49 65.89 3.62 0.75 - --_ ----- - - ---- ---- 0.75 12.80 1.21 65.91 3.62 0.77 - - - - - - - 0.77 12.90 1.07 65.92 3.62 0.78 - - - ----- - ----- - 0.78 13.00 0.98 65.93 3.62 0.78 - - - - ---- - ----- 0.78 13.10 0.90 65.94 3.62 0.78 - - - - - - - 0.78 13.20 0.84 65.94 3.62 0.79 - - - - - -- - 0.79 13.30 0.80 65.94 3.62 0.79 - - ----- - - ---- -- 0.79<< 13.40 0.77 65.94 3.62 0.79 - - - - - - - 0.79 13.50 0.75 65.94 3.62 0.79 - - - - - - - 0.79 13.60 0.73 65.94 3.62 0.79 - - - - ---- - - 0.79 13.70 0.71 65.94 3.62 0.78 - - -- - - -- - 0.78 13.80 0.68 65.94 3.62 0.78 -- - ----- - - - _--- 0.78 13.90 0.66 65.93 3.62 0.78 ---- - - ----- ---- _- ___ 0.78 14.00 0.64 65.93 3.62 0.78 - - - - - - - 0.78 14.10 0.61 65.92 3.62 0.77 ---- - - - - - 0.77 14.20 0.59 65.91 3.62 0.77 - - - - - - - 0.77 14.30 0.58 65.91 3.62 0.77 - - ---- ----- ---- ----- - 0.77 14.40 0.57 65.90 3.62 0.76 - - ----- - - ---- --- 0.76 14.50 0.55 65.89 3.62 0.76 --- - --- - - - -- 0.76 14.60 0.54 65.88 3.62 0.75 - - - - - ---- - 0.75 14.70 0.53 65.87 3.62 0.75 - - - - - ----- - 0.75 14.80 0.52 65.87 3.62 0.74 - - - - - - - 0.74 14.90 0.51 65.86 3.62 0.74 - - - - - - 0.74 15.00 0.49 65.85 3.62 0.73 - - -- - - -- - 0.73 15.10 0.48 65.84 3.62 0.72 - - -- - - - -- 0.72 15.20 0.47 65.83 3.62 0.72 - - - - - - - 0.72 15.30 0.46 65.82 3.62 0.71 - - - - - - - 0.71 15.40 0.44 65.81 3.62 0.71 - - ---- - - - -- 0.71 15.50 0.43 65.80 3.62 0.70 - - - ---- - - --- 0.70 15.60 0.42 65.79 3.62 0.69 - - - -- - -- ---- 0.69 Continues on next page... First Routing Page 2 Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation CIv A Clv B CIv C CIv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EAU Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 15.70 0.40 65.78 3.62 0.68 - - - - - - - 0.68 15.80 0.39 65.76 3.62 0.68 - - - - - - - 0.68 15.90 0.38 65.75 3.62 0.67 - - - - - - - 0.67 16.00 0.36 65.74 3.62 0.66 - - -- ---- - -- --- 0.66 16.10 0.35 65.73 3.62 0.65 - - - -- - 0.65 16.20 0.34 65.72 3.62 0.65 -- - -- -- - ~ - 0.65 16.30 0.33 65.71 3.62 0.64 - - - - - - - 0.64 16.40 0.32 65.69 3.62 0.63 - - - - ---- - 0.63 16.50 0.32 65.68 3.62 0.62 - - - - ~ - -- 0.62 16.60 0.31 65.67 3.62 0.61 - - - - - -- - 0.61 16.70 0.31 65.66 3.62 0.60 - - - ~ - - -- 0.60 16.80 0.30 65.65 3.62 0.59 - - - - - -- - 0.59 16.90 0.29 65.63 3.62 0.58 - - - - - ~ - 0.58 17.00 0.29 65.62 3.62 0.58 - - - - - - - 0.58 17.10 0.28.. 65.61 3.62 0.57 - -- - - - -- 0.57 17.20 0.28 65.60 3.62 0.56 - - - - - ~ ----- 0.56 17.30 0.27 65.59 3.62 0.55 - - - - - - 0.55 17.40 0.26 65.58 3.62 0.54 -- --- --- - -- - --- 0.54 17.50 0.26 65.57 3.62 0.53 - - - - - - - 0.53 17.60 0.25 65.56 3.62 0.52 - - - - - - 0.52 17.70 0.25 65.55 3.62 0.51 - - - - ~ - -- 0.51 17.80 0.24 65.54 3.62 0.50 --- - - - - - -- 0.50 17.90 0.23 65.53 3.62 0.49 - -- - - - - - 0.49 18.00 0.23 65.51 3.62 0.49 ---- --- -- _- ___- -- 0.49 18.10 0.22 65.50 3.62 0.48 - - - - - -- - 0.48 18.20 0.22 65.49 3.62 0.47 - - - - - - - 0.47 18.30 0.21 65.48 3.62 0.46 - - --- - - - - 0.46 18.40 0.21 65.48 3.62 0.45 - - - - - - 0.45 18.50 0.21 65.47 3.62 0.44 - ---- -- ~ - -' -- 0.44 18.60 0.21 65.46 3.62 0.43 - -- - - - -- -- 0.43 18.70 0.21 65.45 3.62 0.42 -- - - - ~ - -- 0.42 18.80 0.20 65.44 3.62 0.41 - - - - - - - 0.41 18.90 0.20 65.43 3.62 0.40 - - - - - - - 0.40 19.00 0.20 65.42 3.62 0.39 - - - - - -' -" 0.39 19.10 0.20 65.42 3.62 0.38 - ----- -- - - - - 0.38 19.20 0.20 65.41 3.62 0.38 - - - - - - - 0.38 19.30 0.19 65.40 3.62 0.37 - - - - - - - 0.37 19.40 0.19 65.40 3.62 0.36 - - - -- -- - - 0.36 19.50 0.19 65.39 3.62 0.35 - - - - - - - 0.35 19.60 0.19 65.38 3.62 0.35 - - - - - - - 0.35 19.70 0.19 65.38 3.62 0.34 - - - -- --- -- -- 0.34 19.80 0.19 65.37 3.62 0.33 -- - - - - - - 0.33 19.90 0.18 65.37 3.62 0.32 - - ---- - - - - 0.32 20.00 0.18 65.36 3.62 0.32 - - - - ~ ~ - 0.32 20.10 0.18 65.36 3.62 0.31 - - - - - - - 0.31 20.20 0.18 65.35 3.62 0.30 - - - - - - -- 0.30 20.30 0.18 65.35 3.62 0.30 - - - - - - - 0.30 20.40 0.17 65.34 3.62 0.29 - - -- - -- -- 0.29 20.50 0.17 65.34 3.62 0.28 - - - - - - ---- 0.28 20.60 0.17 65.33 3.62 0.28 - - - - - ---- - 0.28 20.70 0.17 65.33 3.62 0.27 - - --- - ---- - -' 0.27 Continues on next page... Hyd. No. 2 - Reservoir - 2 Yr - Qp = 0.79 efs - First Routing 5 ------ r - __ I' f i F i 3 - [ i 1 FF r I i 0 0.0 4.6 9.1 13.7 18 3 22.9 27.4 32.0 36.6 41.1 45.7 Time (hrs) /' Hyd. 1 Hyd. 2 Hydrograph Report page, Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 First Routing Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.51 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = basin 1 Max. Elevation = 67.20 ft Max. Storage = 22,582 cuft Storage Indication method used_ Outflow hydrograph volume=49,770 cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Civ B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EMI Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 11.10 0.32 65.05 1.96 0.02 - - -- - - --- - 0.02 11.20 0.38 65.07 2.43 0.02 -- - - - -- -- 0.02 11.30 0.46 65.08 2.99 0.03 - ---- -- - -- -- - 0.03 11.40 0.55 65.10 3.62 0.03 - - - - - - - 0.03 11.50 0.67 65.12 3.62 0.05 - - - - - - - 0.05 11.60 0.86 65.15 3.62 0.07 - - - - - - - 0.07 11.70 1.30 65.19 3.62 0.10 - - - - - -- - 0.10 11.80 2.09 65.25 3.62 0.18 - - - - -- -- - 0.18 11.90 3.26 65.35 3.62 0.30 - - -- - - -- -- 0.30 12.00 5.81 65.51 3.62 0.48 - - - - --- -- - 0.48 12.10 9.71 65.80 3.62 0.70 - - - -- - - - 0.70 12.20 11.44<< 66.15 3.62 0.90 -- --- - - - - - 0.90 12.30 10.14 66.47 3.62 1.05 - - - - - -- - 1.05 12.40 7.86 66.73 3.62 1.15 - - - - - - - 1.15 12.50 5.65 66.92 3.62 1.22 - - - -- - --- - 1.22 12.60 4.15 67.03 3.62 1.26 0.02 - - - - - --- 1.28 12.70 3.04 67.10 3.62 1.28 0.05 - - - - - - 1-34 12.80 2.44 67.14 3.62 1.30 0.10 - - - - - - 1.40 12.90 2.15 67.16 3.62 1.31 0.14 - - - - - --- 1.44 13.00 1.97 67.18 3.62 1.31 0.16 - - - -- - --- 1.47 13.10 1.79 67.19 3.62 1.32 0.18 - - -- -- - --- 1.49 13.20 1.66 67.19 3.62 1.32 0.19 - - - - - - 1.50 13.30 1.58 67.20 3.62 1.32 0.19 - - - - - - 1.51 13.40 1.52 67.20 << 3.62 1.32 0.19 - - - - ---- --- 1.51 << 13.50 1.48 67.20 3.62 1.32 0.19 - - --- - --- ----- 1.51 13.60 1.43 67.20 3.62 1.32 0.19 - - - - - - 1.51 13.70 1.38 67.19 3.62 1.32 0.18 -- - -- -- - - 1.50 13.80 1.33 67.19 3.62 1.32 0.18 - - - - ---- - 1.50 13.90 1.28 67.18 3.62 1.31 0.17 - - - - - - 1.49 14.00 1.23 67.18 3.62 1.31 0.16 - - --- - - - 1.48 14.10 1.18 67.17 3.62 1.31 0.15 - - - -- - - 1.46 14.20 1.14 67.16 3.62 1.31 0.14 - - ---- - - -- 1.45 14.30 1.11 67.15 3.62 1.30 0.13 -- - - - - - 1.43 14.40 1.09 67.14 3.62 1.30 0.12 - - - - - - 1.42 14.50 1.06 67.14 3.62 1.30 0.10 - - - - - - 1.40 14.60 1.04 67.13 3.62 1.29 0.09 - - - - - - 1.38 14.70 1.02 67.12 3.62 1.29 0.08 - - - -- ----- - 1.37 14.80 0.99 67.11 3.62 1.29 0.06 - - - -- -- ---- 1.35 Continues on next page... First Routing Page 2 Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EMI Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs as cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 14.90 0.97 67.10 3.62 1.28 0.05 - - - - - - 1-34 15.00 0.94 67.09 3.62 1.28 0.05 - - - - - - 1.33 15.10 0.92 67.07 3.62 1.28 0.04 - - - - - - 1.32 15.20 0.89 67.06 3.62 1.27 0.03 - - - --- - - 1.31 15.30 0.87 67.05 3.62 1.27 0.03 - - -- - - - 1.30 15.40 0.84 67.04 3.62 1.26 0.02 - - -- -- ---- -_ 1.29 15.50 0.82 67.03 3.62 1.26 0.01 - - - - - - 1.27 15.60 0.79 67.01 3.62 1.26 0.01 - - - - - - 1.26 15.70 0.76 67.00 3.62 1.25 - - - - - - - 1.25 15.80 0.74 66.98 3.62 1.24 - - - --- - - - 1.24 15.90 0.71 66.97 3.62 1.24 - - - - - - - 1.24 16.00 0.68 66.95 3.62 1.23 - -- - - - - - 1.23 16.10 0.66 66.93 3.62 1.23 - - - - - - ---- 1.23 16.20 0.64 66.91 3.62 1.22 - - - - - - - 1.22 16.30 0.62 66.89 3.62 1.21 - - - - - - - 121 16.40 0.61 66.87 3.62 1.20 - - - - --- - - 1.20 16.50 0.60 66.85 3.62 1.20 - - -- ---- - - -- 1.20 16.60 0.59 66.83 3.62 1.19 - - -- -_ - --- --- 1.19 16.70 0.57 66.81 3.62 1.18 - - - - - - ---- 1.18 16.80 0.56 66.79 3.62 1.17 - - - - - - ---- 1.17 16.90 0.55 66.77 3.62 1.17 - - - - - - 1.17 17.00 0.54 66.75 3.62 1.16 - - - - -_ - ---- 1.16 17.10 0.53 66.73 3.62 1.15 - - - -- - -- -- 1.15 17.20 0.52 66.71 3.62 1.14 - --- -- -- -_ -- -_--- 1.14 17.30 0.50 66.69 3.62 1.13 - - - - - - - 1.13 17.40 0.49 66.67 3.62 1.13 - - - - - - - 1.13 17.50 0.48 66.65 3.62 1.12 - - - - - - - 1.12 17.60 0.47 66.63 3.62 1.11 - - - -- - - - 1.11 17.70 0.46 66.61 3.62 1.10 - - - --- - --- -- 1.10 17.80 0.45 66.59 3.62 1.09 - - - - -- - --- 1.09 17.90 0.43 66.56 3.62 1.08 - - - - - - --- 1.08 18.00 0.42 66.54 3.62 1.07 - - - - ---- - --- 1.07 18.10 0.41 66.52 3.62 1.07 - - - - - - -- 1.07 18.20 0.40 66.50 3.62 1.06 - - - - - - -- 1-06 18.30 0.40 66.48 3.62 1.05 - - - ----- - -- - 1.05 18.40 0.39 66.46 3.62 1.04 - - - --- -- - 1.04 18.50 0.39 66.44 3.62 1.03 - - - - - - - 1.03 18.60 0.38 66.41 3.62 1.02 - - - - - - -- 1.02 18.70 0.38 66.39 3.62 1.01 - - - - - - - 1.01 18.80 0.38 66.37 3.62 1.00 - - - - - - -_ 1.00 18.90 0.37 66.35 3.62 0.99 - - - - - - --- 0.99 19.00 0.37 66.33 3.62 0.98 - - - - - - --- 0.98 19.10 0.37 66.31 3.62 0.97 - - - - - - - 0.97 19.20 0.36 66.29 3.62 0.97 - - - - - - - 0.97 19.30 0.36 66.27 3.62 0.96 - - - - - - - 0-96 19.40 0.36 6625 3.62 0.95 - - - - -- - - 0.95 19.50 0.35 66.23 3.62 0.94 - - - - - - - 0.94 19.60 0.35 66.21 3.62 0.93 - - - - - - - 0.93 19.70 0.35 66.20 3.62 0.92 - - - - - - - 0.92 19.80 0.34 66.18 3.62 0.91 - - - - - - - 0.91 19.90 0.34 66.16 3.62 0.90 - - - - - - - 0.90 Continues on next page... First Routing Page 3 Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EAU Outflow (hrs) ds ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 20.00 0.34 66.14 3.62 0.89 - - - - - - - 0.89 20.10 0.33 66.12 3.62 0.88 - - - - - - - 0.88 20.20 0.33 66.10 3.62 0.87 - - - - - - - 0.87 20.30 0.32 66.09 3.62 0.86 - - - - - - - 0.86 20.40 0.32 66.07 3.62 0.85 - - - - - - - 0.85 20.50 0.32 66.05 3.62 0.85 - - - - - ---- -- 0.85 20.60 0.31 66.03 3.62 0.84 - - - - --- - - 0.84 20.70 0.31 66.02 3.62 0.83 - - - - - - - 0.83 20.80 0.31 66.00 3.62 0.82 - - - - - - - 0.82 20.90 0.30 65.98 3.62 0.81 - - - - - - - 0.81 21.00 0.30 65.96 3.62 0.80 - - - - - - - 0.80 21.10 0.30 65.94 3.62 0.78 -- --- - - ---- -- - 0.78 21.20 0.29 65.92 3.62 0.77 - - - - - - - 0.77 21.30 0.29 65.90 3.62 0.76 - --- - - - - - 0.76 21.40 0.28 65.88 3.62 0.75 - - - - - - - 0.75 21.50 0.28 65.87 3.62 0.74 - ----- - - - - -- 0.74 21.60 0.28 65.85 3.62 0.73 - - - - - - -- 0.73 21.70 0.27 65.83 3.62 0.72 - - - - -- - -- 0.72 21.80 027 65.81 3.62 0.71 - - - - - - ---- 0.71 21.90 0.27 65.79 3.62 0.70 - - - - - - - 0.70 22.00 0.26 65.78 3.62 0.69 - - - - - ---- - 0.69 22.10 0.30 65.76 3.62 0.68 - - - - - - - 0.68 22.20 0.34 65.75 3.62 0.67 - - -- -- - - - 0.67 22.30 0.32 65.74 3.62 0.66 - - ----- - ----- --- --- 0.66 22.40 0.29 65.72 3.62 0.65 - - - - - ---- - 0.65 22.50 0.27 65.71 3.62 0.64 - - - - - - - 0.64 22.60 0.26 65.69 3.62 0.63 - - --- - - - - 0.63 22.70 026 65.68 3.62 0.62 -- - - - - - - 0.62 22.80 0.26 65.66 3.62 0.61 - - - - - - - 0.61 22.90 0.26 65.65 3.62 0.60 - - - - - -- - 0.60 23.00 0.25 65.64 3.62 0.59 - - - - - -- - 0.59 23.10 0.25 65.62 3.62 0.58 - - - - - --- --- 0.58 2320 0.25 65.61 3.62 0.57 - - - - - - - 0.57 23.30 024 65.60 3.62 0.56 - - - - --- - --- 0.56 23.40 0.24 65.59 3.62 0.55 - - - - - - ---- 0.55 23.50 0.24 65.57 3.62 0.54 - - - ----- - - --- 0•54 23.60 0.24 65.56 3.62 0.53 - - - - - - - _ 0.53 23.70 0.23 65.55 3.62 0.52 - - - - - - - 0.52 23.80 0.23 65.54 3.62 0.51 - - - - - - ----- 0.51 23.90 0.23 65.53 3.62 0.50 - -- - - - - -- 0.50 24.00 0.22 65.52 3.62 0.49 - - -- ---- - - -- 0.49 24.10 0.18 65.51 3.62 0.48 - - - - -- - - 0.48 24.20 0.09 65.49 3.62 0.47 - - - - - - - 0.47 24.30 0.03 65.48 3.62 0.45 - - - - - - - 0.45 24.40 0.00 65.46 3.62 0.43 - - - - - - - 0.43 24.50 0.00 65.45 3.62 0.41 - - - - - - - 0.41 24.60 0.00 65.43 3.62 0.40 - - - - - - - 0.40 24.70 0.00 65.41 3.62 0.38 - -- ---- - - - - 0:38 24.80 0.00 65.40 3.62 0.37 - --- - - - - - 0.37 24.90 0.00 65.38 3.62 0.35 - - - - - - - 0.35 25.00 0.00 65.37 3.62 0.33 - - - - - - - 0.33 Continues on next page... Hyd. No. 2 - Reservoir - 10 Yr - 4p = 1.51 cfs - First Routing 15 1 - 1 - - - j CY 5 + - - --I- -- F i i j i 0 0.0 4.3 8.5 12.8 17.0 21.3 25.6 29.8 34.1 38.3 42.6 Time (hrs) d Hyd. 1 Hyd. 2 Hydrograph Report page, Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 First Routing Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 3.31 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = basin 1 Max. Elevation = 67.66 ft Max. Storage = 28,451 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=66,139 cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfl Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 10.90 0.46 65.10 3.62 0-03 - - - - - - - 0.03 11.00 0.52 65.12 3.62 0.05 - - - - -- -- - 0.05 11.10 0.58 65.14 3.62 0.06 - - - - ~- ---- --- 0.06 11.20 0.67 65.16 3.62 0.08 - - - - - - - 0.08 11.30 0.78 65.19 3.62 0.10 - - - -- - - - 0.10 11.40 0.93 65.22 3.62 0.13 - - - - - - - 0.13 11.50 1.09 65.25 3.62 0.17 - - - ---- - - -- 0.17 11.60 1.37 65.29 3.62 0.23 - -- - - -- - --- 0.23 11.70 2.00 65.35 3.62 0.30 - - - ---- -- -- -- 0.30 11.80 3.13 65.43 3.62 0.40 - - - - - - ---- 0.40 11.90 4.75 65.57 3.62 0.53 - - - - - - - 0-53 12.00 8.18 65-80 3.62 0.70 - - - - - - --- 0.70 12.10 13.30 66.16 3-62 0.90 - - - - - -- - 0.90 12.20 15.39 << 66.60 3.62 1.10 - - - - - - - 1.10 12.30 13.46 67.03 3.62 1.26 0.02 - - - - - -- 1.28 12.40 10.31 67.32 3.62 1.36 0.52 - - - - - - 1.89 12.50 7.35 67.51 3.62 1.42 1.14 - - - - - - 2.56 12.60 5.37 67.61 3.62 1.45 1.57 - - - - - - 3.03 12.70 3.92 67.65 3.62 1.46 1.81 - - - --- - - 3.27 12.80 3.13 67.66 3.62 1.47 1.85 -- - - - -- -- 3.31 << 12.90 2.76 67.65 3.62 1.46 1.79 ---- -- - - - --- 3.26 13.00 2.52 67.63 3.62 1.46 1.70 - - - - --- - 3.16 13.10 2.30 67.61 3.62 1.45 1.60 - - - --- - - 3.05 13.20 2.13 67.59 3.62 1.45 1.49 - - - - - 2.93 13.30 2.02 67.57 3.62 1.44 1.39 - - - - - - 2-83 13.40 1.94 67.54 3.62 1.43 1.30 - - - - - ~- 2.73 13.50 1.88 67.52 3.62 1.42 1.21 - - ----- - -- - 2.63 13.60 1.82 67.50 3.62 1.42 1.12 - - - - - - 2.54 13.70 1.76 67.48 3.62 1.41 1.05 - - - - - - 2.46 13.80 1.70 67.46 3.62 1.41 0.98 - - - - - - 2.38 13.90 1.63 67.44 3.62 1.40 0.91 - - - - - -- 2.31 14.00 1.57 67.42 3.62 1.39 0.84 - - --- - - - 2.23 14-10 1.50 67.41 3.62 1.39 0.77 - - ----- -- --- -- 2-16 14.20 1.45 67.39 3.62 1.38 0.71 - - - - - - 2.10 14.30 1.41 67.37 3.62 1.38 0.66 - - - - -- - 2.04 14.40 1.38 67.35 3.62 1.37 0.61 - - - - - - 1.98 14.50 1.35 67.34 3.62 1.37 0.57 - - - - - 1.93 14.60 1.32 67.32 3.62 1.36 0.52 - - - - --- - 1.88 Continues on next page... First Routing Page 2 Hydrograph Discharge Table Time inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EAR Outflow (hrs) ds ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 14.70 1.29 67.30 3.62 1.35 0.47 - - - - - - 1.83 14.80 1.26 67.29 3.62 1.35 0.43 - - - - - - 1.78 14.90 1.22 67.27 3.62 1.35 0.39 - - - - - - 1.74 15.00 1.19 67.26 3.62 1.34 0.36 - - - - - -- 1.70 15.10 1.16 67.25 3.62 1.34 0.32 - - - - - - 1.65 15.20 1.13 67.23 3.62 1.33 0.28 - - - - - - 1.61 15.30 1.09 67.22 3.62 1.33 0.25 - - - - - - 1.57 15.40 1.06 67.21 3.62 1.32 0.21 - - - - - - 1.53 15.50 1.03 67.19 3.62 1.32 0.18 - - - - - - 1.50 15.60 1.00 67.18 3.62 1.31 0.17 - - - - - - 1.48 15.70 0.96 67.17 3.62 1.31 0.15 - - - - - - 1.45 15.80 0.93 67.15 3.62 1.30 0.13 - - - - - - 1.43 15.90 0.89 67.14 3.62 1.30 0.11 - - - - - - 1.41 16.00 0.86 67.12 3.62 1.29 0.09 - - - - - - 1.38 16.10 0.83 67.11 3.62 1.29 0.07 - - - - - - 1.35 16.20 0.80 67.09 3.62 1.28 0.05 --- - - - - - 1.33 16.30 0.78 67.08 3.62 1.28 0.04 - - - - - - 1.32 16.40 0.77 67.06 3.62 1.27 0.03 - -- -- -- - -- 1.31 16.50 0.75 67.05 3.62 1.27 0.03 - - - - - - 1.29 16.60 0.74 67.03 3.62 1.26 0.02 - - - - - - 1.28 16.70 0.72 67.02 3.62 1.26 0.01 - - - - - - 1.27 16.80 0.71 67.00 3.62 1.25 0.00 - - - - - - 1.25 16.90 0.69 66.99 3.62 1.25 - - - - ---- - - 1.25 17.00 0.68 66.97 3.62 1.24 - - - - ----- - -- 1.24 17.10 0.66 66.95 3.62 1.23 - - - - - - - 1.23 17.20 0.65 66.93 3.62 1.23 - - - - - - - 1.23 17.30 0.63 66.91 3.62 1.22 - - - - - - - 1.22 17.40 0.62 66.89 3.62 1.21 - - - - - --- - 1.21 17.50 0.60 66.87 3.62 1.20 - - - - -_ - -- 1.20 17.60 0.59 66.85 3.62 1.20 - - - - ---- - - 1.20 17.70 0.57 66.83 3.62 1.19 - - - - - - - 1.19 17.80 0.56 66.81 3.62 1.18 - - - - - - - 1.18 17.90 0.54 66.79 3.62 1.17 - - - - - - - 1.17 18.00 0.53 66.77 3.62 1.17 - - - - - - ---- 1.17 18.10 0.51 66.75 3.62 1.16 - - - - --- - - 1.16 18.20 0.50 66.73 3.62 1.15 -- - - - - -- - 1.15 18.30 0.50 66.71 3.62 1.14 - - - - - - - 1.14 18.40 0.49 66.69 3.62 1.13 - - - - - --- - 1.13 18.50 0.49 66.66 3.62 1.12 - - - - - - - 1.12 18.60 0.48 66.64 3.62 1.12 - -- - -- -- - - 1.12 18.70 0.48 66.62 3.62 1.11 - - - - - - - 1.11 18.80 0.47 66.60 3.62 1.10 - -- - - - -- -- 1.10 18.90 0.47 66.58 3.62 1.09 - - - - - - ----- 1.09 19.00 0.46 66.56 3.62 1.08 - - - - - - - 1.08 19.10 0.46 66.54 3.62 1.07 - - - - - - - 1.07 19.20 0.46 66.52 3.62 1.07 - - - - - - - 1.07 19.30 0.45 66.50 3.62 1.06 - - - - - - -- 1.06 19.40 0.45 66.48 3.62 1.05 - -- - - -- -- -- 1.05 19.50 0.44 66.46 3.62 1.04 - - - - - - - 1.04 19.60 0.44 66.44 3.62 1.03 - - - - - - - 1.03 19.70 0.43 66.42 3.62 1.02 - - - - - - - 1.02 Continues on next page... Hyd. No. 2 - Reservoir - 25 Yr - Qp = 3.31 cfs - First Routing I I I I v ' U 0 0.0 3.7 7.4 11.1 14.8 18.5 22.3 26.0 29.7 33.4 37.1 Time (hrs) Hyd. 1 Hyd. 2 Hydrograph Report pawl Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 First Routing Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 6.45 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = basin 1 Max. Elevation = 67.99 ft Max. Storage = 32,730 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=81,219 cuft Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A CIv B Clv C CIv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EAU Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.30 16.48 67.48 3.62 1.41 1.02 - - - - - - 2.43 12.40 12.51 67.79 4.19 1.51 2.54 - 0.13 - - - - 4.17 12.50 8.87 67.95 5.92 1.41 3.34 - 1.16 - -- - - 5.92 12.60 6.46 67.99<< 6.45 1.37 3.56 - 1.52 - - - - 6.45<< 12.70 4.71 67.97 6.19 1.39 3.45 - 1.34 - - - - 6.19 12.80 3.76 67.92 5.59 1.44 3.20 - 0.94 - - - - 5.59 12.90 3.30 67.87 5.02 1.48 2.95 - 0.58 -- -- --- - 5.01 13.00 3.02 67.83 4.54 1.50 2.72 - 0.31 - - - - 4.53 13.10 2.74 67.79 4.17 1.51 2.52 ---- 0.12 ----- - - - 4.15 13.20 2.54 67.75 3.93 1.49 2.33 - 0.07 - - - - 3.89 13.30 2.41 67.71 3.69 1.48 2.15 - 0.02 - - - - 3.65 13.40 2.32 67.68 3.62 1.47 1.97 - - - - - - 3.44 13.50 2.25 67.65 3.62 1.46 1.80 - - - - - - 327 13.60 2.17 67.62 3.62 1.46 1.65 - - - - - - 3.11 13.70 2.10 67.59 3.62 1.45 1.52 - - - - - - 2•96 13.80 2.02 67.57 3.62 1.44 1.41 - - - - - - 2.85 13.90 1.94 67.55 3.62 1.43 1.32 - - - - - - 2.75 14.00 1.86 67.53 3.62 1.43 1.22 - - ---- - - - 2.65 14.10 1.79 67.50 3.62 1.42 1.13 - - - - - - 2.55 14.20 1.73 67.48 3.62 1.41 1.05 - - - - - - 2•46 14.30 1.68 67.46 3.62 1.41 0.98 - -- -- -- - ---- 2.38 14.40 1.64 67.44 3.62 1.40 0.91 - - - - - - 2.31 14.50 1.60 67.43 3.62 1.39 0.84 - - - - - - 2.24 14.60 1.56 67.41 3.62 1.39 0.78 - - - - - - 2.17 14.70 1.53 67.39 3.62 1.38 0.73 - -- - - - - 2.11 14.80 1.49 67.38 3.62 1.38 0.68 - - - - - - 2.06 14.90 1.45 67.36 3.62 1.37 0.63 - - - - --- - 2.01 15.00 1.41 67.34 3.62 1.37 0.59 - - - - - - 1.96 15.10 1.37 67.33 3.62 1.36 0.55 - - - - - - 1.91 15.20 1.34 67.31 3.62 1.36 0.50 - - - - - - 1.86 15.30 1.30 67.30 3.62 1.35 0.46 - - ---- - - --- 1.81 15.40 1.26 67.29 3.62 1.35 0.42 - - - - - -- 1.77 15.50 1.22 67.27 3.62 1.34 0.38 - - - - - -- 1.73 15.60 1.18 67.26 3.62 1.34 0.35 - - - - - - 1.68 15.70 1.14 67.24 3.62 1.33 0.31 - - - - - - 1.64 ...End Hyd. No. 2 - Reservoir - 50 Yr - Qp = 6.45 cfs - First Routing 20 I i I - -- -- - `- - - - r- i I 0 0.0 3.2 6.5 9.7 13.0 16.2 19.4 22.7 25.9 29.2 32.4 Time (hrs) ,� Hyd. 1 Hyd. 2 Hydrograph Report Page, Hydraflow Hydrographs by Inteliso1w Hyd. No. 2 First Routing Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 9.71 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = basin 1 Max. Elevation = 68.24 ft Max. Storage = 36,439 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=96,854 cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A CIv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EAU Outflow (hm) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.30 19.56 67.90 5.31 1.47 3.09 - 0.76 - - - - 5.31 12.40 14.75 68.16 8.78 1.03 4.34 - 3.41 - -- - - 8.78 12.50 10.41 68.24 9.71 0.83 4.43 - 4.46 -- - -- - 9.71 « 12.60 7.57 68.22 9.57 0.86 4.46 - 4.24 - - - - 9.57 12.70 5.50 68.16 8.79 1.03 4.34 - 3.42 - - - - 8.79 12.80 4.39 68.08 7.68 1.22 3.99 - 2.47 - - - - 7.68 12.90 3.86 68.01 6.68 1.35 3.65 - 1.68 -- -- - -- 6.68 13.00 3.52 67.94 5.77 1.43 3.28 - 1.06 -- - - -- 5.77 13.10 3.20 67.88 5.08 1.48 2.98 - 0.62 -- --- ----- - 5.07 13.20 2.96 67.83 4.57 1.50 2.74 - 0.32 - - - - 4.56 13.30 2.80 67.79 4.18 1.51 2.53 - 0.13 - - --- - 4.16 13.40 2.70 67.75 3.95 1.49 2.35 - 0.07 - - - - 3.92 13.50 2.61 67.72 3.74 1.49 2.19 - 0.03 - --- - - 3.70 13.60 2.52 67.69 3.62 1.48 2.04 - - - -- -- ---- 3.51 13.70 2.43 67.66 3.62 1.47 1.89 -- - -- - - - 3.36 13.80 2.34 67.64 3.62 1.46 1.75 - - - - - - 3.21 13.90 2.25 67.61 3.62 1.45 1.62 - - - - - - 3.07 14.00 2.16 67.59 3.62 1.45 1.50 - - - - - - 2.95 14.10 2.07 67.57 3.62 1.44 1.41 - - - - ---- - 2.85 1420 2.00 67.55 3.62 1.43 1.32 - - -- - - - 2.75 14.30 1.95 67.53 3.62 1.43 1.23 -- - - ---- - ---- 2.66 14.40 1.90 67.51 3.62 1.42 1.15 - - - - - - 2-57 14.50 1.86 67.49 3.62 1.41 1.08 - - - - - - 2.49 ...End Hyd. No. 2 - Reservoir - 100 Yr - Op = 9.71 cfs - First Routing 25 2 �-- - -- r -- - - -- -- ;- - --- --- i j 10 _ -- - - - --- - i 0 0.0 3.2 6.3 9.5 12.6 15.8 19.0 22.1 25.3 28.4 31.6 Time (hrs) Hyd. 1 Hyd. 2 APPENDIX F Inlet j i I i io, .tat . I i � I , ( ry Time to Inlet w Area in Acres I , i 0 0 o d 1 I Runoff Coefficient a 1 `J' AI L4 well w , I c ► . in, r, C� a, Sum of AI Q C ° S3o Total AI ! j o °' Rainfall Intensity , i 1 I w f � Q to Inlet � G ! jp Grade of Gutter C i � y j S ri1 Cross Slope of �n Shoulder a m L r Depth of Flow v �, at Gutter -( r w Width of Flow H Q Bypassing Inlet b I ' c Al Bypassing Inlet 'c a rn Al Entering Catch Basin -ON 4aagS q paXoago a,4nog " 's uroy S Aq paOTsaQ ���d GAPAc T y of r— PPTF ( wLFTS (W SA6- CT D, T ',"" FT14o-P c, $6Y +1 Z L>4 w •3` Wr� Fr Cm>-:s- X {> f4 QckL, 5- W� 1!cc = 6 r., fe per, r- r-�Lr-r SiKJ P = 6 . ?�_3 �f� D�ti;y [r 5rt`FP � � 3 ( �, �3� �c • t�� �q c�5 ( �ir�k, �41[�wEC� tc �(�� . 0n g Avg lr �ryt� cg Illlliilll�l��l�liil� TIME TO INLET �AI ENTERING L CATCH BASIN SUM OF AI . IN SYSTEM RAINFALL INTENSI IN SYSTEM LENGTH OF PIPE AVERAGE VELOCITY all i FULL CAPACITY TER HEAOWA TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for SUMMERWOOD SENIOR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PROPOSED FOR SHARON LANE in SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT Prepared By Tragic Engineering Solutions 193 Lexington Road Glastonbury, Connecticut (860) 657-3579 August 2002 Table of Contents } ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................1 Introduction .............................................................................................................2 ExistingConditions.................................................................................................2 Existing Traffic Volumes......................................................................................3 Accidents.............................................................................................................4 Project Generated Traffic.......................................................................................4 CapacityAnalyses...................................................................................................6 w Site Access..............................................................................................................7 Conclusions.............................................................................................................8 l List of Tables Table 1 Trip Generation - Senior Housing (8 Detached and 12 Attached Homes)..................................................................................5 Table 2 Trip Generation - Standard Housing (8 Detached and 12 Attached Homes)..................................................................................5 Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses..........................................7 C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summerwood, a Senior Residential Community with 20 homes (8 detached homes and 12 attached homes) is proposed for a 6.37-acre site located along the southerly side of Sharon Lane about 175 feet westerly of Judy Lane in South Windsor. The development is proposed to provide housing for Seniors who wish to move from a larger single family home to a new home with lower maintenance requirements. The trip generation information included in the ITE Trip Generation reference contains information for Retirement Communities and Elderly Housing developments, as well as information for residential developments with no age restrictions. Because the trips generated by Senior Housing are less than the trips generated by standard residential developments, and many people continue to work beyond their fifty-fifth birthday, the traffic impact from Summerwood was determined by using the trip generation information for Single-Family Detached Housing and Residential Condominium/Townhouse developments. This provides a conservative approach for evaluating the impact from the proposed Summerwood. The study assumed that the Senior Residential Community would be constructed over a period of two years. Capacity analyses were done for the intersection of Hilton Drive at Sharon Drive for the existing conditions, 2003 No-Build and 2003 Build conditions. Additionally, capacity analyses were completed for the intersection of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane for the year 2003 Build conditions. Levels of Service (LOS) are presently LOS A for all movements at the Hilton Drive and Sharon Drive intersection during the morning and afternoon peak hours. This intersection will continue at the same excellent Levels of Service for the 2003 No-Build and 2003 Build conditions. The new intersection of Sharon Drive and Summerwood Lane will operate at LOS A during both peak periods when the proposed Summerwood is completed. The intersection sight distance available to drivers looking left from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (430 feet) meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling southeasterly on Sharon Drive at speeds of 35 mph (10 mph greater than the assumed speed limit) and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 43 mph. The ISD available to drivers looking right from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (480 feet) meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling northwesterly on Sharon Drive at speeds of nearly 38 mph and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 45 mph. Additionally, the available sight distance exceeds the Sight Distance requirements for Stopped Vehicles Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic for design speeds of 50 mph (more than double the assumed speed limit on Sharon Drive). Traffic operations are expected to be Level of Service A during the morning and afternoon peak hours at the intersections of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane and Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive, and the sight distances meet or exceed the upper criteria established by ConnDOT for travel speeds at least 10 mph greater than the assumed speed limit of 25 C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 1 mph and meet or exceed the minimum criteria for travel speeds at least 18 mph greater than the assumed speed limit; hence, no offsite improvements are suggested as a result of the added traffic generated by the proposed Summerwood with 20 Senior Residential Homes. INTRODUCTION Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC. proposes to construct Summerwood, a Senior Residential Development with 8 single unit detached homes and 12 multi-unit condominiums on 6.37 acres located along the southerly side of Sharon Drive approximately 175 feet west of Judy Lane in the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut. The homes (single and multi-units)will be occupied by"Seniors"who are at least-55 years old and remain able to care for themselves, but are seeking a home with lower maintenance requirements. This report was prepared by Traffic Engineering Solutions to address the traffic impact on roadways surrounding this Senior Residential Community. The following scope of work was included in this study: ■ Making turning movement counts during the morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods at the following location: 0 Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive; ■ Requesting from the South Windsor Police Department traffic accident data for the latest three year period for Sharon Drive for its entire length. ■ Making visual observations of roadways and land use conditions along Sharon Drive and Hilton Drive in the vicinity of the site. ■ Estimating the number of trips expected to be added to the roadway system by the proposed 20 Senior residential units. ■ Completing morning and afternoon peak period capacity analyses for the intersection of Hilton Drive at Sharon Drive to determine the operating Levels of Service (LOS)for the existing traffic volumes and LOS for the future traffic volumes anticipated upon completion of the Senior Residential Units. Also, complete capacity analyses for the intersection of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane, the site access road, for the traffic volumes anticipated upon completion of Summerwood. ■ Field measure the sight distances (looking left and right) available for drivers entering and leaving Summerwood Lane and compare these distances with the Connecticut DOT Guidelines for Intersection Sight Distances for travel speeds of 25, 30 and 35 mph on Sharon Drive. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed Summerwood is a Senior Residential Community with 20 homes (8 detached homes and 12 attached homes). The development is proposed for 6.37 acres located along the south side of Sharon Drive in C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 2 South Windsor. The site is situated behind the existing homes along the southerly side of Sharon Drive and has access to Sharon Drive along a 50- foot Town Right of Way. Access to Summerwood will be provided by Summerwood Lane, a 25 foot cul d sac road within this 50-foot right of way. Summerwood Lane will be located approximately 175 feet west of Judy Lane. Visual observations were made for Sharon Drive and Hilton Drive; and traffic counts were made at the intersection of these two roadways. Sharon Drive runs from the southeast to northwest with one lane of travel in each direction. The road begins at Hilton Drive at its southeasterly end and proceeds northwesterly for approximately 950 feet where it ends as a cul d sac. Judy Lane intersects Sharon Drive from the northeast approximately 330 feet from Hilton Drive. Sharon Drive is 30 feet wide and has no pavement markings (i.e. no double yellow center line or STOP bars at intersections). There is no posted speed limit on Sharon Drive, but other streets in the area are posted at 25 miles per hour(mph). Land use along Sharon Drive is single family residential. The Sharon Drive approach to Hilton Drive is YIELD controlled. Summerwood Lane, the proposed site access road, will intersect Sharon Drive from the southwest about 175 feet northwesterly of Judy Lane and about 500 feet northwesterly of Hilton Drive Hilton Drive generally runs in the southwest to northeast direction beginning at Pleasant Valley Road and continuing for approximately 0.9 mile to Beldon Road. In the vicinity of Sharon Drive, Hilton Drive is 30 feet wide with a single lane of travel in each direction. A double yellow center line separates the two directions of travel. The roadway is straight for more than 500 feet both directions from Sharon Drive. The two directions of travel on Hilton Drive are separated by a 40-foot median as it approaches Pleasant Valley Road. Hilton Drive is STOP controlled at its intersection with Beldon Road and the intersection with Pleasant Valley Road is STOP controlled on all approaches. Land use along Hilton Drive is residential. The posted speed limit on Hilton Drive is 25 miles per hour. Existing Traffic Volumes Turning movement traffic counts were made on December 18, 2001 during the morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods at the intersection of Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive. The turning movement counts indicate that the morning peak hour occurred between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM when 39 vehicles traveled Hilton Drive (10 vehicles traveled toward the northeast and 29 vehicles traveled toward the southwest)just south of Sharon Drive, and 19 vehicles traveled Sharon Drive (14 vehicles traveled toward the southeast—toward Hilton Drive and 5 vehicles traveled toward the northwest)at its intersection with Hilton Drive. The afternoon peak hour occurred between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM when 68 vehicles traveled Hilton Drive (46 vehicles traveled toward the northeast and 22 vehicles traveled toward the southwest)just south of Sharon Drive, and 43 vehicles traveled Sharon Drive (14 vehicles traveled toward the southeast and 29 vehicles traveled toward the northwest) at its intersection with Hilton Drive. Copies of the turning movement counts are included in the Appendix to this report. C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 3 Accidents The South Windsor Police Department was contacted to provide accident information for Sharon Drive. According to their records there have been no reported accidents along the length of Sharon Drive during the past three years. PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC New trips to the roadway system generated by the proposed Summerwood were determined from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) reference, Trip Generation'. The ITE reference has established mathematical relationships based on studies of various land uses to determine their trip generation rates. These trip generation relationships have been standardized and published in the Trip Generation reference. The proposed 20 Senior Residential Homes are being developed for "Seniors"who are at least 55 years old. The ITE reference provides trip generation information for several related land uses for senior housing including: "Retirement Community", "Elderly Housing—Attached" and "Elderly Housing—Detached". The ITE reference also provides trip generation information for standard housing including "Residential Condominium/Townhouse" and"Single-Family Detached Housing". The trips generated by the 8 Detached Homes and 12 Multi-Unit Homes were calculated for Senior Housing and Standard Housing to provide a comparison of the number of trips Senior and Standard housing would generate. The trip generation was based on Land Use Codes 251 - "Elderly Housing—Detached", 253- "Elderly Housing—Attached", 210- "Single Family Detached Housing" and 230—"Residential Condominium /Townhouse". The following trip generation relationships were used to determine the number of daily, and morning and afternoon peak hour trips that would be generated by the proposed Summerwood Senior Residential Community and by a similar size standard residential development. The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Senior Housing Elderly Housing—Detached (8 Homes) Average Weekday Trips Not Available Morning Peak Hour 0.21 Trips per Unit 36/64 Afternoon Peak Hour 0.23 Trips per Unit 64/36 where T is the number of trips and X the number of detached homes Trip Generation Sixth Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997 C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 4 Elden Housing—Attached 12 Units) Y g ( Average Weekday Trips 3.48 Trips per Unit Morning Peak Hour 0.07 Trips per Unit 63/37 Afternoon Peak Hour 0.10 Trips per Unit 59/41 Standard Housing Single-Family Detached Housing (8 Homes) Average Weekday Trips Ln(T)= 0.920 Ln(X) +2.707 Morning Peak Hour T=0.700 (X) + 9.477 25/75 !� Afternoon Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.901 Ln(X)+ 0.527 64/36 where T is the number of trips and X the number of detached homes Residential Condominium/Townhouse (12 Units) Average Weekday Trips Ln(T) = 0.850 Ln(X) +2.564 Morning Peak Hour LnM = 0.790 Ln(X) + 0.298 17/83 Afternoon Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.827 Ln(X) + 0.309 67/33 where T is the number of trips and X the number of condominium units Table 1 -Trip Generation - Senior Housing Trips Entering Trips Leaving 8 Units 12 Units Total 8 Units 12 Units Total Detached Attached Detached Attached Daily2 14 21 35 14 21 35 Morning Peak 1 1 2 1 0 1 Hour Afternoon Peak 1 1 2 1 1 2 Hour Table 2-Trip Generation -Standard Housing Trips EnteringTrips Leaving 8 Units 12 Units Total 8 Units 12 Units Total Detached Attached Detached Attached Daily 51 54 105 51 54 105 Morning Peak 4 2 6 11 8 19 Hour Afternoon Peak 7 7 14 4 4 8 Hour 2 Detached Housing assumed the same trip generation as attached housing. C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 5 Tables 1 and 2 show that the number of trips generated on a daily basis and during the peak hours is considerably less for Senior Housing than for the same size residential community with no age restrictions. Because many people continue working well past their fifty-fifth birthday, and since the trip generation information for residential uses with no age restrictions is higher (more conservative), the Trip Generation estimates for standard housing were used for the proposed 20 Summerwood Senior Residential Community. The capacity analyses completed for this study used the higher number of generated trips present in Table 2 to provide a conservative (worst case) evaluation of the operating Levels of Service. CAPACITY ANALYSES Capacity Analyses were done to determine the anticipated quality of traffic operations at the intersections of Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive and Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane, the site access road. Letter designations from A to F are used to represent the Levels of Service (LOS)for the traffic operation at each intersection or roadway, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Typically, LOS D is considered acceptable by ConnDOT for design peak hour conditions. The Level of Service for unsignalized intersections with STOP control on the minor street assumes that through and right-turning traffic on the main street is not affected by traffic on the side street(s). Thus, the LOS designation is for the movements on the side street and the left turn movement from the main street onto the side street. Levels of Service are defined by the average delay per vehicle as indicated below. Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Avg. DelayNehicle (in Seconds) LOS A < 10.0 LOSB > 10.0 and < 15.0 LOS C > 15.0 and < 25.0 LOS D >25.0 and < 35.0 LOS E > 35.0 and < 50.0 LOS F > 50.0 Level-of-service capacity analyses were completed for existing conditions, 2003 No-Build conditions, and 2003 Build conditions for Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive. Additionally, capacity analyses were completed for the 2003 Build conditions for the intersection of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane. The 2003 No Build traffic volumes were determined by applying a two percent growth factor to the 2001 traffic volumes to account for growth that may occur in the area, though background growth is not likely because of the surrounding roadway system is relatively isolated from through traffic that does not originate within the neighborhood. The year 2003 analyses assume a two year buildout for the Summerwood Senior Residential Community. The generated trips were assigned to the intersection of Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive assuming that all the new trips would travel to C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 6 and from the south and one-third of the new trips would travel to and from the north. This provides a conservative estimate of the site impact by adding 133% of the anticipated new trips to the surrounding roadway system. All site trips will travel to and from the southeast on Sharon Drive since the northwesterly end of this road its a cul d sac. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2001 2003 No Build 2003 Build Location Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive N-Bd Left Turn AM 7.2 A 7.2 A 7.3 A E-Bd Sharon Drive Peak 8.4 A 8.4 A 8.6 A N-Bd Left Turn PM 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A E-Bd Sharon Drive Peak 8.8 A 8.9 A 9.0 A Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane W-Bd Left Turn AM 7.3 A N-Bd Summerwood Ln Peak N/A NIA N/A N/A 8.4 A W-Bd Left Turn PM 7.2 A N-Bd Summerwood Ln Peak N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.4 A y , - - Delay= Average stopped delay, in seconds, to all vehicles entering the intersection or to vehicles making the specified turn. The results shown in Table 3 are based on the conservative number of generated trips shown in Table 2 for housing with no age restrictions, and the conservative distribution of these trips. Table 3 indicates that the left turns from Hilton Drive onto Sharon Drive and the Sharon Drive approach to the intersection presently operate at Level of Service A. The same excellent LOS will continue for the year 2003 No-Build and Build conditions. Left turns from Sharon Drive onto the new Summerwood Lane and the Summerwood Lane approach to Sharon Drive will operate at LOS A when Summerwood is completed and fully occupied. SITE ACCESS The proposed access road to Summerwood will be located along the southerly side of Sharon Drive 175 feet westerly of Judy Lane. It is important that adequate intersection sight distance (ISD) is available for vehicles turning to and from the access drive at its intersection with Trumbull Lane. Visual observations and sight distance measurements were made in C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 7 accordance with ConnDOT standards for measuring Intersection Sight Distances and for Stopped Vehicle Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic. Intersection Sight Distances from the site drive were measured at a distance of 10 feet off the edge of road with a 3.5 foot height of eye and height of object. The sight distances were measured within the existing street line so that easements across other properties would not be required. The sight distance available to drivers leaving the drive will be 430 feet(to the end of the cul d sac) looking toward the left(northwesterly) and 480 feet looking to the right(southeast),just short of the intersection with Hilton Drive. The Intersection Sight Distance for Stopped Vehicle Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic is 430 feet. The Connecticut DOT presents minimum and upper standards for intersection sight distances (ISD) in their January 1999 Highway Design Manual. The intersection sight distance available to drivers looking left from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (430 feet) meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling southeasterly on Sharon Drive at speeds of 35 mph (10 mph greater than the assumed speed limit)and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 43 mph. The ISD available to drivers looking right from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (480 feet) meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling northwesterly on Sharon Drive at speeds of nearly 38 mph and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 45 mph. The ConnDOT Guidelines for Highway Design also provides Sight Distance requirements for Stopped Vehicles Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic. The available sight distance (430 feet) for drivers turning left from Sharon Drive onto Summerwood Lane were compared with the sight distances presented in Figure 11-2F of the ConnDOT Highway Design Manual. The available 430 foot sight distance is adequate for travel speeds on Sharon Lane of more than 50 mph, more than double the assumed speed limit. CONCLUSIONS Summerwood, a Senior Residential Community with 20 homes (8 detached homes and 12 attached homes) is proposed for a 6.37-acre site located along the southerly side of Sharon Lane about 175 feet westerly of Judy Lane in South Windsor. The development is proposed to provide housing for Seniors who wish to move from a larger single family home to a new home with lower maintenance requirements. The trip generation information included in the ITE Trip Generation reference contains information for Retirement Communities and Elderly Housing developments, as well as information for residential developments with no age restrictions. Because the trips generated by Senior Housing are less than the trips generated by standard residential developments, and many people continue to work ' beyond their fifty-fifth birthday, the traffic impact from Summerwood was determined by using the trip generation information for Single-Family Detached Housing and Residential Condominium/Townhouse C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 8 developments. This provides a conservative approach for evaluating the impact from the proposed Summerwood. The study assumed that the Senior Residential Community would be constructed over a period of two years. Capacity analyses were done for the intersection of Hilton Drive at Sharon Drive for the existing conditions, 2003 No-Build and 2003 Build conditions. Additionally, capacity analyses were completed for the intersection of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane for the year 2003 Build conditions. Levels of Service (LOS) are presently LOS A for all movements at the Hilton Drive and Sharon Drive intersection during the morning and afternoon peak hours. This intersection will continue at the same excellent Levels of Service for the 2003 No-Build and 2003 Build conditions. The new intersection of Sharon Drive and Summerwood Lane will operate at LOS A during both peak periods when the proposed Summerwood is completed. The intersection sight distance available to drivers looking left from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (430 feet) meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling southeasterly on ' Sharon Drive at speeds of 35 mph (10 mph greater than the assumed speed limit) and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 43 mph. The ISD available to drivers looking right from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (480 feet) meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling northwesterly on Sharon Drive at speeds of nearly 38 mph and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 45 mph. Additionally, the available sight distance exceeds the Sight Distance requirements for Stopped Vehicles Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic for design speeds of 50 mph (more than double the assumed speed limit on Sharon Drive). Traffic operations are expected to be Level of Service A during the morning and afternoon peak hours at the intersections of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane and Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive, and the sight distances meet or exceed the upper criteria established by ConnDOT for travel speeds at least 10 mph greater than the assumed speed limit of 25 mph and meet or exceed the minimum criteria for travel speeds at least 18 mph greater than the assumed speed limit; hence, no offsite improvements are suggested as a result of the added traffic generated by the proposed Summerwood with 20 Senior Residential Homes. C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 9 x z W 0. CL Q r r r r � EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS 1 1 1 1 1 CONNECTICUT COUNTS INC NEWINGTON, CT 06111 (860) 523-4750 Fife Name : 1840 Site Code : 00001840 Start Date : 12/20/200 Page No : 2 Hilton Drive Sharon Drive Hilton Drive Sharon Drive From North From East From South From West Start Rig Thr Ped App. Rig Thr Ped App. Rig Thr t-P�d�A _ Rig Thr Ped App. Ina. Time i u Left s Total ht u Left s Total ht u Left l ht u Left s Total Toaat � Hour From 07:00 AM to 08.45 AM- Peak 1 of 1 ersectio 08:00 AM n Volume 3 15 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 10 14 - 0 0 0 14 42 16. 83. 80. 20. 100 Percent 7 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 08m Volumee 2 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 12 Peak 0.875 Factor igh Int. 08:00 AM 6.45:00 AM 08:15 AM 08.45 AM Volume 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3I 5 0 0 0 5 Peak 0.900 0.81 0.700 Factor Hi Drive i Out In Total ® 18 r 31 151 FbaM 7hru Peds 16 T 2`r i� 12/20/20018:0000AM 2J2(Y2001 8:45M AM o� Urrshifted o T Left Thru Peds 2 8 0 ® 10 Out In Total Hilton Drne CONNECTICUT COUNTS INC NEWINGTON, CT 06111 (860) 523-4750 File Name : 1841 Site Code : 00001841 Start Date : 12/20/200 Page No : 2 Hilton Drive Hilton Drive Sharon Drive From North From East From South From West Start Rig Thr FP—eldApp. Rig �ThrL Ped Appjiil Thr Ped App. Rig Thr pp. Int. Time ht u Left Total hteft s Tota u Left s Total ht u Left s Total Total k Hour From 04.00 PM to 05:45 PM . Peak 1 of 1 ersectio 04:00 PM n Volume 8 15 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 21 0 46 7 0 7 0 14 83 34. 65. 54. 45. 50. 50. Percent 8 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 7 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 04m Volumee 2 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 15 2 0 1 0 3 26 tPeak � I0.798 Factor gi h Int. 04:30 PM 3:45:00 PM 104:30 PM 04.00 PM Volume 2 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 15 3 0 2 0 5) Peak 0.719 0.767 I 0.700 Factor Hifton Drive Out in Total 81 151 0 Right Thru Peds ds m J N�UI C 2/20120014:00:00 PM 12/20/20 145:00 PM O W °f a N Uruhifted � T Left Ttuu Peds 211 251 0 ® 46 Out In Total Hilton Drive r ' UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION � CAPACITY ANALYSES r 2001 EXISTING CONDITIONS r Two-Way Stop Control Page t of L rTWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site information Analyst BAN Hilton Drive at Sharon Traffic Engineering Intersection Drive Agency/Co. Solutions Jurisdiction South Windsor Date Performed 12/21/2001 Analysis Year 2001 Existing Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project Description Summerwood Senior Residential ast/West Street: Sharon Drive orth/South Street: Hilton Drive VI tersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period rs : 1.00 , hicle Volumes and Adjustments Ma'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 2 8 0 0 15 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 9 0 0 16 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 `'f7m ;r fiuration !T TR am Si nal 0 0 Street Westbound Eastbound ment 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R e 0 0 0 0 0 14 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Len th and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 2 20 C (m) (vph) 1611 1066 Ic 0.00 0.02 5%queue length 0.00 0.06 Control Delay 7.2 8.4 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 8.4 pproach LOS — — A file://C:\WIND0WS\TEMP\u2k9201.TMP 12/21/2001 Two-Way Stop Control rage 1 ofl TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Hilton Drive at Sharon Traffic Engineering Intersection Drive Agency/Co. Solutions Jurisdiction South Windsor Date Performed 12121/2001 Analysis Year 2001 Existing Conditions 1al sis Time Period PM Peak [—Eparst/West oject Description Summerwood Senior Residential Street: Sharon Drive orth/South Street: Hilton Drive ersection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 1.00 hicle Volumes and Adjustments jor Street Northbound Southbound vement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 21 25 0 0 15 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.77 0.77 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.72 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 27 1 32 0 0 20 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR lupstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 7 0 7 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 10 0 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR IDelay,Queue Len th and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 27 20 (m) (vph) 1595 957 lc 0.02 0.02 5% queue length 0.05 0.06 Control Delay 7.3 8.8 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 8.8 pproach LOS — — A > file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k82B5.TMP 12/21/2001 1 � UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES � 2003 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS 1 1 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ' Analyst BAH Intersection Hilton Drive at Sharon Traffic Engineering Drive gency/Co. Solutions Jurisdiction South K ndsor Date Performed 12121/2001 nalysis Year 2003 No-Build Conditions ' Analysis Time Period AM Peak IA Project Description Summenvood Senior Residential East/West Street: Sharon Drive orth/South Street: Hilton Drive Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 1.00 r eiiicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 2 8 0 0 16 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 1 9 1 0 0 1 17 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR U tream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 0 0 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 1 0.70 0.80 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I I I LR IDelay,Queue Len th and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 2 21 C(m) (vph) 1609 1066 lc 0.00 0.02 5%queue length 0.00 0.06 ' Control Delay 7.2 6.4 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 8.4 pproach LOS — — A file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k8033.TMP 12/21/2001 Two-Way Stop Control Page t of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ' Analyst BAH Intersection Hilton Drive at Sharon gency/Co. Traffic Engineering Drive Solutions Jurisdiction South Kfiindsor Date Performed 12/21/2001 nalysis Year 2003 No-Build Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Summerwood Senior Residential East/West Street: Sharon Drive orth/South Street: Hilton Drive Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 1.00 IV-ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a"or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 22 26 0 0 16 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.77 0.77 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.72 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 28 33 1 0 0 22 1 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR jUpstream Signal r0 1 0 r0, or Street Westbound Eastbound vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ume 0 0 0 7 0 7 ' Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 10 1 0 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len at and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 28 20 (m) (vph) 1592 952 /c 0.02 0.02 5% queue length 0.05 0.06 Control Delay 7.3 8.9 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 8.9 ' pproach LOS — — A file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k7161.TMP 12/21/2001 � UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES � 2003 BUILD CONDITIONS Two-Way Stop Control Page I ot2 ' TWO--WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information Site Information ' nalyst BAH Intersection Hilton Drive at Sharon Traffic Engineering Drive gency/Co. Solutions Jurisdiction South Wndsor Date Performed 1212112001 nalysis Year 2003 Build Conditions nal sis Time Period AM Peak Project Description Summerwood Senior Residential East/West Street: Sharon Drive orth/South Street: Hilton Drive ' Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 1.00 .!ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Northbound Southbound ' ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 8 8 0 0 16 5 ' Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.80 a80 0.90 0.90 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 9 :40 0 17 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 ..onfiguration LT TR U tream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R [volume 0 0 0 7 0 34 ' Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 10 6 48 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 [A! proach Channelized 0 0 nes 0 0 0 0 0 0 nfiguration LR DeQueue Len th and Level of Service NB SB Westbound Eastbound vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ne Configuration LT LR vph) 9 58 m) (vph) 1607 1045 Iontrc 0.01 0.06 5%queue length 0.02 0.18 ol Delay 7.3 8.6 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 8.6 Approach LOS — — A file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k62C5.TMP 12/21/2001 Two-Way Stop Control rage t or L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Hilton Drive at Sharon Traffic Engineering Intersection Drive Agency/Co. Solutions Jurisdiction South Windsor Date Performed 12/21/2001 nalysis Year 2003 Build Conditions jroehicle al sis Time Period PM Peak 1A ject Description Summerwood Senior Residential st/West Street: Sharon Drive orth/South Street: Hilton Drive ' ersection Orientation: North-South to Period hrs : 1.00 Volumes and Adjustments "or Street Northbound Southbound vement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 36 26 0 0 16 13 ' Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.77 0.77 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.72 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 46 33 0 0 22 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U tream Si nal E 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ' Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 10 0 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 14 0 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Percent Grade (0/6) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 ' RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration L T LR Delay,Queue Len th,and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 46 35 (m) (vph) 1583 941 /c 0.03 0.04 5%queue length 0.09 0.12 Control Delay T3 9.0 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 9.0 pproach LOS — — A > file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kl250.TMP 12/21/2001 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 ot2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ' Analyst BAH ntersection Sharon Dr. at Traffic Engineering I Summerwood Ln. gency/Co• Solutions urisdiction South IA ndsor ' Date Performed 12/21/2001 nal sis Year 2003 Build Conditions IlAnalysis Time Period M Peak Project Description Summerwood Senior Residential ' East/West Street: Sharon Drive orth/South Street: Summerwood Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ' Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ' Volume 0 10 0 14 10 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 1 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 14 0 20 14 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 -- - edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume D 0 8 0 D 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 11 0 0 D ' Percent Heavy Vehicles D 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N ' Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Configuration LR Delay,Queue Len th,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound ' Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 20 11 C(m) (vph) 1617 1072 /c 0.01 0.01 5%queue length 0.04 0.03 Control Delay 7.3 8.4 LOS A A pproach Delay = = 8.4 pproach LOS A ' file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kF125.TMP 12/21/2001 Two-Way Stop Control rage i of L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Sharon Dr. at Traffic Engineering Intersection Summerwood Ln. gency/Ca. Solutions Jurisdiction South Windsor Date Performed 12/21/2001 knalysis Year 2003 Build Conditions Yknalysis Time Period JAM Peak . Project Description Summerwood Senior Residential ' EastAlNest Street: Sharon Drive North/South Street: Summerwood Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period rs : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ' Volume 0 10 0 6 10 0 Teak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 14 0 8 14 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 ' Configuration TR LT U stream Si nal 0 0 ' Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 19 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 27 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade C/6) 0 0 Flared Approach N N ' Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Configuration LR Delay,Queue Len th,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound ' Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 8 27 C (m) (vph) 1617 1072 /c 0.00 0.03 5% queue length 0.01 0.08 Control Delay T2 64 ILOS A A pproach Delay = = 8.4 pproach LOS A file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kA 18 LTMP 12/21/2001 Summerwood Senior Residence Development 02-76P Planning Department Review Comments 1. Landscaping plan • Adequacy of proposed buffer? What exists now in the wooded areas proposed to be used as buffer? DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers-planners-surveyors gis -gps -landscape architects Transmitted via certified mail November 27, 2002 Dear Current Abutting Property Owner Re: Senior Residence Development DPI Project No. 01-1468 Sharon Drive South Windsor, Connecticut In accordance with regulations of the Planning&Zoning Commission, we are required to notify you that an application has been filed on the property abutting yours and is subject to a hearing(s)by the Planning&Zoning Commission. The applications and plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department in the Town Hall. As an abutting property owner you are invited to the hearing(s)to ask questions and/or give comments, however, you are not required to attend. You may also submit written comments regarding the application(s) prior to the meeting if you so desire. For further information regarding the specific date this application will be heard, please contact Kelli Holmes, Administrative Secretary or Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director, at the South Windsor Planning Department at 644-2511, ext. 253 or 252 respectively. Thank you. Sincerely, DESIGN FESSIONALS, INC. By: , '4&4'z� Peter R. DeMallie Principal cc: Jeffrey Folger Marcia Banach Robert Urso 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor,CT 06074 Telephone(860)291-8755 Fax(860)291-8757 Email:dpicivil@aol.com Direct Abutting Property Owners DPI Project No. 01-1468 Horseshoe Lane Assoc.,LLC Sharon Drive May/Lot Abutting Property Owner(s) Mailing Address 33/12 Dynamic Realty, LLC 306 Main St., Suite 400 Worcester,MA 01615-0034 33/13 Dynamic Realty, LLC 306 Main St., Suite 400 Worcester, MA 01615-0034 33/14 John R. DeMattia 265 Bic Drive Milford, CT 06460 33/19 J.E. Shepard Co. P.O. Box 415 East Windsor Hill, CT 06028 34/1 Gene&Kathlyn M. DePietro 450 Pleasant Valley Road South Windsor, CT 06074 34/2 Gene A. DePietro 450 Pleasant Valley Road South Windsor, CT 06074 34/6 Dora Reis 43 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/7 Michael&Ursula Giroux 53 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/8 Joseph B. Couture 61 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/9 Nelida A. Picard P.O. Box 755 South Windsor, CT 06074 34/10 Robert Link, Jr. 79 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/11 Anthony J. Sansone 87 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/12 Andrew Manzi 46 Billow Road East Lyme, CT 06357 34/13 Donald J. & Catherine A. Padegimas 101 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/14 Roger R. &Evelyn G. (Surv)Merrill 109 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/15 Michael J. &Patricia A. Godin 115 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/16 Bernard O. &Francine L. Hebert 123 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/17 Dolores S. Baribault 131 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/18 Joanne T. Normandin 139 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/19 Thomas J. &Patricia J. Bartomeli 147 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/20 Thomas C. Jr. &Pamela J. Brown 155 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/21 Horseshoe Lane Associates 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/23 Savva G. &Karen L. Savvides 187 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/24 James D. &Barbara Caine 195 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/25 William F. M. Donlin 205 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/27 Edith Adrienne Allen, Trustee 15 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/28 Christopher J. &Laura G. Lacy 25 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/29 James R. III&Renee G. Hollis 35 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/30 Andrew L. &Karen J. Fisher 51 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/31 Hung P. &Hoang Nhi T Le 57 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/32 John Kopek 65 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/33 Linda G. Convertino 75 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 46/20 Gerber Systems Corporation 30 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 46/21 G&R Realty 61 South Main Street Farmington, CT 06032 46/22 Scarborough Holdings, LLC 21 Schoolhouse Lane Simsbury, CT 06070 47/115 Tri-State Industrial Laundries 1634 Lincoln Avenue Utica, NY 13504 47/116 229 South Satellite Road, LLC 229 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 47/122 Anthony M. &Anne M. (Surv)Hoffman 77 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 47-123 M.G. Realty Limited Partnership 61 South Main St., Suite 211 West Hartford, CT 06107 Dec 02 02 08: 50a galen semprebon 860-291 -8757 p. l Post-it•Fax Note 7671 Date�, (7 pages .ud To From Co roepc. Cot> 10 ' s Fhone# Phone# Fax# COLR- 2'Aa Fax# November 26, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that Peter R DeMallie and Design Professionals,Inc. are hereby authorized to sign any and all land use applications associated with the Summerwood development of Horseshoe Lane Associates,LLC off Sharon Drive in South Windsor, Connecticut. Sincerely, Horseshoe Lane Associates,LLC obert Urso Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 (860)644-9603 cc: Peter DeMalIie Karen M. Isherwood,P.E. Galen B. Semprebon,P.E. Dec 06 01 10:0ia P. 2 December 6,2001 To Whore It May Concern: Please be advised that Peter R.DeMallie and Design Professionals,Inc. is hereby authorized to sign any and all applications associated with the development of the M G Realty Limited Partnership's property off Sharon Drive in South Windsor,Connecticut. I further authorize the submission of tared use applications associated with the development of this property. Sincerely, M G Realty Limited Paxtnership By- uund �- 4A97— Arnold Greenberg M G Realty Limited Partnership 61 South Main Street,Suite 211 West Hartford,CT 06107 Telephone: (860)521-6208 cc: Peter R.DeMallie Robert Urso David Murdock u'��V PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM TO: Matt GalliganJxed Shaw,:Michael Gantick, Thomas Field,Bill Lanning, Kris Lindstrom, Ray Favreau,Karl Reichle,Mel Stead,John Collins,Bob Deptula,Jeff Doolittle FROM: Marcia A. Banach, AICP,Director of Planning Y Y.. The Planning&Engineering Departments have receivedplans for the following project: ELI== Location: y � U 7 Site Plan O Subdivision No. Acres Zone O Industrial O Commercial Residential No. Lots/Units Water: ;Public O Private Well Sewerage:'P(Public O Septic system(s) Project Description: -� Future Town-owned property involved? Yes O No Ptnew street(s) O new detention area O new open spacelrecreation area O active O passive Planning Department notes: Please comment by ,7T2, and return to the Planning Department. w :>< �40riN dE4 Tiov)tn (Die Sow% `W 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 �OSoa-co� TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 x December 16, 2002 Mr. Peter DeMallie Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. DeMallie: Re: Appl#02-48P, Summerwood Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on December 10, 2002, to grant a second 90-day extension to file mylars for the above-referenced subdivision in the Town Clerk's office. The new filing deadline is September 24, 2003. This extension is the final extension permitted under Connecticut General § 8-25. Sincerely, Kevin McCann Planning&Zoning Commission KMcC/kah 171 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 January 13, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 To Whom It May Concern: I have resided at 171 Hilton Drive since February 2002. In the year since I moved in, I have enjoyed convenient access to just about anywhere. I have had the luxury of living through all four seasons on Hilton Drive. The yard behind the house is extremely flat;however I have never experienced a time when water was a problem in the yard. There is no area of the yard that becomes wet. Likewise,the basement of this home has been dry for the entire year that I have been there. There has not been any problem with water anywhere, from what I can see. I hope that my input is useful to you. If the commission would like to inspect the property or basement at any time, I would be glad to arrange a mutually convenient time to do so. My home phone number is 290-9513;my work phone number is 643-2337. Sincerely, Jennife rook RECEIVED JAN 17 2003 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. January 13, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning&Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to say that I am in favor of the proposed development of Summerwood. The Town of South Windsor needs to address the need for more adult housing. Our seniors are living longer now and are more active. Therefore the demand for this type of housing is becoming much greater. We still want to live in nic e homes and know that we have the association to rely on to mow the grass and do the shoveling and plowing of the snow. I would like to continue living in South Windsor and this will give me that opportunity. I urge the board to approve this application. Sincerely, Z Linda Lee 18-4 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 RECEIVE® Thomas & Connie Huestis JAN 15 2003 463 Nevers Road SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. South Windsor, CT 06074 January 14, 2003 Dear Chairperson: As a resident and taxpayer of South Windsor for the 23 years, I would welcome the idea of an elderly housing complex being built anywhere in town. I would like to have piece of mind knowing that when my husband and I decide that we can no longer live in our home because of yard work, shoveling and just general maintance that we would still be able to live in South Windsor. Knowing that there would a place where we could go to live and still feel very comfortable with our surroundings is very comforting at this point in our lives. Why after being residents for so long should we have to move out of our town? Someday, possibly we all may have to look for elderly housing so why not build,in town so we can stay in our town. I also believe that the building of this complex may lessen our town taxes and that the school budget may be lessened, too. Sincerely, Connie Huestis December 27,2002 Town of South Windsor Planning �and Zoning Commission To: Kevin McCann,Chairman,Marshall Montana,Vice Chairman,Louise Evans, Secretary, Suzanne Choate, Sue Larsen,Patrick Kennedy,Timothy Wentzell,Roger Cottle,Gary Bazzauo,Bart Pacekonis. Dear Board Members, I am writing this letter on behalf of the residents who have homes that abut or are adjacent to the proposed Summerwood Senior Residence Development(Appl#02-48P). Robert Urso,a developer,has asked for a Special Exception to the Zoning Regulations (Para.4.1.12)in order to build this development in an area that is zoned A-20, single family on V2 acre of land. Para 4.1.12 is quite clear concerning exceptions.They are not automatic just because the developer meets the criteria necessary for them to be granted. The paragraph states that "the commission may in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate modifications and safeguards prescribed by it,grant a Special Exception/Site Development Plan approval for a Senior Residence Development(SRD)of single detached and multi-family attached senior residences in the Rural Residential District subject to the requirements of these regulations". How can this be an appropriate case?Surely there must be suitable land available in South Windsor to build SRD without having to violate Rural Residential District zoning • and impact the lives of so many people who live in our area. The word"may"in(Para 4.1.12)allows the Zoning Board to either accept or reject the Exception Request even if the Special Exception Review Criteria are met. At their October 22,2002 meeting,the Planning and Zoning Board—was presented with a petition signed by 128 residence of the area who oppose the building of the SRD for a number of reasons.A primary reason was that it would completely change the character of their%Z acre single-family neighborhood Some of the senior petitioners have lived in their homes for over 40 years. Please honor the request of these 128 citizens and reject the request for a deviation (Special Exception)to the South Windsor Zoning Regulations. Respectfully, ('. p . S� Patricia A.Godin cc: Mayor William Aman State Representative Nancy Kerensky State Senator Gary LeBeau RECEIVED JAN 17 2003 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. January 13, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning&Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to say that I am in favor of the proposed development of Summerwood. The Town of South Windsor needs to address the need for more adult housing. Our seniors are living longer now and are more active. Therefore the demand for this type of housing is becoming much greater. We still want to live in nice homes and know that we have the association to rely on to mow the grass and do the shoveling and plowing of the snow. I would like to continue living in South Windsor and this will give me that opportunity. I urge the board to approve this application. Sincerely, Linda Lee 18-4 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 January 21, 2003 Mr. Kevin McCann Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Chairman McCann; As a member of the Economic Development Commission, I am writing you in SUPPORT of the Summerwood Development. I feel that this is the kind of development our town needs to attract. Many thanks! nis K. Murtha Member of EDC 102 Beelzebub Road South Windsor, CT 06074 JAN-21-03 09 :28 PM HALPERN 860 644 4261 P. 01 JAY r1URTHA 1280 NIAIN STREET SOLTTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 860-289-2365 Attention: Please read on my behalf at the meeting tonight. January 21, 2003 RECEIVED Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor JAN 212003 South Windsor, CT SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Dear Commission: I had expected to speak tonight on behalf of the development that Mr. Bob Urso has proposed to build. Unfortunately, I am unable to speak in person, due to the necessity of paying my respects at two wakes. However, I strongly recommend that the 17-unit development off of Sharon Drive be accepted. Building adult housing is an essential balance that will benefit our town. I have lived and worked in the town of South Windsor my entire life. I feel that this development may allow others to continue to live in our town, in an area that they have established themselves. From an expense perspective, adult housing has the obvious benefit of collecting taxes, with minimal related outlays, as the already crowded public schools will not be affected. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding this letter at 282-9496. Sincerely, Ja irtha RECEIVED MEMORANDUM JAN 13 2003 To: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning SOUTH WINDSORPLANNINOQEPT. From: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, P.E., Town Engineer ff Date: 1/13/03 V RE: App 02-76P, Summerwood SRD Application I have reviewed the new Site Plan for the Summerwood SRD dated November 26, 2002. 1 have the following comments: 1. Combine the driveways for units 9 and 10 into a common entrance to eliminate one driveway cut in the cul-de-sac at the end of Summerwood Lane. The four driveways shown at the end of this road will make snow removal very difficult. 2. Provide a turn around in the driveway for unit 10 and possibly units 9 and 13 because it will be difficult to back out of these driveways. 3. Add a clean out at the bend in the footing drain lines for units 10, 14, 15, and 17. 4. No footing drains were found for units 1, 5, and 8. Please show these more clearly. 5. Where do all the roof leaders discharge? The roof leaders from units 15 and 17 are shown connecting to the storm drainage system. 6. The proposed contour marked elevation 71 at the end of the cul-de-sac on Summerwood Lane does not agree with the profile. It appears this needs to be changed to elevation 72. 7. An application must be submitted to the WPCA for their review and approval. Please call me(x 245)if you have any questions. DECEIVED Thomas & Connie Huestis JAN 15 2003 463 Nevers Road SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. South Windsor, CT 06074 January 14, 2003 Dear Chairperson: As a resident and taxpayer of South Windsor for the 23 years, I would welcome the idea of an elderly housing complex being built anywhere in town. I would like to have piece of mind knowing that when my husband and I decide that we can no longer live in our home because of yard work, shoveling and just general maintance that we would still be able to live in South Windsor. Knowing that there would a place where we could go to live and still feel very comfortable with our surroundings is very comforting at this point in our lives. Why after being residents for so long should we have to move out of our town? Someday, possibly we all may have to look for elderly housing so why not build in town so we can stay in our town. I also believe that the building of this complex may lessen our town taxes and that the school budget may be lessened, too. Sincerely, Connie Huestis MEMORANDUM RECEIVED To: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning JAN 1 7 2003 From: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, P.E., Town Engineer Y->O SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Date: 1/17/03 RE: App 02-76P, Summerwood SRD Application I have reviewed the revised Site Plan for the Summerwood SRD dated January 16, 2003. My previous comments have been addressed. An application for this project must be submitted to the WPCA for their review and approval. Please call me(x 245)if you have any questions. x-h,� h-t)- January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DBIA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing evelopment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: 3 0 1' Si afore: Date: /cam) _ _ January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to ENV--thus application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: o V4 %Aa - Address: \- •ltv ,��� . �. `,., s�2 , Signature: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, /' t Name: Z Address: Signature: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to 4Z� DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. j Thank you, Name: Address: Signature: Date: Ll o January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Ursa DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: I P Y H-zMdO Si attire: �I 0 Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/BlA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing de elopment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, f Name: Address: Signature: 0 Lf") Date: 1 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to V DENY this application, and any fixture age restricted housingdevelopment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within he area. �m � yam{/�to a®`sG� -Av-** � es�dG-ft &%V-��"aye �v j APPROVE the ap icati n by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: \TA AI I 'S 40 W NEA Sl ld Address: `t,* #UrOA/ I)RI VIF ♦X. ♦ /d? Si a u Date:ntf�01444,4a 7 x��`` �°�' �'�°�` 'mac .. ,C't'�-' • �d�J4.� January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/BJA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, 17I res ectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Lawk L �y Address: Signature- Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: W6tC9C61 S l VA ! Address: Si ature: 1)�?Ijwje� -feelimZ: Date: l -7 /03 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing evelopment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: F��V-" D�C�v J1 Address: C:� OGCIIV Signature: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a fDENY lder age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respequest that the commission vote to his application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: �f �L%o-x z2el P'� Simafore: ,GC�- Date: J 116 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing velopment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: " r Address: led,111�1 Signature: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to XDENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly p P Y disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. A <a -iestricted E the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, coo Name: N Gk6t0.S q UlAdA Yer-"I no AddressIS ShOXOn Y'►Ve Si ature: Date: 1 to Q3 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any fixture age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you,`1 Name: a w Gl3'ld An y1 .b Z)na- u � Address: U Ld V1-U- SOIAfk W1!!Id Sor , C� Sipature: cis A-d Date: 1 I I`t 10 3 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/BfA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Mrs , D"� A' IeM6 Address: I EY J rNax-Im Eylva ISOc. A- k ��►n S;O� Signature: Date: I t a 3 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B1A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: `77-1 s/ -300 k t"I"WS15 C- 0&07$;r Sigriature: Date: 1!4 6 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, 1 I respectfully request that the commission vote to T DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: 1 Address: M� Si Mature: ` Date: lU January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann — Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. PR E th pplication Horseshoe e Ass ate . I 71c'me t age- stricted x into y ne' borha Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: T Address: Si ature: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB1A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to V" DENY this application, and an future age restricted housing PP Y g g development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: , L i�P A A > �/c „4 X D Address: 1-14 L 7-o,Z DR ) V F-, 50, W/A1 30 - . 6 60 4( Signature: Date: q o,3 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, 17I res ctfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, \I Name: f�� rlU i1 4- V l�f I'�1 A� C 660 n Pr Address: �� �b6� ��'i0l Signature: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DBIA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and i also the hazards of additional traffic within the e area. . APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: �'G YYN Address: 5-to O r. ���� a� i CZ Si Mature: ' Date: l. j U 3 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to /DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, f�2 Name: Address: Signature: Date: / C7 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann- Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer er of South Windsor, g PY I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, i, Name: e5fel' 116 I'l,nds 6�)s 41vgar . Address: f fl4n.-elu �,�_ �/ Sir G£�c� ./ 2),- Signature: Date: / /7 G,? /702 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann- Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing evelopment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: �c��' I Address: Sipature: 1-/'� 4� Date: T 3 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, �f o z , A S s,,s L i v Name: ' 6--ej � e Address: �Z 3.� Signature: Date: 0 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: AJof'(' ") r Address: Signature: Date: 4 Q January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann- Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Ursa D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to , X _ DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: -,Totlt) 8h),Sp Sw►2t E� Z.AC2--(k6K l Address: -QD/ 3 tgtUE, -'&QLm-( W Si attire: Date: - t. January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing de/vcdopment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: Si afore: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to ZDENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: Siana e: '�/ ' Date: / ao.3 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Ursa DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing eve opment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Karen Savvides 187 Hilton Dr Name: South Windsor,CT 06074-3416 Address: �J Signature: f Date: J ` t January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to '?(KDENY this application, and any future age restricted housing dev lopment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: 'Lai ce, Address: {e s ilsljop �Nv*---- 0 Signature: to Date: D January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to VI'DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion inion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, / Name: Address: 10 Signature: � Date: � 1� 0 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, O6074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Ursa D1BIA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to A DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed b Horseshoe Lane Associates or an other potential P P P Y Y developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly i disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density P � t3' of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, fit 1441f9IW /_. po�vc pit/ Name: 1 dalyz/ Address: Signature: ' Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, O6074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to Y_ DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: 90 Q e Y Eve-Ljwm 9, r r i L L Address: /Q 9 94 on. I)Y-'i v e--, So, LJ j'mA-so r , 07- , o b o e Signature,7 , ` Date: /3- January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to X* DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, • Name: Address: / !S � Si ature: ani Date: 63 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B1A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing deve opment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: L. Address: 141 L lu Si ature: Date: l- /3 o-3 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I r=. ENY quest that the commission vote to his application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Sh n- rT)r1 QcW e os-A Address: `S �C� r1 (� • 5��� �t� So� . Signature: 14 Date: (� January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and ZoningCommission I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: JO 4) 25 Addres . �jo' v Signature: Date: 1 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DIVA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commi :ion vote to DENY this application, and any fu age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: / J? Signature: Date: l �-3 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to X ' DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the g as compared development and structure sizing to the existing residences, and P i also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: 6C6.�+ 6 �=. v Address: rr - Si Date: / / / January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to t S DENY this application, and an future age restricted housing PP � Y g g development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: DPU I d 4 JTo n✓\e__ Address: « H, 1 Gov Signature: r -- Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB1A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: 1A,1 G3 �� Signature: Dater �-- January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, 1 � Name: Ij o a la1 r Address: Signature: o Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D1BIA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing 17 dev lopment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: er Address: Ue- Si ature fi Date: 0 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Ursa DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: 1 tffi Address: (0 :Shn 1'M J)r " Signature: Date: h' January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB1A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to / DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Z/11) Address: Signafore: Date: `7 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing d velo ment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name Address: j D Siggafore: j'//�� Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan.Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: M K (f_)on Address: C l(o 4A �A�r\ 00 Signature: Date: 0_(-L17wkLA4_�Lo January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/BIA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Address: Signature,4 ,� .- Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DIBIA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing deve opment proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to.the existing_residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: Sip-nature Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: t' ic(Lia, 1.����fr�c jrsurt Address: Si ature: ` c Date: 1- ) n January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: 2) y-. Signaw;�i�� Date: i — January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to �Q - DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing 1 development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Address: � 2C' Signature: Date: ��' d f U' January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. X. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: l a ,,( e n��r Address: jc- /q 7- Signature: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: Signafore: v _ ff Date: 1 u 0 1 0 1 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware-of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DANA.Hor-seshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17)single family residences with a 55- and older age restriction.As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. �_/ APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name:.E ru (Ja-BLb Cj V /`V e A Address: I o P_ Signature: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I.am aware of the re submitted:application of Robert Urso D7B/A_Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to.the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, ^ Name: ��� Address: C� C_ = uJ SJ✓� C. ( ©-2 Date: �� January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, l am aware of the re-submitted application of Robert-UrsoD/B/A:Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. L...-'/APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, ^� Name: o`es 4C"10 Address: s© Si afore: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, L Nai Address: c2az�k i �� I J1�i Y1'O Signature.41ma Date: h C`y ,� January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn. Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I.am.aware of the.re submitted application ofRobert Urso D/.13/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, ./) --, / Name: A7 Address: 0 7 -Tw t l—C C_ ` L�C- L v Si afar Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann- Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am:aware cif the re submitted application of-Robert Utso_D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing.residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commissian votes on this proposal. Thank you Name: Address: Si atur �-� Date -� � January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application af:Robert Urso DB/ABorseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: j ft'eY4. /�2 n L Address: �Ynrj C ZCI Si afore: a p a �(' f�Aa& Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re:submitted application of Robert Ursa.D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: >ai c 0-4�4— adaz`t- Address: 7 - Ll Signature: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso:D/B/A.Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: l Si ature: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. t- APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: Si a re: Date: ,/ Lo January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission. 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso- A3/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: STEUC- 6L'ooe)2 Address: Zq TZ66 L4NE Si afore: Date: 1 1 Lo 3 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the:re submitted application of Robert Urso DBIA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. /APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: `7 }-- 1-4n Dot vt 5OJ4-k W nA.SQ.r Sipature: Date: < I LO January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware.of:fhe re-submitted-application of Robert Urso DANA Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name:. l �•�I f �S �� Address: Si afore: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I ain aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: 37 Ccz VSo jot a, /0 C� Si ature: Date: January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote.to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: VV-ICA V_Y,�CJCc�- Address: I c 2 V,,,e-e(-z e Signature: 10 Date: /i� - January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chainnan Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote io_ DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. /APPROVE the a lication b Horseshoe Lane Associates. I pp y welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into_consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: Address: Signature: Date: 11161413 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGami— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: uL cc V\ 4, V Address: Signature: Date: l January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chainnan Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso DB/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, _ I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you Nam a"11'(6 Address: �� �°6� Ilt` Signature: W, j..dA:r(2� Date: l'17 3 January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso_D1B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen(17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the 1 ds of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: - ."0 Addre ss: Si afar Date: �. d January 21, 2003 Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor CT, 06074 Attn: Mr. Kevin McGann— Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am aware of the re submitted application of Robert Urso D/B/A Horseshoe Lane Associates proposing to build seventeen (17) single family residences with a 55 and older age restriction. As a resident taxpayer of South Windsor, I respectfully request that the commission vote to DENY this application, and any future age restricted housing development proposed by Horseshoe Lane Associates or any other potential developer. I am concerned that a complex of this nature would unduly disrupt the character of the neighborhood with the overall density of the development and structure sizing as compared to the existing residences, and also the hazards of additional traffic within the area. APPROVE the application by Horseshoe Lane Associates. I welcome the age-restricted complex into my neighborhood. Please take my opinion into consideration when the commission votes on this proposal. Thank you, Name: 9 r Address: Z-f Si ature: Date: % �� " Town of South Windsor RECEIVED 24 January,2003 Planning Department JAN 2 4 2003 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT, Dear Michelle and Marcia, I am requesting a professional determination from your office and would like a legal ruling from the Town Attorney concerning the Planning and Zoning Commission Public hearing that was held 21 Jan 03 at 7:30p.m. The Public Hearing was based on an application of a 17 unit Senior Development of off Sharon Drive. At this meeting the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission pointed out the fact that the blueprints and or plans that the Commission were reviewing were not applicable to the present application of the 17 units. This is clearly a misrepresentation and invalid information for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and also the public. Not only was the Public Hearing aloud to continue that evening but it is also scheduled for a continuation on 28 Jan 03. I am challenging the legality issues of the Notice and also the incorrect information that was presented for approval I would hope a determination would be reached prior to the continuation of the Public Hearing on 28 Jan 03. I may reached at 289-1853 to discuss this matter any further if need be. Thank yob, Elizabeth E.Pendleton y Memorandum To: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission CC: Dir. of Planning From: Jeffrey Folger— Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer Date: January 27, 2003 Re: Appl 02-76P - Summerwood SRD. Stormwater structures are constructed to address two consequences of land development, water quantity and water quality. Changing land use from undeveloped forest to residential or commercial/industrial use results in an increase in impervious surface and an increase in pollutants that can impair water quality, wetland functions, and wildlife resources. We have attempted to incorporate the results of the latest research in our reviews and requirements for land use applications to insure that impacts to natural resources are minimized to the greatest extent possible. One of the inevitable results of development is the destruction, fragmentation, and elimination of existing wildlife habitat in South Windsor. Requiring habitat plants in landscaping designs and stormwater structures is a way of balancing development impacts to the community. One of the most effective structures in minimizing the impacted of polluted stormwater runoff is the "wet basin" structure. This structure incorporates a wetland plant community in its design, which has been proven to assimilate many materials and chemicals found in stormwater runoff. These designs can be altered to also provide for a more diverse plant community by varying the depth to the water table in the bottom of the basin. Incorporating 19microtopography" in the bottom (small pools of varying depths) allows for different plants to become established in the basin and can attract and support a more diverse wildlife community. The existing proposed design can be altered to create a "moist" bottom and still function to treat anticipated pollutants from the development. The deeper pools can be eliminated and replaced by stone berms to slow the travel of stormwater through the basin. This will minimize potential mosquito breeding areas, but will result in a less diverse plant and animal community utilizing the basin and the surrounding area. 1 1 i r MEMORANDUM TO: 'JU TOWN CLERK FROM: a-1v paca"'nu,3 SUBJECT: DISQUALIFICATION DATE: k,) a17�aAj �22 , 00®3 BY MEANS OF THIS MEMORANDUM,I AM DISQUALIFYING MYSELF FROMANY/ALL PARTICIPATION IN MATTERS CONCERNING: APPLICATION NO. i - NAME OF PRO CT REASON FOR DISQUALIFICATION I C) jr SIGNATURE OF COMMISSIONER (,/0 I�A4 NEW". :1019AWTAU ITO Oaterial Safety Data Sheet Abbott Laboratories, Inc. Chemical &Agricultural Products Division VectoLex' CG North Chicago, IL 60064-6316 Emergency Telephone: 1-800-323-9597 Chemtrec: 1-800-424-9300 Issue Date: 06/17/99 List/Code: 5722/16025 DOT Classification: Not Regulated EPA Registration No.: 275-77 Emergency Overview: This material may be a skin or eye irritant. NFPA: Health - 0; Fire - 1; Reactivity-0 COMPOSITION/INGREDIENTS Ingredient Name: Bacillus sphaericus Serotype Inert Ingredients* (H-5a5b), strain 2362 Concentration %: 7.5% 92.5% CAS/RTECS Numbers: N/A / N/A N/A / N/A OSHA-PEL 8HR TWA: NIL N/L STEL: N/L N/L Ceiling: N/L N/L ACGIH-TLV 8HR TWA: N/L N/L STEL: N/L N/L, Ceiling: N/L N/L OTHER 8HR TWA: N/A N/A LIMITS STEL: N/A NIA Ceiling: N/A N/A Identity withheld as a Trade Secret HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS Route(s)of Entry: Skin: N/D Inhalation: N/D Ingestion: N/D Carcinogenicity Rating: NTP: N/L IARC: N/L OSHA: N/L ACGIH: N/L None Signs and Symptoms: N/D. Data suggest mild skin or eye irritation. Medical Conditions Aggravated by Exposure: N/D. Data suggest pre-existing skin or eye lesions. Oral Toxicity; N/D. LD50> 5,000 mg/kg in rats for Bacillus sphaericus Technical Powder. Dermal Toxicity: N/D. LD50> 2,000 mg/kg in rabbits for Bacillus sphaericus Technical Powder. Inhalation Toxicity: N/D. Bacillus sphaericus Technical Powder was not lethal in an inhalation study at the maximum attainable concentration of 0.09 mg/Itr/4 hours. Corrosiveness: N/D Dermal Irritation: Mildly irritating in a skin irritation test in rabbits;two animals with slight redness at 24 hours. Ocular Irritation: Mild to moderate redness with mild swelling and slight discharge in an eye irritation test in rabbits. Dermal Sensitization: N/D Target Organs: N/D Special Target Organ Effects: N/D Carcinogenicity Information: N/D ! I EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURE Eyes/Skin: Remove from source of exposure. Flush with copious amounts of water. If irritation persists or signs of toxicity occur, seek medical attention. Provide symptomatictsupportive care as necessary. Ingestion/ Inhalation: Remove from source of exposure. If signs of toxicity occur, seek medical attention. Provide symptomatic/supportive care as necessary. FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES Flash Point: N/A Lower Explosive Limit (°/a): N/D Upper Explosive Limit (0/6): N/D Autoignition Temperature: N/D Fire and Explosive Hazards: N/D Extinguishing Media: Use appropriate medium for underlying cause of fire. Fire Fighting Instructions: Wear protective clothing and self-contained breathing apparatus. SAFE HANDLING, USE, STORAGE, and DISPOSAL Handling: N/D Storage: Store in coot, dry place. Special Precautions: Wash thoroghly with soap and water after handling. Spill or Release Procedures: Recover product, place into appropriate container for disposal. Avoid dust. Ventilate and wash spill area. Disposal: Dispose in accordance with state, local and federal regulations. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Appearance/Physical State: Granules Odor: Characteristic Odor Boiling Point: NIA Melting/Freezing Point: N/A Vapor Pressure (mm Hg): NIA Vapor Density(Air--1): N/A Evaporation Rate: N/D Bulk Density: N/A Specific Gravity: N/D Solubility:. Partially suspends/soluble in water PH: N/A Viscosity: N/A LEGEND N/A=Not Applicable N/D=Not Determined N/L= Not Listed L=Listed S=Short Term C=Ceiling 0=A registered tradmark of Abbott Laboratories TM=A trademark of Abbott Laboratories Itr=liter The information and recommendations contained herein are based upon tests believed to be reliable. However,Abbott Laboratories does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness NOR SHALL ANY OF THIS INFORMATION CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,AS TO THE SAFETY OF THE GOODS,THE MERCHANTABILITY OF THE GOODS,OR THE FITNESS OF THE GOODS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Adjustment to conform with actual conditions of usage may be required.Abbott Laboratories assumes no responsibility for results obtained or for incidental or consequential damages arising from the use of these data.No freedom from infringement of any patent,copyright or trademark is to be inferred. 1 Abbott Laboratories, Inc.-Agricultural Products AG4946/R6 ,..,.•.�� North Chicago,IL 60064-6316 (800)323-9597 ®Abbott Laboratories September 1999 •' 4.0 STORAGE AND DISPOSAL Do not contaminate water,food or feed by storage or disposal. Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters. VectoLex Pesticide Storage: Store in a cool, dry place. Pesticide Disposal: Wastes resulting from the use of this product may be disposed of on site or at an approved waste disposal facility. Biological Larvi • ' Container Disposal: Completely empty bag into application Granules equipment. Then dispose of empty bag in a sanitary landfill or ACTIVE INGREDIENT: by incineration, or if allowed by state and local authorities, by Bacillus sphaericus Serotype 1-15a5b,strain 2362 Technical Powder burning. If burned, stay out of smoke. (670 BsITU/mg) .. ....... ....... ...... .... .... .. 7.5%w/w 5.0 APPLICATION DIRECTIONS INERT INGREDIENTS .... ..... ....... ........... 92.5%w/w TOTAL .... .... ... .... ... .................. .... 100.0%w/w MOSQUITO CONTROL I. For control of mosquito larvae spedes* in the following Potency:This product contains 50 BsITU/mg or 0.023 Billion non-cropsilem' BsITUAb. Habitat Rate Range EPA Reg.No.275-77 Wastewater: EPA Est.No. 33762-IA-1 List No. 5722 Sewage effluent,sewage lagoons,' ': 5-20 Ibs/acre** oxidation ponds,septic ditches, animal waste lagoons, impounded_astewater., associated with fruit an#vegesle INDEX: processing 1.0 Statement of Practical Treatment 2.0 Precautionary Statements Stormwater/Drainage Systems: 2.1 Hazard to Humans(and Domestic Animals) Storm sewerscatch basins, drainage: 5-20 Ibs/acre** 2.2 Environmental Hazards ditches,retention detWtt n arid seepage 3.0 Directions for Use ponds 4.0 Storage and Disposal Marh astal Ares- 6.0 Notice to User <_ .0 Application Directions Salt rrta h�s,..mangrovei;estuaries 5-20 Ibs/acre** Water Bodlesi. -. I!lgtural and mannia"-de aquatic sites such 5-20 Ibs/acre** KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN es fakes;-ponds,rivers,canals and streams CAUTION Dormartit`Ftice Fields: Ilr"- nded water in dormant rice fields 5-20 Ibs/acre** 1.0 STATEMENT OF PRACTICAL TREATMENT (For application only during the interval betwcen harvest and preparatioh of the If in Eyes: Immediately flush eyes with plenty of water. Get field for the next cropping cycle.) medical attention if irritation persists. Waste Tires: If on Skin: Wash thoroughly with plenty,of soap and water. Tires stockpiled in dumps, landfills, 20-80 Ibs/acre(1) Get medical attention if irritation persists recycling plants,and other similar sites : ;.. .5-2 Iball000 sq.ft 2.0 PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS; . 11. For the control of mosquito larvae species* in 2.1 HAZARD TO HUMANS(AND DOAWW"ANIMALS) agricultural/crop sites where mosquito breeding occurs. CAUTION Habitats: Rate Range Harmful if absorbed through thekm Causes moderate eye irritation. Avoid conta�, ski, eyes or clothing. Wash Rice,pastures/hay fields,orchards, 5-20 lbs/acre** thoroughly with soap and. eater after handling. citrus groves, irrigated crops Apply uniformly by aerial or conventional ground equipment. 2.2 Environmental Hazards Reapply as needed after 1-4 weeks. Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment Mosquito species effectively controlled by Vectol-ex CO: Washwater3 Or 17F1S81e: Culex spp. Psorophora columbiae Aedes vexans Psorophora ferox 3.0 DIRECTIONS FORMSE. Aedes melanimon Aedes triseristus Aedes stimulans Aedes so/licitans It Is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner Aeries nlgromaculls Anopheles quadrimaculatus inconsistent with its labeling. **Use higher rates (10 to 20 Ibs/acre) in areas where extended residual control is necessary,or in habitats having deep water or dense surface cover. CONTINUED 6.0 NOTICE TO US SELLER MAKESIRPNMAANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS OR OTHERWISE CONCERNING THE USE OF THIS PRODUCT OTHER THAN AS INDICATED ON THE LABEL. USER ASSUMES ALL RISKS OF USE, STORAGE OR HANDLING NOT IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOMPANYING DIRECTIONS. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.-Quality Health Care World Wide Agricuftural Products, North Chicago,IL 60064 (800)323-9597 04-2244/R2 7/98 01998,Abbott Laboratories, Inc. Department of Public Health Public Health Code EA� TIH uBLic CODE Current with materials published in Connecticut Law Journal through 10101102 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Joxm GARCIA, M.D., M.B.A., COMMISSIONER NORMA GYLE, R.N., M.S., DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER WARREN WOLLSCHLAGER, CHIEF OF STAFF OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS KAREN BUCKLEY-BATES, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON JOSEPH OROS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON NANCY& NICOLESCU, LEGISLATIVEANALYST MAILING ADDRESS: 410 CAPITOL AVENUE, MS# 13GRE PO Box 340308 HARTFORD, CT 06134-0308 TELEPHONE: (860) 509-7269 FAx: (860) 509-7227 E-MAII,ADDRESSES: KMBATES@PO.STATE.CT US JOSEPH.OROS@PO.STATE.CT.US NANCY.NICOLESCU@PO.STATE CT.US Current with materials published in Connecticut Law Journal through 10101102 1 t OwN at,, •. 0 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 February 18, 2003 CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Robert Urso 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Appl 02-76P, Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC, request for Special Exception to 4.1.12 and Site Plan of Development for a 17 unit Senior Residence Development to be known as "Summerwood", on property located southerly of Sharon Drive,northwesterly of Hilton Drive,A-20 zone Dear Mr. Urso: We are pleased to advise you that the Planning&Zoning Commission voted on February 11, 2003, to approve with modifi cations the above re ferenced application for a Special Exception to 4.1.12 and Site Plan of p � Develo pment. This approval is for the construction of a Senior or Residence Development known as "Summerwood"on property located southerly of Sharon Drive,northwesterly of Hilton Drive,A-20 zone as shown on plans prepared by Design Professional, Inc., Job No. 1468, dated November 26, 2002, as revised. This approval is subject to the following modifications: 1. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff. :2. No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office. 3. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of$20,000 to ensure establishment of the detention basin and a bond in the amount of$10,000 to ensure erosion and sediment control measures. (This is the same $10,000 as is included in the Resubdivision approval, not a separate bond amount.) 4. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.10 of the Zoning Regulations. 5. A landscape bond in the amount of$20,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars. 6. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor. 7. WPCA approval is required. A hold harmless agreement and permission to enter form will need to be provided to the Town to allow the refuse&recycling vehicles to enter the site. 8. The street number(s)must be included on the final plan. 9. Sidewalks are to be located on the westerly side of Day Drive and to be maintained in perpetuity by the developer. 10. Allowed density should be corrected in the zoning data table. 11. Buffer planting plan is to be redesigned,with a variety of evergreen plantings and trees and should be located in groupings to break up views (not creating a wall of evergreens) and subject to staff approval. The amount of landscaping is to be equivalent to what is shown on the approved landscaping plan and should be designed with substantially the same size and quantities as shown. 12. Developer to flag the trees to be removed in the field prior to issuance of individual building permits (subject to staff approval). 13. Evergreens to be planted on west side adjacent to the Industrial Zone. 14. Construction fence to be located at the 35 foot buffer line throughout the duration of the project. Black and white transparent mylars of Sheet 4 and 6 with the above modifications, together with three blueprint copies of the entire set of plans must be submitted to this Commission within 30 days to be stamped and signed. The letters of approval of this Commission as well as the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission must be reproduced on the mylars. After the mylars have been signed by the Commission, they will be returned to you for filing in the Office of the Town Clerk. After filing these plans, a copy of the receipt must be submitted to the Planning Department. Sincerely, Kevin McCann, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission KMcC/kah cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official Assessor Superintendent of Pollution Control Fire Marshal I, Kevin McCann, Chairman of the South Windsor Planning&Zoning Commission, hereby certify that on February 11, 2002,the Planning and Zoning Commission granted to Horseshoe Associates, Inc., a Special Exception to Article 4.1.12 of the Zoning Regulations and Resubdivision to make the existing facility on property located southerly of Sharon Drive, northwesterly of Hilton Drive as shown on plans prepared by Design Professional, Inc., Project No. 1468. Assessor's Map and Parcel Number: Map #34 Parcel#22 More particularly bounded and described as follows: See Attached OWNER OF RECORD: Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this 74f�� � 2-, i In accordance with CGS Section 8-3d Chairman Planning&Zoning Commission Received for record this day of , 19 at South Windsor, Connecticut ATTEST: Volume 423 Page No 225 SCHEDULE A a curtain piece or parcel of land with cite buildings sold in&proveutents thereof, situated lot Ute Tewst of ff i 1 South Windsor. County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, bounded and described ' 1 as follows; Beginning at the Intersection of the east line of land now or formerly of the New York. New Haven i Hartford Railroad Company with the north line of Pleasant Valley Road; thence running easterly along said northerly line of Pleasant Valley Road, six hundred seventeen and fifty-three one-hundredths (617.53) feet to a Mors• stone at the southwest corner of land now or formerly of Edwin G. Burnham et a1.; thence running northerly in a line forming an interior angle of 90.36135" with said last described line a distance of eight hundred forty-six and twenty-two one-hundredths (846.22) feet to a merestone; thence running easterly In a line forming an interior angle of 2790431301, with said last described line a distance of four hundred five and ssistety-six ate-hundredths (405.96) feet to a merestone; thence continuing easterly in A line forming an Interior angle of 180.07110" with said last described line a distance of two hundred forty-two and ninety-eight one-hundredths (242:98) feet to a point; thence continuing easterly in a line forming an interior angle of 177.42'20" with said last described line a distance of two hundred thirty-three and ninety-one one-hun• I dredths (233.91) feet to a point; thence-continuing easterly in a lists forming an interi- or angle of 169154110" with said last described line a distance of seven hundred twenty-six and seventy-three one-lololsdredths (726:73l feet to a merestone; thence running northeasterly In a line forming an interior angle of 104.49130" with said last described line a distance of nine hundred seventy-nine and thirty-four one-hundredths (979.34) feet to a merestone; thence running easterly in a line forming an interior !angle of 2S4.10'50" will& said last described line a distance of eight hundred ninety- fiv rind forty-four one-hundredths (895.44) feet to a merestone; thence running In northeasterly direction is& a line forming an interior angle of 102.17'55" with said a last described line a distance of three hundred fourteen and ni - s huoldrt•d P ths (314.97) feet to an iron in. thence running in a westerly direction in a line forming an interior angle of 78,21'with said last described line a distance of eight hundred eighty and ninety-eight one-hundredths (880.98) feet to a merestone; thence running northerly In a line forming 'an interior angle of 272.49'5" with said last described line a distance of one hundred thin y-nine and nineteen one-hundredths (139. 19) feet to a merestone; thence running westerly in a line forming an interior angle of 87.43'10" with.said last described line a distance of one thousand four hstn• dred two and si xty-one one-hundredths (1402.61) feet to an iron pin; thence continsArg in a westerly direction in a line forming an Interior angle of 179*59,35" with said '• last described line a distance of one thousand five hundred eight and six one-hmdMdths (1508.06) feet to a merestone located it% the easterly line of said land now or formerly of the New York. New Haven 16 Hartford Railroad Company; thence running southerly In a line forming an interior angle of 80139'10" with said last described line being the easterly line of land now or formerly of said the New York. New Haven 1r Hart- ford Railroad Company a distance of two thousand eighty-six and ten one-hundredths i (2086. 10) feet to the point of beginning. Together with and subject to all such rights of way. privileges and easements as appear of record and as are more par!icularly described in a deed from Erastsss D. Burnham and Mellie W. Burnham its Donald J. Grant and the Grantor herein. dated July 24. 1943 and recorded in the South Windsor land Records in Volume 40, Pages I46A-146C. comprising approxinsately 10l acres, 1 prIN dE, r � n 0, �• s � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 soe•co� TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 March 6,2003 Design Professionals,Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor,CT 06074 Attn: Galen Semprebon RE: Summerwood Senior Resident Development Summerwood Lane, South Windsor,CT Dear Mr. Semprebon: The South Windsor Water Pollution Control Authority,at its regular meeting of March 4,2003,gave approval for the connection to the Town's sewerage system of a residential senior residence development on Summerwood Lane, South Windsor,CT,as more specifically shown on plans entitled"Topographic Plan for Summerwood Senior Residence Development"prepared by Design Professionals,Inc.Project No. 1468,Drawing No(s)7 dated 11-26-02,revised 1-16-03 and 1-28-03,and subject to the following conditions: l. Sewer line must be placed as shown on the approved map. 2. Technical approval of the Town Engineering Department. 3. Final Authority approval and acceptance of the sanitary sewerage connection will be given once the sewer line has been installed and inspected by the Town staff,and based upon the written verification of the Town staff that said sanitary sewer line was installed in substantial conformance with the design plans previously approved by the Authority,and meeting all Town regulations and appropriate technical specifications relating to sanitary sewer construction. This approval letter must be superimposed on the final approval plans. Very truly yours, �' 'l1 G�2Lyla� Jo ph J. Carino,Chairman Water Pollution Control Authority RECEIVED JJC:dd Cc: Matthew Galligan,Town Manager MAR 17 2003 Michael J. Gantick,Director of Public Works SOUTH WINDSOP PLANNfNG DEPT. Jeff Doolittle,Town Engineer / Marcia Banach,Director of Planning ✓ John Collins,Chief Building Inspector Horseshoe Lane Associates,LLC MG Realty Limited Partnership '(O•�N S�q( y Y �� s� �• O � C U 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074-2786 AREA CODE 860/644-2511,EXTENSION 279 SOR•C FAX 8601644-3781 BARRY D.GULIANO Town Attorney VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL March 25, 2003 Robert F. Peters, Esq. Devlin, Peters & Tarpey 11 South Road Somers, CT 06071 Re: Summerwood Senior Residence Development- Future Street (Day Drive) Dear Attorney Peters: To follow up on our recent telephone conversations, this letter is to advise you that it is the Town's position that the strip of land providing access to 6.37 acres currently under development plans by Horseshoe Lane Associates, L.L:C. as a senior residence development is a public road or highway created by dedication and acceptance pursuant to .Section 13a-48 of the Connecticut . General Statutes. The Town's position is based upon the following documentation, copies of which are attached: 1. Subdivision map entitled "Proposed Subdivision Section III A. - Pleasant Valley Estates by Primus & Welt, Engineers" dated February, 1959 and recorded in the South Windsor Land Records on June 19, 1959. This snap was recorded by the owner of the . property and is evidence of the owner's intent to dedicate the property in question to the public for use as a future street. The property in question contains the notation "Easement for Future Street" on said map. 2. Resolution of the South Windsor Town Council dated September 8, 1970, which is evidence of the Town's intent to accept this property as a public roadway (see Right-of-Way Number 1). FF Robert F. Peters, Esq. Page 2 March 25, 2003 3. Notice recorded October 8, 1970 at Volume 133, Page 623 of the South Windsor Land Records entitled "Memorandum Regarding Rights-of-Way Road Stubs" further evidencing the intent of the Town to accept the road stub identified as "Right-of-Way Number I," which is the in question herein. property Based upon the above documentation, it is the Town's position that the property in question constitutes a public right-of-way or highway created by dedication and acceptance pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §13a-48. It is also the Town's position that Horseshoe Lane Associates, L.L.C., its successors, assigns, agents and contractors, shall have the legal right to enter said public road area to construct a public road thereon to be known as "Day Drive" pursuant to the approval by the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission of the application to construct a senior residence development. Very truly yours, 'b Bar iano To . n tto n eyy BDG/mpg Enclosures bcc: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning w/o enclosures Ats«s scs `St � u 9 1 �'N�30R•�H�� - 04/03/03 08:56 FAX 860 646 3780 . HARTFORI7 DIST INC 002 HORSESHOE LANE ASSOCIATES, LLC 18-3,4rthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Telephone: (860) 644-9603 Fax_ (860)_644-9651 RECEIVED APR 3 2003 April 1, 2003 SOUTH WINDS4R PLpNNtNG DEPT. Marcia Banach,Planning Director Town of South Windsor \ 1540 Sullivan.Avenue South Windsor,CT 06074 Dear Marcia: Re: Summerwood Sharon Drive South Windsor, Connecticut DPI Proj No.01-1468 sion Horseshoe Lane Associates, es foLLC r the aboereby ve referenced prouests Planning ject. Each model will be a approval of three model ho different style home. Thank you. Horseshoe Lane Associates,LLC B ' o rt A.Urso f TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR h STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION d GENERAL: r CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON Kftw Tsqazww Phone No.A- / Address PT., UPS S A'MLITS 0. &01#0Jw c1r. OW74 ll Site Name P&Z No. "" Ll Owner IMfa � 1� Phone No. Contractor 042 r##M . Signature of Owner Date:-5/3/03 Signature of nesign Engr. Date:' T l 3Lv 31� CHANGE: (Describe location and nature ol change. Include Four (4 ) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) R, ea-son for Change: (Why is c' 4e required) APPROVALS: {As Re e )uir Dir. Of Planning � � �� "` Date: G 3t3 „ t� l �+ ' Town Engineer � Date: Dir. of Public Works Date: Other: Date: STAFF COMMENTS: ' x I a White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod Engineering Department:�• TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: CHANGE ORDER•CONTACT PERSON { Y k YIN( Aone No. �' - 1 C t Address b Site Name Owner A4 6 C {j� 1 , f-d ll tl l r^ *c h#o Phone No. Contractor Signature of Owner AADate: Signature of Design gr Dater �+ _ CHANGE: (Describe location anATiaturAi change. Include {1 Four (4 ) copies of (plaan/proyff ile of Change. ) ¢ IV) y �QfT # Q__ %Al bile.Yll A ��-1 =y-C,L A! ii T 4 3 ��R I V If C N . l - i) t Reason for Change: (Why is change required) APPROVALS: (As..,.Required) Dir. Of Planning Date: Town Engineer Date Dir. of Public Wor Date: Others Date: STAFF COMMENTS:. White Town Engineer Yellow = Applicant Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod Engineering Department 41 y R TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITTE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: iM� t " CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON W )� Phone No. . Address D� O .5 _C 4Clrr �A . :S . unite. cr Q607 Site Name SutrMQ44 P&Z No. OZ--7-6 !" Owner /l d,.! L----,0 ?A-1L-1MC J P Phone No. Contractor G Signature of Owner Date: 11 Signature of Design. Eng - Dater 1 CHANCE: (Describe location and n ture o change. Include Four (4 ) copies of plan/profile of Change: ) .a. Reason for Change: (Why is change required) APPROVALS: (As Reqjaired) t Dir.. Of Planning -� Date: Town Engineer Date: Dir. of Public Works Date: Other: Date: STAFF COMMENTS: White. - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant Pink Director of Planning .Goldenrod - Engineering Department BOND RELEASE TRANSMITTAL �� 3� DATE: � 103 APPLICANT NAME j)u-C L t'_ ADDRESS g -3 P':i tq(A w- kkJ F. (jow.5 R C i 06 r-) 74- PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS %hq M e-,,W 6-6J LOT P&Z OR INA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER ORIGINAL BOND AMOUNT 1.2y ,000 ► 0—.t9 4111) J") " o' GL r1 GLii Vl 4..if�..-z"�i tiii f9�+^1t ram been completed r 131 /OZ NAME a DATE \ 4 f a 0-2, BY CHECK # ISSUED DATE H:\Planning Department\PZC Secretary\forms\BOND RELEASE TRANSMITTAL 08-27-01.doc 77 TWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR'.SITE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: CHANGE ORDER CONT T PERS014 U �- Pho e No Address �� l2T1 qle /P/ ve OG f tf�am Site Name mr7,ee4voa0 P&Z No. Owner / i�ld3 t'3�i e e �M� E' S O E . Phone No. �F' fm.l9 Contractor . Signature of Owner. OQDate Signature of Design En l' Date: U CHANGE: (Describe location and nature of change. Include Four (4 ) copies of plan/prof.-le of Change. ) yve Reason for Change (Why is change required) s# ':1 APPROVALS: (As Re uired) - Dir. Of Planning ,4 A� t/td Date: Town Engineer Date: Dir. of Public Works Date: Others Date: STAFF COMMENTS: White - Town Engineer Yellow Applicant Pink Director of Planning Goldenrod Engineering Department Y *N Sf4 O F Totim V! Soa;(A Vi�� c U 9 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR-CO AREA CODE 860/644-2511 August 17, 2004 Mr. Robert Urso Horseshoe Lane Associates, Inc. 18-3.Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Appl 02-76p, Summerwood SRD Site Bond Dear Mr. Urso: The Planning and Zoning Commission is holding the following Letters of Credit: PROJECTS BANK AMOUNT EXPIRATION Summerwood Rockville Bank $ 20,000.00 10/7/04 Summerwood Rockville Bank $ 20,000.00 10/7/04 Summerwood Rockville Bank $ 10,000.00 10/7/04 Summerwood Rockville Bank $241,700.00 10/7/04 In-accordance with our policy for accepting Letters of Credit in lieu of surety bonds, we must have an amendment to each expiring Letter of Credit well in advance, extending the term for a one-year period• from the expiration date. Will you please forward us the amendment promptly? Sincerely, -* Michele R. Lipe Assistant Director of Planning MRL/kak �O's N Sf4 07 C.1 • U s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 4, sox•CO AREA CODE 860/644-2511 April 22, 2003 Mr. Robert Urso Horseshoe Lane Associates. 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Appl#02-76P, Summerwood—Construction of Model Home Dear Mr. Urso: We are pleased-to advise you that the Planning&Zoning Commission voted on April 15, 2003 to approve the construction of one model home for application 02-76P, Summerwood subject to the following conditions: ♦ All normal building procedures still apply, e.g.,provision of emergency access, building permit procedures, etc. ♦ The model home will not be offered for sale and cannot receive certificate of occupancy until the site bond is posted and final plans are filed in the Town Clerk's office. Al normal certificate of occupancy procedures remain in effect. Sincerely, Kevin McCann, Chairman Planning&Zoning Commission cc: Chief Building Official Town Engineer Zoning Enforcement Officer „r TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: . CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON Galt Somprobft Phork No. 291,875S Address D019D PROMMigNU, Ines., 163 nth SateUfte Rd Windows rrr OW4 4 ite Name &VWnM9 NR P&Z No. 02,762 er .jbr”ehos LWW A/gWj4kt4W p LLC Phone No. 64-gW3 C ntractor f34V4M OWStraCtim- Signature of •Owner ., Date: fG,fc , Signature of Design Engr. Dates 9/6 f y CHANGE: (Describe location and nature J change. include Four (4 ) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) ftyle a swi tars sovor *Iwatian. Reason for Change: (Why is change required) TO CO&MO depth of trvach. APPROVALS: (As Re uired) U Dir. Of Planning Date: " Town Engineer Date: ' Dir. of Public W rk/s Date: Other: t",h,D'a ,.8�� r? e , *-, f ,� .,�( Date: STAFF COMMENTS: Ali White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant Pink -Director of Planning Goldenrod- Engineering Department F -own O-P soudt ?dz�� m 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE•SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074-2786 R.coN�w AREA CODE 860/644-2511 FAX 860/644-3781 May 12, 2003 Mr. Peter DeMallie Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: ;Preconstruction Meeting—Appl. 02-76P, Summerwood Dear Mr. DeMallie: IN ATTENDANCE Michele Lipe TOSW (860) 644-2511 x252 Jeff Folger TOSW (860) 644-2511 x229 Denise Letourneau• Cox Cable (860) 432-5041 Cathy Hoggett S-NET (860) 725-4433 Michael Covensky Coven Const. (860) 742-0796 Bernie Drabek TOSW (860) 644-2511 x241 Galen Semprebon DPI (860)291-8755 --B-ob�rso Horsehoe Lane Ass. (860) 644-9603 Rick Granger Roulier Associates (860) 763-3538 x303 Peter DeMallie DPI (860)291-8755 Ron Boucher Roulier Associates (860) 763-3538 X309 Jeff Doolittle , TOSW (860) 644-2511 x245 The following is a brief summary of points discussed during the meeting: Erosion and Sedimentation Control ._ . 1. All erosion and sedimentation control measures are to be in place prior to earth moving operations in each area and maintained/cleaned out during construction. Call Jeffrey Folger, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer for inspection when measures are in place, prior.to commencement of site.work or if any problems/concerns arise during construction. 2. All topsoil stockpile areas to be_protected_(ringed_w th..haybales-or--equal). 3.- During construction of the road/driveway a crushed stone tracking pad is to be installed and maintained to minimize tracking of dirt/gravel on to Sharon Drive. Calcium chloride or water is to be used for dust control as required. rpr' 14 Seventy two-(72)hours' notice needed for certificate of occupancy inspection. 15. Any proposed changes are to be presented to the Engineering or Planning Department prior to implementation on change order form in quadruplicate with 4 copies of the drawing. Town will attempt to turn around within 24 hours. 16. Normal hours of operation 7:00 a.m. —5:00 p.m., no work on Sunday. 17. No paving October 15 or before April 15 without written approval from Director of Public Works. 18. Extra care must be taken when compacting around structures such as catch basins and manholes. These spots often become problem areas in the future due to settling,therefore, the town staff/inspectors will be requesting additional compaction tests in these areas. 19. Sanitary lateral locations should be tied down to existing structures and shown on the progress as-builts. 20. For concrete sidewalks, 8"depth with reinforcements is required at driveway crossings. If the sidewalk is constructed before lot development, the locations must be indicated on the as-built plans. If a proposed driveway location is moved, the sidewalk must be removed to the nearest expansion joint and rebuilt to the proper depth with reinforcement. 21. If a concrete monument is located within a driveway, a cast iron frame and cover must be provided for town public improvement specifications. 22. During construction of individual sanitary sewer house laterals, the contractor shall prepare an as-built sketch on standard form provided by the Engineering Department. This form should be submitted to the design engineer/surveyor for their use in preparing the as-built plan. The Engineering Department suggests that the contractor also show locations of foundation drains and water laterals on this form. 23. During construction for individual house lots, lot to lot drainage must be addressed with drainage swales as necessary. For lawn establishment, town staff will be requiring erosion control measures to be installed prior to the issue of the certificate of occupancy to ensure soil stabilization. A detailed erosion control plan must be implemented and depicted on the plot plan for review prior to the issuance of the building permit—most particularly on lots with extensive grading. Planning Department 1. Landscaping is to be installed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. If there are changes required, contact the Planning Dept. Additional landscaping installed on one part of a site will not preclude planting all of the remaining items shown on the landscaping plan. 2. Approval conditions of Resubdivision and Special Exception #3, 5, 7, and 14 must be completed. 3. Bonding of $120,000 for detention basin, $10,000 for Erosion and Sedimentation, and $10,000 for landscaping must be submitted prior the issuing of building permits. 4. Tree flagging to be completed and inspected by town staff prior to removal. PROJECT: TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STREET: V, BOND ESTIMATE FORM 1V P&Z I.D.: 2002 CALENDAR YEAR ENGINE R: DATE: S i5 Bond Bond Reduction Reduction Item Description Unit Quantitv Unit Price Cost No. 1 No. 2 1. Clearing & Grubbing LS I i 0 oc,o c 2. Strip & Stockpile Topsoil CY 39,0 2.00 CC), ov Earth Excavation (Excluding Roadway& 3. Trench) CY 0 10.00 0 4. Roadway Excavation CY P,57C 12.00 3 c oo,ow 5. Earth Trench Exc. 0-4 CY 10.00 3550,co 6. Earth Trench Exc. 0-10 CY Ce b 12.00 ' OO.oa 7. Earth Trench Exc. 0-15 CY 100 15.00 1 C c.k 8. Earth Trench Exc. 0-20 CY Q 18.00 9. Roadway Exc. (Rock) CY O 50.00 10. Rock Trench Exc. 0-4 CY O 50.00 O 11. Rock Trench Exc. 0-10 CY 75.00 O 12. Rock Trench Exc. 0-15 CY O 100.00 O 13. Rock Trench Exc. 0-20 CY O 150.00 O 14. Formation of Subgrade SY e G 1.50 ,0 v 15. Subbase Gravel CY In 20.00 16. Processed Aggregate TONS 375 18.00 6 7�o,OD 17. Common Borrow CY 0 10.00 p 18. Gravel Borrow CY 0 15.00 t-S" Bit,Concrete 19. (Class 1) TONS I)b 50.00 5 500. I_S" Bit. Concrete 20. (Class II) TONS D 1 55.00 6 050.0D varies Sub-Total $ 39� Sm•00 Page 1 of 6 • Bond Bond Reduction Reduction N. Item Description Unit Quanti Unit Price Cost No. 1 No. 2 21. 6"Asphalt Lip Curbing LF 120o 3.00 3 IoDO.Op 22. Road Widening Complete SY 50.00 23. Conc Sidewalk 4'Wide LF t)88 30.00 _z <-,NO 00 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM COMPONENTS 24. 60"RCP Class IV In Place LF 130.00 25. 54"RCP Class IV In Place LF 100.00 26. 48" RCP Class IV In Place LF 75.00 27. 42" RCP Class IV In Place LF 65.00 28. 36" RCP Class IV In Place LF 60.00 29. 30"RCP Class IV In Place LF 50.00 30. 24" RCP Class IV In Place LF 71 S 42.00 �030,00 31. 18" RCP Class IV In Place LF 35.00 13 32. 15" RCP Class IV In Place t S 3 30.00 3`► S�f�•a� 33. POLYETHYLENE PIPE 34. 8"ADS-N-12 or Equal 21.00 35. 10"ADS-N-12 or Equal 22.50 36. 12"ADS-N-12 or Equal 24.00 37. 15"ADS-N-12 or Equal 25.50 38. 18"ADS-N-12 or Equal 28.00 Sub-Total $ Page 2 of 6 Bond Bond Reduction Reduction Item Description Unit Quantitv Unit Price Cost No. 1 No. 2 UNDERDRAINS 39. 6" PVC SDR 35 In Place LF 15.00 40. 8" PVC SDR 35 In Place LF 20.00 RIPRAP 41. Modified Riprap CY O 45.00 0 42. Intermediate Riprap CY D 45.00 0 43. Standard Riprap CY d 45.00 O DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 44. Type"C"Catch Basin EA S 1500.00 -] Sn,),o v 45. Type"C" Double Grate EA 3 2000.00 C)OD,^:O 46. Type"C-L"Catch Basin EA 1500.00 47. Manhole EA S 1500.00 p 48. Manhole w/Drop Inlet EA 2500.00 49. Manhole Over Ten Feet EA 2000.00 50. Headwall EA " 51. Endwall EA 52. Box Culvert LF " 53. 15" Flared End EA 450.00 54. 18" Flared End EA 500.00 55. 24" Flared End EA 550.00 Ste• 56. 36" Flared End EA d 850.00 Sub-Total $ 22), SSD 60 Page 3 of 6 ` Bond Bond Reduction Reduction Item Description Unit Quantit Unit Price Cost No. 1 No. 2 57.___]Detention Outlet Structure EA 2500.00 10'Wide Gravel Access 58. Road LF 15.00 59. Reset M.H. or C.B. EA 550.00 60. -J. SANITARY SEWER COMPONENTS 61. 12"PVC In Place SDR 35 LF 40.00 62. 10"PVC In Place SDR 35 LF 37.00 63. 8" PVC In Place SDR 35 LF 8 3 q 35.00 2 36 5.00 64. 6" PVC In Place SDR 35 LF 30.00 SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURES 65. Sanitary Manhole EA LI 1,500.00 Sanitary Manhole w/Drop 66. Inlet EA 2,500.00 Sanitary Manhole over 10 67. FT. 2,000.00 68. 69. STRUCTURES & MISC. ITEMS 70. Retaining Wall LF p 71. Fence (Type: ) LF O * O Guide Rail 72. (Type: ) LF 0 * O Sub-Total $ .35,3lo -.CV Page 4 of 6 w Bond Bond Reduction Reduction Item Description Unit Quantit Unit Price Cost No. 1 No. 2 End Anchorage 73. (Type: ) EA 0 d 74. Guide Post EA O 100.00 O 75. Pavement Marking LF 1.50 76. Street Signs EA 100.00 i 00� CO 77. Traffic Signs EA Z 100.00 2-co . 00 78. Street Lights EA 1,000.00 79. Furnishing/Placing Topsoil SY 2.50 Fertilizing, Seeding and 80. Mulching SY 2.50 81. Trees EA 200.00 Maintenance/Protection of 82. Traffic LS 83. Construction Staking LS So q a0 5-00,CO 84. As-Builts LS 5 00.CO 85. Iron Pins EA I 150.00 )50.CJ 86. Concrete Monuments EA `f 300.00 %-2 00'00 87. Driveway-Bit. Conc. SY 25.00 88. 89. 90. F__ "varies Sub-Total $ 2)950.00 Page 5 of 6 Original Estimate Bond Reduction#1 Bond Reduction#2 Sub-Total Page 1 $ 39�goo.00 $ $ Sub-Total Page 2 $ $ $ Sub-Total Page 3 $ $ ` $ Sub-Total Page 4 $ 35)3 f0s,00 $ $ Sub-Total Page 5 $ 29So .op $ $ Sub-Total $ 19)-360,00 $ $ 25% Contingencies x Sub-Total: $ 48,19S,w $ $ TOTAL $ 440,g ZM $ $ standard forms/bonds/bond estimate form Page 6 of 6 BOND TRANSMITTAL DATE: APPLICANT NAME ADDRESS 1�- ✓ a ��� �1 Y2 dj o, ( — ()(o -7q PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESSL�)441 (.L ��Gi �J✓l / LOT SUBDIVISION P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER - (� UZI AMOUNT OF BOND 0.2u1allv • CHECK NUMBER DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED BY ftVC./,(G (°/y/03 NAME u DATE RECEIVED BY FINANCE & (Qt7 )3 NAME DATE ,<,00033 i0,do SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER 5 6o d 3 4 au, 66 HAPlanning Deparinent\PZCSecretary\fours\BONDTRANSMITTALOS-27-0i.doc TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON Galen 'SeWredon Phoneono. 291-8755 Address Design Professionals, Inc. 165 S. Satellite Rd. South Windsor, CT 06074 Site Name Safth wood P&Z No. 02-76P Owner MG Realty Limited Partnership Phone No. Contractor Cover Construction Signature of Owner Date• P4-/ Signature of Design Engr. ate: CHANGE: (Describe location and nature of c ange. Include Four (4 ) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) Redesign of site lighting due to manufacturer change and use of CUP ornamental atreet lights to matbb ones proposed for Day Drive 9i Reason for Change: (Why is change required) To pr=i,de jnji0 mi ty nf t1ggi of 7 iabl-Inq arA adjustment stment of poles miss underground utilities. APPROVALS: (As Re wired) hs# Dir. Of Planning l Date:- /1,��/UY Town Engineer Date: Dir. of Public Works Date: Other: Date: 1 STAFF COMMENTS: i White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant Pink Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department Lighting Fixture shall be by Architectural Area Lighting (or approved equal) Promenade Series® Style: PRMS Lamp: 100 watt high pressure sodium H3 (horizontal lamp, type 3 reflector) Color: Black Provide flush, tempered glass lens (no drop lens) Pole: 4" strai le height ght round, 10' mounting DB I-4F 10 Color: Black Note: approximate height to light source !SIT. Fixture shall be grounded in accordance - with local code. Follow manufacturer's instructions for OOE b u "T installation. TO P,-a TrM.TLAC_E I> 4v M4 �►L'j -iWA-TwE - Sitei RECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR JUL 1 3 Z004 STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION SOUTH ONDSOR PL0MG DEPT. GENERAL: CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON A� RS n Phone No. Address - 3 4 !v Co'- Site Name -ercv.00 P&Z No. 0 Owner ,-s CSej , � e c- `L G Phone No. `�`/' Contractor 6 p tie/ f-om c- t Signature of Owner Date: —/Cf) -� Signature of Design Engr. Date:_ CHANGE: (Describe location and nature fchange. Include Four (4 ) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) Reason for Change: (Why is change required) a APPROVALS: (As Re uired) Dir. Of Planning Date: /-)-0 la Town Engineer Date: 'd Dir. of Public Wor Date: Other: Date: STAFF COMMENTS: 800 White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant RIMO OR Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department / �z ,RAN. M0N. PROPOSED LIMITS , // � ♦ OF CLEARING/IMPACT T.O.F 76.50 \� 05eMT-66.&3� G� 79(9 0� (� T.o,�W. 3.7s �%2.5 F. SSW=66:8 x Q:.. .75 SF x 72.25 x�1. O7450 SMT-65.83 T.F.F.=75.50 50 � oR����cF / BSMT-66.63 x ENT. RL s7 1,26 G " ozo ,y a \ 1- T.F.F.= \ / , BSMT • / PARCEL / PROP. C.O. s .o. 277,66/2 Sq. Ft. cTYP. _ 6.37 Acres 15 IN LUDES AREA F R.O. x"'87 T.F.- of \70.33� opn S 3 , x 0.65 \. �. ( NR TA,W=74.00 �"0 c�0 1. 6� 70.34 �B6 BSMT-0:33 �Jp_ g�9 ^�� ,D2 TAW-73.50 F.F.-74.50 ® 7 PROPOSED LIMITS BSMT-65.83 CLEARING/IMPACT BOND TRANSMITTAL DATE• (I /6 /,Dy CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER NAME & ADDRESS 17 3 a PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS LOT SUBDIVISION P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBERS 7 6� U� AMOUNT OF BOND ko CHECK NUMBER 7� 0 DEPARTMENT C. SUBMITTED BY]QL�'C" a�yL NAME DATE RECEIVED BY FINANCE t '+_ ���,`, q 11(.o i®4 NAME DATE SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER "57 o o 0 G.O S:\ENGINEER\FORMS\Office Forms\BOND TRANSMITTAL.doc SUMMERWOOD COVE 18-3 Arthur Drive South.Windsor,_CT 06074 SEP 1 0 2005 SOUIJi ININDSOP PLANNING DEPT. September_ 18,2005 Michele,Lipe Asst. Director of Planning 1540 Sullivan Avenue_ South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Summerwood_Lane South Windsor, CT Dear Ms. Lipe: On behalf of Horseshoe Lane Associates I hereby request.abond.reduction.for Summerwood Lane. The street lights have been completed and about 66% of the sidewalks have been installed. As per our conversation I will leave those moneys in tack.and.submit an.additional $20,000.00 to the town of South Windsor to cover any additional bonds coming due. .Any further questionsplease contact me at(860)268-24.52_ Si-. _ 1y, oabert Urso SSW N SE4< a -own O-P SatdA ?d 9 � w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 r�OSOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 September 28, 2004 Mr. Robert Urso Horseshoe Lane Associates, Inc. 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Appl#02-76P, Summerwood Erosion and Sediment Bond Dear Mr. Urso: This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on September 21, 2004 to reduce the erosion and sediment bond from$10,000.00 to $5,000.00. -Please forward an amendment to the bond we are currently holding showing this reduction at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, (�� Timothy Wentzell Planning&Zoning Commission cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official MEMORANDUM To: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning From: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, P.E., Town Engineer Date: 2/8/05 Re: App 02-76P, Summerwood SRD, Day Drive Completion Engineering has received a request to reduce the bond for public improvements to maintenance and accept the public road known as Day Drive that was constructed as part of the Summerwood SRD. The public improvements are substantially complete and I recommend that Day Drive be accepted and set to maintenance for the next year. I believe the Bond is already at the maintenance level ($15,140). Please call me(x 245)if you have any questions. towN sf�� To� O-P sioum . �` 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 ��osoIt-co`' TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 February 10, 2005 Mr. Robert Urso Horseshoe Lane Associates, Inc. 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Urso: Re: Appl#02-76P, Summerwood Subdivision This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on February 8,2005 to reduce the subdivision bond to a maintenance level of$15,140. The maintenance bond will expire on February 8,2006. Please forward an amendment to the bond we are currently holding showing this reduction at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ✓�� ff Timothy Wentzell Planning&Zoning Commission THW/pmm cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official 'OW N Sf4 w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 f�OSOR•CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 August 1, 2005 Mr. Robert Urso Horseshoe Lane Associates, Inc. 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Expiring Letter of Credit,Appl#02-76P, Summerwood Dear Mr. Urso: The Planning and Zoning Commission is holding the following Letters of Credit: PROJECTS BANK REDUCED EXP. TYPE AMOUNT Summerwood Rockville $10,000.00 10/07/05 Wetlands Plantings Summerwood Rockville $20,000.00 10/07/05 Landscape Summerwood Rockville $ 5,000.00 10/07/05 Erosion& Sedimentation Our records also indicate that your subdivision bond letter of credit is due to expire on 10/7/05. This has been reduced to $15,140 and will have a new expiration date of 2/8/2006; the renewal letter should be issued to reflect this change. In accordance with our policy for accepting Letters of Credit in lieu of surety bonds,we must have an amendment to each expiring Letter of Credit well in advance, extending the term for a one-year period from the expiration date. Kindly forward us the amendment at your earliest possible opportunity. Very truly yours Michele R. Lipe Assistant Director of Planning MRL/rfs BOND TRANSMITTAL DATE: ell1�10 j APPLICANT NAME 4V S-r S ko P -ayl P AS c�C ADDRESS PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS 6'l LOT SUBDIVISION JliM h2k�,VAO P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER lOa--I(,.P �V �c� SX- AMOUNT OF BOND 4a0 ,000.�, CHECK NUMBER -1-�3 -1 g -) DEPARTMENT a h h I n SUBMITTED BY NAME DATE RECEIVED BY FINANC o v`� DATE SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER H:\Platming Department\Holmes\forms\BOND TRANSN TTTAL 08-27-Ol.doe SOWN Sf4 .4 Toul;n O-P SOUA ?dli"6-at 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 f�OSOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 October 12, 2005 Mr. Robert Urso Horseshoe Lane Associates, Inc. 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Urso: Re: Appl#02-76P, Summerwood Senior Residence Development This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on October 11, 2005 to reduce the bond for site improvements in the Senior Residence Development from $53,350 to $28,950. A check will be issued to you for the difference in the amount we are currently holding. Sincerely, Timothy Wentzell Planning&Zoning Commission THW/pmm cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official SOW N Sf4 O s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 l�oSOR-CO AREA CODE 860/644-2511 December 15, 2005 Mr. Robert Urso Horseshoe Lane Associates, Inc. 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Urso: Re: Appl#02-76P, Summerwood SRD Landscaping Bond This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on November 22, 2005 to reduce the landscaping bond to $5,000.00. A check will be sent to you from the town of South Windsor for the reduction. If you have any further questions please contact the Planning Department at 644-2511, ext. 253. Thank you. Sincerely, g� Patrick Kennedy ,(/)?V l Planning&Zoning Commission PK/mmrl cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official BOND RELEASE TRANSMITTAL DATE: APPLICANT NAME ADDRESS PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS S> 0 LOT P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER �� -,(o SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER 5 0 d D(p ORIGINAL BOND AMOUNT_YjUW 0 Please release the bond indicated above as all of the required work has been completed. S NAME DATE fc / 415 B = � CHECK # SSUED DATE H_\Pl=ing DePa tment\HOlmes\f0vms\BOND RELEASE TRANSNUTTAL 08-27-0 Ldoc BOND RELEASE TRANSMITTAL DATE: J 1-7 1,, APPLICANT NAME ShAyQ L0_ ADDRESS PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS , LOT P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER_ SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER ORIGINAL BOND AMOUNT 11S 1 � °� j Vie: Please release the bond indicated above as all of the required work has been completed. NAM V DATE 3 //06 Y CHECK # ISSUED DATE H:\Planning Department\Holmes\forms\BOND RELEASE TRANSNUTTAL 08-27-01.doc C� o. 1 � WNV Response Plan--Draft 18 Appendix F: Public Health Code Citations and Other Pertinent Regulations The Public Health Code 2000 is a compilation of the regulations that pertain specifically to the (� J Department of Public Health(pursuant to Section 19a-36 of the General Statutes of Connecticut), j �✓ (� Regulations relevant to mosquito control and the powers of local health departments and the 11 confidentiality of are listed below: V A ��L Environmental Health /,/ kl L 19-13 Bl.Conditions specifically declared to constitute public nuisances The following conditions are specifically declared to constitute public nuisances: C p (a) Bakeries,restaurants and other places where food is prepared or served that are not kept in a clean and sanitary condition;or in which persons who have any communicable disease are employed;or for which suitable toilet facilities are not provided;or in which there is evidence that rats,mice or vermin are present. (b) Spoiled or diseased meats,whether exposed and offered lur sale or being transported or kept for sale. (c) Barns or stables,hogpens,chicken yards or manure piles or accumulations of organic material so maintained as to be a breeding place for flies. (d) The discharge or exposure of sewage,garbage or any other organic filth into or on any public place in such a way that transmission of infective material may result thereby. (e) Privies not screened against flies in populous districts and privies likely to pollute the ground or surface water from which water supply is obtained. lfi% tat�i of garbage,night sell orotherOr a1i�iitl except wagGi3 W1iCi1 prcveit Transpor ill U eIVU leakage or access of flies. (g) Stagnant water likely to afford breeding places for mosquitoes within a residential district or within a distance of one thousand feet therefrom. (h) Bone boiling,fat rendering establishments,or tallow or soap works,or other trades,when they can be shown to affect public health or produce serious offense. (i) Buildings or any part thereof which are in a dilapidated or filthy condition which may endanger the life or health of persons living in the vicinity. 19-13-B2.Abatement of nuisance (a) Any local director of health,upon information of the existence of a nuisance or any pollution occurring within his jurisdiction,or when any such nuisance or pollution comes to his attention,shall,within a reasonable time,investigate and,upon finding such nuisance or pollution exists,shall issue his order in writing for the abatement of the same. (b) Such order shall specify the nature of such nuisance or pollution and shall designate the time within which such abatement or discontinuance shall be accomplished;and if such order is not complied with within the time specified,the facts shall be submitted to the prosecuting authority.Copies of all orders shall be kept on file by the director of health in his office and copies of the same shall be furnished the state commissioner of health on request. 19-13-B31.Stagnant water No person shall maintain or permit to be maintained any pond,cesspool,well,cistern,rain barrel or other receptacle containing water or accumulation of stagnant water in such a condition that mosquitoes may breed therein or may injure health or cause offense to other persons. Regulation of Pesticide Use Both state and federal statutes regulate pesticide use in Connecticut.The state and federal statutes require users of pesticides to adhere to the directions provided on the product's label. Any deviation from the label's directions is a violation of law.The label is the law. DOT HS 809475 Traffic Safety Facts 2001 U.S.Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic y � � Safety Administration r_ A Public Information Fact Sheet on Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's National Center for Statistics and NO 8804 POO Analysis kM://www.0W.dd419v There are more than 25 million people age 70 years and older in the United States.In 2000,this age group made up 9.1 percent of the total U.S. resident population,compared with 8.5 percent in 1990.From 1990 to 2000,this older segment of the population grew nearly twice as fast as the total population(2001 population data by age group not available). NCSk\ There were 18.9 million older licensed drivers in 2000(2001 data not National Center for statistics&Analysis available)—a 36 percent increase from the number in 1990.In contrast, of the National Highway Traffic Safely Adm"*aMn the total number of licensed drivers increased by only 14 percent from 1990 to 2000.Older drivers made up 10 percent of all licensed drivers in 2000,compared with 8 percent in 1990. In 2001, 159,000 older individuals were injured in traffic crashes, accounting for 5 percent of all the people injured in traffic crashes during the year.These older individuals made up 13 percent of all traffic fatalities, 12 percent of all vehicle occupant fatalities,and 18 percent of all pedestrian "in 2001, older fatalities. people accounted for Most traffic fatalities involving older drivers in 2001 occurred during the 13 percent of all daytime(82 percent),on weekdays(71 percent),and involved another traffic fatalities and vehicle(73 percent). 18 percent of all pedestrian fatalities." Figure 1. Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatality Rates by Age Group, 1990-2000 Traffic Deaths per 100,000 Population Ages f 6-20 Y®ars 40 es 70+Years Ages Zt-34 Years II 30 20 1e : -69'(ear 10 AgBs 5-15 Years . . t'�ges 04 Yeats_ 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Note:2001 population data by age group not available. National Center for Statistics&Analysis - 400 Seventh Street,S.W. - Washington,D.C. 20590 NCSk 2 Traffic Safety Facts 2001 — Older Population In 2001,NHTSA began using a revised method—multiple imputation— to estimate missing information about blood alcohol concentration(BAC) levels for persons involved in fatal crashes. The alcohol estimates in this fact sheet are based on the new imputation method. More information on the new multiple imputation method, including detailed tabulations of alcohol involvement in various categories(age,sex, time of da)4 etc.), is available in NHTSA Technical Report DOT HS 809 403, Transitioning to Multiple Imputation;A New Method to Estimate Missing Blood Alcohol Concentration(BAC) Values in FARS. Older drivers involved in fatal crashes had the lowest proportion of intoxication—with blood alcohol concentrations(BAC)of 0.08 grams per deciliter(g/dl)or greater—of all adult drivers.Fatally injured older pedestrians also had the lowest intoxication rate of all adult pedestrian fatalities. Table 1.Age and Alcohol,2001 "Older drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2001 had a16 290 33 11 484 13 3 the lowest proportion 16-20 7,963 1,419 18 297 86 29 of intoxication of all 21-34 17,550 5,203 30 837 414 49 adult drivers. 35-U 19,508 4,447 23 1,694 814 48 55-69 6,311 677 11 638 175 27 70+ 4,808 239 5 870 60 7 Total *57,480 12,293 21 **4,882 1 1,589 1 33 *includes 1,060 drivers of unknown age. "Includes 62 pedestrian fatalities of unknown age. Figure 2. Driver Involvement Rates in Fatal Crashes by Age and Sex, 2000 Driver Involvement Rate per 100,000 Population 70 OFemales ■Males .......................................................... .._.._ . - _............ 60 ... 50 ............................... __.. _.._....... 40 >...... 30 20 ww- 10 0 1! 16-20 21-24 25-34 35.44 45-54 55-64 65-69 70+ Driver Age(Years) Note:2001 population data by age group not available. CW National Center for Statistics&Analysis - 400 Seventh Street,S.W. - Washington,D.C. 20590 Traffic Safety Facts 2001 - Older Population 3 Three-fourths(75 percent)of all older occupants of passenger cars "in two-vehicle fatal involved in fatal crashes were using restraints at the time of the crash, crashes with an older compared to 59 percent for other adult occupants(18 to 69 years old). and a younger driver, For older people,64 percent of pedestrian fatalities in 2001 occurred at the older driver's non-intersection locations.For other pedestrians,82 percent of fatalities vehicle was 3 times occurred at non-intersection locations.In two-vehicle fatal crashes as likely to be the involving an older driver and a younger driver,the vehicle driven by the one that was struck." older person was almost 3 times as likely to be the one that was struck (56 percent and 20 percent,respectively).In 46 percent of these crashes, both vehicles were proceeding straight at the time of the collision.In 26 percent,the older driver was turning left-6 times as often as the younger driver. Table 2.Involvement of the Older Population in Traffic Fatalities, 1991 and 2001 � h f i+ $x r t Population(thousands)' Total 249,464 21,164 8.5 281,422 25,458 9.0 +13% +20% +6% Male 121,626 8,053 6.6 138,054 10,009 7.3 +14% +24% +11% Female 127,838 13,111 10.3 143,368 15,449 10.8 +12% +18% +50/0 Drivers involved in Fatal Crashes Total 54,391 3,865 7.1 57,480 4,808 8.4 +6% +24% +18% Male 40,731 2,716 6.7 41,711 3,257 7.8 +2% +201%. +16% Female 12,825 1,149 9.0 14,867 1,551 10.4 +16% +35% +16% Driver Fatalities Total 23,930 2,494 10.4 25,840 3,164 12.2 +8% +27% +17% Male 18,125 1,750 9.7 19,184 2,112 11.0 +6% +21% +13% Female 5,805 744 12.8 6,617 1,052 15.9 +14% +41% +24% Total Traffic Fatalities Total 41,508 4,843 11.7 42,116 5,394 12.8 +1% +11% +9% Male 28,545 2,678 9.4 28,878 3,026 10.5 +1% +13% +12% Female 12,953 2,165 16.7 13,168 1 2,368 18.0 +2% +9% +8% Occupant Fatalities Total 34,740 3,750 10.8 36,386 4,470 12.3 +5% +19% +14% Male 23,745 2,068 8.7 24,735 2,476 10.0 +4% +20% +15% Female 10,987 1,682 15.3 11,590 1,994 17.2 +5% +19% +12% Pedestrian Fatalities Total 5,801 1,044 18.0 4,882 870 17.8 -16% -17% -1% Male 3,985 568 14.3 3,400 502 14.8 -150/0 -12% +3% Female 1,815 476 26.2 1,474 368 25.0 -19% -23% -5% 11 *Population data are for 1990 and 2000.Population data by age group for 2001 were not available at the time of publication. National Center for Statistics&Analysis - 400 Seventh Street,S.W. - Washington,D.C. 20590 NCSk Y 14 Traffic Safety Facts 2001 — Older Population Older Population Age Groups The following table and graphs provide data for subgroups of the older population:70-74,75-79,80-84, and 85+years. Table 3. Driver Involvement in Fatal Crashes and Pedestrian Fatalities in the Older Population by Age Group,2001 777 Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes 1,527 1,493 1,072 716 4,808 Pedestrian Fatalities 222 224 249 175 870 Figure 3. Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatality Rates in Figure 4. Involvement Rates for Older Drivers in the Older Population by Age Group, Fatal Crashes by Age Group and Sex, 1990-2000 2000 TFsffic Deaths per 100,000 Population Driver Involvement Rate per 100,000 Population 35 fFemales Males 5 Ages 80-84 Years 45 _.............................. ........ 30 40 s 85+Years...... 35 ...... 25 30 .. 20 Ages 75-79 Years 25 . 15 Ages 70-74 Years 20 15 .. 10 10 { s s 0 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 4W 1997 1998 1999 2000 Driver Age(Years) Note:2001 population data by age group not available. Nate:2001 population data by age group not available. s a .r r'rx z �, r .t Mg�3 } DNA 40 PIT,I N 3 { yS �yrlm K r ,e��e COW f� p r> National Center for Statistics&Analysis 400 Seventh Street,S.W. Washington,D.C. 20590 'Warning Signs for Senior Citizens to Stop Driving Page I of 2 ucorm Health Center Office of Communicatio1s Contact: Kristina Goodnough, 860-679-3700 e-mail:goodnough@nso.uchc.edu When It's Time to Give Up the Car Keys UConn Health Center Physician Suggests When to Raise the Topic FARMINGTON,Conn.—Senior citizens are perhaps the only group more reluctant than teenagers to relinquish the car keys. Older drivers—like their much younger counterparts—see the car as a sign of independence and freedom.The inability to drive puts older people at risk for depression and isolation, and finding alternative transportation can be a financial burden or increase their dependence on family members or other caregivers. But, unfortunately, some of the abilities needed for driving, such as range of motion in the neck and reaction time, decline with age.As a result, there may come a time when it's necessary to tell people you love that their driving may be hazardous to them and to others. How can you recognize it? 'There are some pretty reliable warning signs of unsafe driving,"according to Ellen McMahon,M.D., at the Center on Aging at UConn Health Center.They include: • the inability to locate familiar places, • failing to observe traffic signals, • making slow or poor decisions, • driving at inappropriate speeds, and • becoming angry and confused while driving, "If you see one or more of these signs in an older person,it makes sense to talk about driving safety,"said McMahon. 11111NOW"older d drivers.And, among all drivers age 65 and older,it is the oldest drivers who pose more risk to themselves and Dto 0 public safety, according to a report by the American Association for Retired Persons Policy Institute. The rate of ublic crashes i ra7shes begins to rise at age 70 and increases rapidly at age 80, according to the report. More importantly, older drivers are three times as likely to die as a result of injuries related to the crash. 70sTs— generally attributed to the increased physical fragility of older persons,"said McMahon. Frequently, once the topic is raised, older drivers may regulate their own driving behavior. "They may stop driving long distances, or they may avoid driving at night or during rush hour,"said McMahon. "Alzheimer's disease certainly complicates the situation,"said McMahon. "Those with only mild forgetfulness or slight impairment in time relationships are safe to drive, but they should be evaluated by a qualified examiner and reevaluated every six months,"said McMahon, 'Those whose Alzheimer's disease has progressed to a moderate memory loss,to difficulties with geographic orientation, or those who have stopped functioning independently in chores or shopping or need prompting with personal care should not drive,"said McMahon. http://www.uchc.edu/ocomm/newsreleasesOl/novOl/olderdrivers.html 1/20/2003 Warning Signs for Senior Citizens to Stop Driving Page 2 of 2 "Raise the topic gently and respectfully, emphasizing your concern about safety,"said McMahon. "If you meet resistance, ask them to talk to their doctor. Frequently, people will take a physician's advice,"she said. "It's important to understand that giving up the car keys is often a difficult step for older people to take,"said McMahon. The University of Connecticut Health Center includes the schools of medicine and dental medicine,John Dempsey Hospital, UConn Medical Group, UConn Health Partners and University Dentists. Founded in 1961,the Health Center pursues a mission of providing outstanding health care education in an environment of exemplary patient care, research and public service. Note: News professionals are invited to visit the Office of Communications homepage at http://www.uchc.edu/ocomm/for archived news releases and other information. In the News ( Reach an Expert I UConn Facts I Advance About the Health Center I UConn News&Events Communications Home I UConn Health Center Home http://www.uchc.edu/ocomm/newsreleasesOl/nov01/olderdrivers.html 1/20/2003 ,Studies put data on dangers to seniors behind the wheel Page 1 of 6 Amherst H. Wildcr Foundation +� ♦ _ • •°"""'$"' I�a�Menu �>Ea t61IMRdXJOVF oil Studies put data on dangers to seniors behind the wheel By Thor Carlson Publications Editor Ponta Bill Kosfeld Publisher Wilder Forest 651-917-1210 It's a popular stereotype-the senior tlsQwilder.org driver slowly moving along,tying up Donate traffic and becoming a road hazard. Articles By Subject Features O Legal Social Security The reality may be less than what Health younger drivers may believe, but Housins; Consulting&Training statistics from a pair of current studies do Remember When 41, show that senior drivers have things to be Travel Contatt concerned about when they hit the streets. Related Research site searcfiiiRelated Publications Currently at the University of Minneso d 1 researchers are in the midst of a study lJl I � about senior drivers and their route planning. Their initial findings show th w older drivers have nearly twice the rate of being disori7e—nted on a new route as 'younger drivers, And the National Hi hway Traffic Stud Administration t s s rin re eas --dings that senior drivers were the on y age group to see an increase in roact -fatality URM rates overt the past five ears. The UofM study Armed with some basic statistics that older drivers have more accidents per mile driven than any age group outside of teens, a team of University of Minnesota researchers has spent the past couple years looking into why that may http://www.wilder,org/goodage/Features/drive601,html 1/20/2003 Studies put data on dangers to seniors behind the wheel Page 2 of 6 be. They devised road and simulator tests that gauged how well drivers of all ages do at"way finding,"that is, finding their way along a new route that they're not real familiar with. They went into the test trying to see if older drivers face a bigger challenge of simultaneously thinking about where they're going and operating their vehicle. "Older people seem to know less about the spatial aspects of their neighborhood," said Herb Pick, a 70- year-old professor in the UofM's Center for Cognitive Studies who is heading up the transporation study. "But we also found that they go out into their neighborhoods less often. So it's kind of a chicken and egg problem." "We also found that older people were not as good at dividing their attention between two tasks," added Selma de Ridder,Pick's research assistant. "When they're asked to do two kinds of tasks, it affects both tasks." A four-prong approach was taken to try to quantify the differences. Study participants were given a questionnaire about their driving habits. They took part in a road test in a route set up in Edina and also in a computerized simulator. Up next are simulator tests to see what kinds of sensory information are used to help drivers stay oriented. "The questionnaire was the most disappointing to us in terms of results," said Pick. The results for older people confirmed most of the pre-study assumptions: older drivers tend to drive in less traffic, spend less time on http://www.wilder.org/goodage/Features/drive601.html 1/20/2003 ,.,Studies put data on dangers to seniors behind the wheel Page 3 of 6 freeways and drive less at night. When it came to questions on route planning and way finding,there weren't significant differences between age groups, he added. Some anecdotal differences emerged, like that younger drivers tended to laugh off their moments of being lost while older people were more concerned when that happened. "We even had one or two(older) respondents who said that they prayed when they got lost,"Pick said. Some also mentioned that they ask someone to come along to help them navigate on their trip. The questionnaire did show that older people tended to ask for help more often when they drove, de Ridder added. And while that may be good to help avoid getting lost, it could lead to other problems. "If they're looking for a gas station to go to ask directions, they might not be concentrating as well on their driving," she said. Out on the road and in the simulator, drivers were taken through a three-to four-mile route. After making enough trips around the route to know their way unprompted,they were asked to make occasional stops and point to landmarks on the route that were not visible. The differences on those tests were "considerable" between age groups. "The difference was about 20 degrees," Pick said. Younger drivers were off an http://www.wilder.org/goodage/Features/drive601.html 1/20/2003 ,Studies put data on dangers to seniors behind the wheel Page 4 of 6 average of 25 degrees in pointing out the landmarks while seniors were off by an average of 45 degrees(which is half of a right angle). "Some of the older drivers were off by as much as 180 degrees on landmarks and as much as 90 degrees on intersections that were coming ahead," said de Ridder. Other significant findings also emerged. Women of all ages had a higher rate of deviation than men, and older people took slightly more trials to learn the route than younger people did. The next stage of the study, which will take place this summer and is de Ridder's dissertation project, will be to see what types of navigation aids can help people overcome these orientation problems. Senior drivers interested in taking part in the research can call 612- 624-2062. Until that work is completed, the researchers don't have a lot of recommendations on how senior drivers can improve their orientation other than one obvious suggestion. Said Pick: "Plan your route ahead of time." NHSTA findings This spring,the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration(NHSTA)in conjunction with USA Today published findings that older drivers were the only age group to see an increase in fatal accidents in the last five-year reporting period(1995-99). While highway deaths for those under 65 decreased 3 percent from the previous five-year period,they increased 15 percent among senior drivers during the same period. Fatality rates were measured per 100 million miles driven. That's a continuation of a trend. Seniors http://www.wilder.org/goodage/Features/drive60l.html 1/20/2003 L -Studies put data on dangers to seniors behind the wheel Page 5 of 6 are the only group to have seen an increase in their highway fatality rate over the past two decades, the report pointed out. Looking at it a different way, the NHSTA study pointed out that seniors make up 12 percent of the population but account for 18 percent of those killed on highways. Generally frailer health of seniors factors into that. The study pointed out that when a crash does occur, an older motorist is more than 25 percent more likely to die from those injuries than a motorist who is 55 or younger. Intersections are the primary hot spot for serious senior crashes. The study showed that 32 percent of the fatalities at intersections were seniors. About half of them were attempting left turns when the crashes occurred. The Federal Highway Administration is looking at ways of addressing the senior driving issues, particularly as the population continues to get older and continues to drive. Among its recommendations on how to protect elderly drivers are: • Enlarging the height of letters on street signs from four-to six-inches tall. - More traffic lights so older drivers can better manage turns at busy intersections. -Building rescue islands in the middle of wide streets where pedestrians and drivers can take refuge before crossing the entire street in one attempt. Wilder Programs I Employment I Research Center I Publications Wilder Forest Volunteer I Donate I Our History I Good Age(Consulting and Training Contact F� ®Amherst H.Wilder Foundation.All rights reserved. E-mail:webmaster(c milder.org. 919 Lafond Avenue,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55104(651)642-4000 http://www.wilder.org/goodage/Features/drive60l.html 1/20/2003 'THE MERCK MANUAL OF GERIATRICS, Sec. 2, Ch. 23, The Elderly Driver Page 1 of 6 _ o ABOUT I PRODUCTS NEWSROOM I S RNNCAL I CAREER i RESEARCH � LFCE(s&W IE MFMANUALS" ( COUNTRY R MERCK The Merck Manual of Geriatrics Section 2. Falls, Fractures, and Injury this section includes Chapter 18.Syncope I Chapter 19. Chronic Dizziness and Postural instability I Chapter 20. Falls i Chapter 21.Gait Disorders i Chapter 22. Fractures I Chapter 23.The Elderly Driver Chapter 23. The Elderly Driver Contributor: Sheldon M. Retchin For most community-dwelling elderly persons, being able to drive is essential for maintaining autonomy in daily activities (eg, shopping, medical appointments, social visits, church functions). For elderly persons who cannot drive, alternative transportation should be arranged, although such arrangements often involve dependence on family members and friends. The use of public transportation, even if available, is often unacceptable because of inconvenience, cost, or concerns about safety. Safe driving requires the integration of complex motor, visual, and cognitive tasks, although many drivers with moderate motor,visual, and cognitive deficits can continue to drive safely, probably because these tasks have been consolidated into a learned, instinctive pattern of driving.Performance is usually affected only after considerable loss of function. To compensate for moderate functional deficits, most elderly persons avoid rush hour and drive fewer miles, shorter distances, and less atF night. For instance, average mileage is 64%less for 85-year-old male drivers than for 65-year-old male drivers. Elderly drivers are also more cautious than younger drivers, drive more slowly, and take fewer risks : t in traffic. Because elderly persons drive less than younger persons and because they are more cautious, they have fewer collisions. Collision rates(per 1000 licensed drivers)decrease steadily with age(see Figure 23-1). Thus, it is a myth that elderly drivers are responsible for a disproportionate number of motor vehicle collisions. However, per mile driven, elderly drivers have higher rates of traffic violations, collisions, and fatalities than all age groups over age 25. 3 Collision rates per mile driven increase after about age 70 and increase more rapidly after age 80(see Figure 23-2). Failure to yield right-of- way and failure to heed a stop sign or red light are the most common violations. Furthermore, elderly drivers have a higher proportion of collisions at intersections. These findings imply that some elderly drivers have difficulty http://www.merck.com/pubs/mm_geriatrics/sec2/Ch23.htm 1/20/2003 • 'TEE MERCK MANUAL OF GERIATRICS, Sec. 2, Ch. 23, The Elderly Driver Page 2 of 6 with driving tasks requiring complex decision making. Elderly drivers involved in collisions fare worse than younger drivers. Collisions involving elderly drivers are more likely to include multiple vehicles and to result in serious injuries and fatalities, partially because the elderly have different driving patterns and because they have underlying frailties and comorbid disorders. Role of the Health Care Professional Elderly drivers with important functional deficits or with medical conditions that restrict function may decide to limit or stop driving, or they may continue to drive as usual, denying their limitations. Health care professionals become involved when they detect deficits during a routine examination, when family members seek guidance, or when elderly drivers solicit advice. Health care professionals should try to preserve a patient's autonomy and quality of life, but after evaluating an elderly driver, they may feel obligated to recommend cessation of driving. Making such a recommendation may be difficult because loss of driving privileges is often the first challenge to an elderly person's autonomy; such a loss may cause major inconvenience and contribute to impaired quality of life and depression. The first step in assessing an elderly person's ability to drive is to perform a thorough evaluation, including a comprehensive history and physical examination(see page 24}with a focus on functional assessment. If any functional deficits are detected or suspected,the health care professional should counsel the elderly driver and family members and discuss issues relevant to the driver's transportation needs. Social isolation resulting from fewer daily trips can lead to worsening functional status. Decisions must be made regarding the relative importance of trips (ie, differentiating those that are essential from those that are nonessential). If the driver's functional limitations or medical status clearly warrants driving cessation,the health care professional should report the findings and recommendations to the Department of Motor Vehicles. If the patient's abilities are questionable, the health care professional should formally request an on-road evaluation by the Department of Motor Vehicles and consult with appropriate medical advisory boards for precise guidelines. Functional Assessment Motor, visual, and cognitive functions should be evaluated. Motor function: Decreased muscle strength,particularly grip strength, can make driving difficult. Grip strength of<35 lb (< 15.89 kg)in the dominant hand in men(measured with a dynamometer)is cause for concern. Grip strength is likely to be about 10%lower in women(ie, <31 lb [< 14.06 kg]). Because power-assisted devices can compensate for poor grip strength, other abilities (eg, dexterity, coordination)should be considered. Reaction time,which increases with the difficulty or number of choices, is important in driving. Reaction time can be classified as "simple," which includes the premotor and http://www.merck.com/pubs/mm_geriatrics/sec2/ch23.htm 1/20/2003 ` -'THE MERCK MANUAL OF GERIATRICS, Sec, 2, Ch. 23, The Elderly Driver Page 3 of 6 movement times, or "choice," which is the time it takes to choose between two or more decisions. However, no reliable measure of reaction time is clinically useful. Usually, formal evaluation of range of motion by an occupational or physical therapist using a goniometer is not required, but the practitioner should perform a qualitative evaluation of joint mobility. Limited mobility of the neck(eg, in patients with rheumatic disorders)may restrict field of view and is especially worrisome in urgent driving situations. Limited mobility of the shoulder,wrist, or elbow can affect steering, although power-assisted devices may compensate adequately. These devices, available at some automobile body shops,range in cost.For example, spinner knobs are inexpensive. They can be installed on the steering wheel to facilitate control for elderly drivers with limited shoulder or arm mobility (eg, due to stroke or severe arthritis). Driving rehabilitation programs for the elderly, offered by the American Automobile Association(AAA)and the American Association of Retired Persons(AARP), can often refer persons asking about these devices. Although measurement of proprioception is often imprecise, the physician should note proprioceptive difficulties in patients (eg, in disorders such as subacute combined degeneration of the spinal cord caused by vitamin B�2 deficiency). Patients with obvious deficits may warrant on-road testing or other focused evaluations. Visual function: Several age-related changes in vision can affect driving performance. Central and peripheral visual acuity commonly declines with age because of physiologic or anatomic changes(eg, opacification of the lens)or specific medical conditions(eg, diabetic retinopathy). The total horizontal peripheral visual field typically decreases from 170' in young adults to 140' in 50-year-olds. Drivers with peripheral visual deficits have collision rates twice as high as those with normal peripheral vision. Because the peripheral retina is very sensitive to decreased light delivery, twilight can be the most difficult time of day for driving. Age-related decreases in integrated measures of visual performance, such as visual- processing speeds and visual-spatial attention(eg, useful field of view), are associated with higher collision rates. As persons age, they are less able to adapt to changes in light and to accommodate(presbyopia), have reduced depth perception, and are more sensitive to glare. However, the rate and magnitude of age-related deterioration in vision vary greatly among persons. Appropriate medical or surgical intervention can reduce or prevent some functional deficits(eg,treatment of glaucoma or cataracts). In most states, central visual acuity and peripheral vision are routinely tested at the Department of Motor Vehicles. The frequency of these tests and the minimum acceptable standards vary. However, the most common thresholds are 20/40 in the better eye and a horizontal peripheral vision field of 120°. The useful field-of-view test has established composite scores that assess visual processing speed in fields of view. A patient with a 40% reduction in the useful field of view is considered impaired for driving. Cognitive function: Many elderly persons with motor or visual impairment drive less frequently because of their condition; however, elderly persons with cognitive impairment may not fully recognize their limitations. The risk of having an accident is estimated to be http://www.merck.corn/pubs/mm_geriatrics/sec2/ch23.htm 1/20/2003 L • 'THE MERCK MANUAL OF GERIATRICS, Sec. 2, Ch. 23, The Elderly Driver Page 4 of 6 about five times higher among elderly drivers with mild to moderate dementia than among those without dementia. Of community-dwelling elderly persons, about 3%aged 65 to 74, 14%aged 75 to 84, and>20%aged> 85 have moderate cognitive impairment. (see page 351 and 357)Persons with severe dementia should not continue to drive. For the assessment of cognition, a short evaluation instrument, such as the Annotated Mini- Mental State Examination, (see Figure 38-1)is recommended. Drivers with scores<=23 (of 30 total)should undergo further evaluation(eg, on-road testing). For patients who have moderate cognitive problems or sharp declines in mental performance,the practitioner should recommend on-road testing only when necessary. Unnecessary testing due to injudicious screening can lead to excessive costs. Furthermore, because no evaluation is perfect, unfounded restrictions for capable elderly drivers may result, and such limitations can induce functional decline. In most elderly drivers with dementia, cognitive impairment is mild; attention deficits in such drivers should be evaluated. The three major types of attention are selective, divided, and sustained, Selective attention(the ability to shift focus between competing stimuli)is important in driving because stimuli (eg, a radio, a cellular phone)can be distracting. The driver must selectively disregard noise or other contaminating influences. Selective attention is evaluated with several neuropsychologic tests(eg, dichotic listening test, Stroop test). Divided attention is the ability to process two or more stimuli at once and respond appropriately. For example, when the driver is approaching an intersection or merging onto a freeway, he must divide his attention between signaling the turn and accelerating into traffic. Sustained attention (endurance in alertness)may be relevant to an elderly driver with a chronic medical condition(eg, fatigue commonly associated with heart failure)or to one taking drugs that can cause fatigue or drowsiness(eg, benzodiazepines, antidepressants). Divided attention and sustained attention are clinically important, yet no reliable test is available for either measure. Assessment of Medical Conditions and Drug Use Although functional assessment is usually considered more relevant than a medical diagnosis, certain medical conditions and the use of certain drugs should be considered when a person's ability to drive is evaluated. When beginning treatment with a new drug that could affect motor,visual, or cognitive function, patients should avoid driving for 1 to 2 days to be sure no adverse effects occur. Heart conditions: The physician should estimate a patient's risk of coronary artery disease, although sudden cardiac events while driving account for< 1/1000 collisions. Patients with unstable angina should not resume driving until symptoms have been treated and the angina has been stabilized or has not recurred for>= 1 month, Some antianginal drugs(eg,nitroglycerin)can interfere with driving by causing a precipitous decrease in blood pressure. Many noncardiac drugs(eg, tricyclic antidepressants)have cardiovascular adverse effects, which can affect driving. Patients should refrain from driving for about 1 month after an uncomplicated myocardial infarction or a coronary artery bypass graft operation or for 3 to 4 days after angioplasty. Some states and provinces have more specific requirements or recommendations for recovery time after these events. Practitioners should consult local Departments of Motor http://www,merck.com/pubs/mm_geriatrics/sec2/ch23.htm 1/20/2003 - THE MERCK MANUAL OF GERIATRICS, Sec. 2, Ch. 23, The Elderly Driver Page 5 of 6 Vehicles or state medical advisory boards for the specific recommendations. Epilepsy: The incidence of epilepsy increases with age. Drivers who have had one seizure with no detectable underlying neurologic cause are the least likely of all seizure patients to have another seizure. Each state has regulations for drivers with a history of seizures; most states require a seizure-free interval (eg, of 6 months)before reinstating driving privileges. About 70%of patients can adequately control epilepsy with drugs, although relapses may occur when anticonvulsant therapy is withdrawn. Transient ischemic attacks and strokes: The incidence of transient ischemic attacks and strokes is highest among the elderly. In the absence of comorbid illnesses or other considerations, an elderly driver who has had a transient ischemic attack or stroke should have an event-free interval of>=3 months before resuming driving. Residual disability resulting from a stroke can be evaluated by functional assessment. (see nape 232) One year after a stroke, about 50% of patients have permanently discontinued driving. Other neurologic diseases: Neurologic diseases such as demyeiinating conditions (eg, multiple sclerosis)and Parkinson's disease may affect driving. The degree of disability varies widely. Physicians should perform a functional assessment before deciding on a patient's ability to drive. Diabetes mellitus: The major issue for patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus is sudden development of hypoglycemia while driving. Patients with diabetes who have autonomic neuropathy or who are taking a ft-blocker may have a hypoglycemic event without sufficient warning symptoms. Patients with diabetes who have not had a sudden event affecting consciousness for 3 years can continue to drive. Patients who have had a recent event affecting awareness and those with insulin-dependent diabetes whose insulin levels fluctuate widely(including documented hypoglycemia) should be prohibited from driving for 3 months while they are observed. Diabetic complications(eg, retinopathy) should be evaluated by functional assessment. Drug use: Elderly drivers should be cautioned about taking antihistamines when driving. Antihistamines may produce sedative effects, including somnolence and slower reaction times. Although newer antihistamines(eg, loratadine, cetirizine, acrivastine, fexofenadine) produce fewer sedative effects than the first-generation antihistamines(eg, triprolidine, diphenhydramine, clemastine), they may still affect driving performance, especially if given in higher-than-recommended doses or if combined with alcohol or other drugs that can potentiate their sedative effects(eg,benzodiazepines, antidepressants). Benzodiazepines,which are among the most frequently prescribed drugs for the elderly, should never be taken before or during driving. Many benzodiazepines have extremely long half-lives and can cause motor dysfunction, visual impairment, cognitive decline, and decreased attention, especially in the elderly. Taking modest doses of frequently used benzodiazepines impairs driving performance in the elderly driver to a level similar to the legal definition of alcohol intoxication. Similar concerns are relevant when antidepressants are prescribed. Single doses of amitriptyline, imipramine, and doxepin,which have sedative effects, can impair many functions involved in driving. Other drugs with sedative effects, including opioid analgesics http://www.merck,com/pubs/mrn—geriatrics/sec2/ch23.htm 1/20/2003 ` - ` THE MERCK MANUAL OF GERIATRICS, Sec. 2, Ch. 23, The Elderly Driver Page 6 of 6 and antihistamines, may also affect driving performance. Use of alcohol, alone or in combination with other drugs, can have tragic consequences for any driver, regardless of age. In general, the elderly consume alcohol less frequently than any other age group and are involved in fewer alcohol-related fatal crashes. However, elderly drivers should be counseled against alcohol consumption before driving. Smaller amounts of alcohol produce more significant effects in elderly persons than in younger persons because of age-related increases in adipose tissue and decreases in lean body mass, which reduce the amount of tissue distribution. Thus, elderly persons who consume alcohol have higher blood alcohol concentrations than younger persons with similar alcohol intakes. Also, because alcohol can impair cognition if mixed with other drugs, elderly persons taking multiple drugs are especially at risk. Legal Implications Patient confidentiality presents a dilemma for physicians treating elderly drivers with impairments such as dementia. Disclosure of information about a patient's driving ability, although it may violate patient confidentiality and result in restricted driving privileges that limit the patient's autonomy, is sanctioned when public safety is jeopardized. Physicians who do not notify appropriate authorities about a particular hazard(eg, an impaired driver) may be held liable. About 30%of states have policies that mandate the reporting of impaired drivers; statutes have been established to protect the physician's anonymity. Foreseeability(the ability to predict a risk or threat to public safety and health)is the principal legal concern for physicians, especially when treating drivers with obvious impairments. Physicians who are uncertain about the significance of an impairment should report the patient to the Department of Motor Vehicles for special testing of driving performance. SITE MAP I PRMCY P0UCY I TER Ms Cf-USE I iCOPYRNSHTP, 425-2003 MERCK&CO,INC. I CONTACT US http://www.merck.com/pubs/Mm_geriatrics/sec2/ch23.htm 1/20/2003 RECEIVED Town of South Windsor 24 January,2003 Planning Department JAN 2 4 2003 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Dear Michelle and Marcia, I am requesting a professional determination from your office and would like a legal ruling from the Town Attorney concerning the Planning and Zoning Commission Public hearing that was held 21 Jan 03 at 7:30p.m. The Public Hearing was based on an application of a 17 unit Senior Development of off Sharon Drive. At this meeting the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission pointed out the fact that the blueprints and or plans that the Commission were reviewing were not applicable to the present application of the 17 units. This is clearly a misrepresentation and invalid information for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and also the public. Not only was the Public Hearing aloud to continue that evening but it is also scheduled for a continuation on 28 Jan 03. I am challenging the legality issues of the Notice and also the incorrect information that was presented for approval I would hope a determination would be reached prior to the continuation of the Public Hearing on 28 Jan 03. I may reached at 289-1853 to discuss this matter any further if need be. Thank yob, Elizabeth E.Pendleton y a-lLy 2ZV,3 as 7boP PLEASE PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS � 1 � r o� Q S� v� p-f - Z x . . �• About > People&Relationships > Senior Living WHAT YOU NEED M TWO OF 11 Senior Living I "When I ,o out to eat, first! Do you urinate more than 8 times in a 24-hour period? 3 Yes 0 No sr with Donna B. Yeaw Your Guide to one of hundreds of Search in this topic - Home .Articles • Forums • Chat • Classifieds • Newsletters • Help Make this Site Your Homepage! Build your home on the Web and Invite your friends. Start here! brought to you by About Web Services Subjects Driving - Privilege or Right? w ►lr i ESSENTIALSWhen it's time to take the keys away... . . Idiot's Guide to Socialr recur He's eighty-three years old, stiff with arthritis, • free Prescription Meds slightly hard of hearing and behind the wheel of •Stop Telemarketing Calls a two ton weapon. He may be your neighbor, • Safe Online Shaming your father or grandfather, your spouse or •Cooking for Two �l possibly even you. He's been driving for over sixty of those years and he has a good drivingg Active Living record - till now. He just became a statistic. iltrtusl novtr Alzheimer's According to the "Relatively few deaths of Computers Insurance Institute elderly people- 1 percent or for Highway Safety, fewer- involve motor vehicles. Daily Living about half of the fatal But elderly people have higher Elder Cafe rates of fatal crashes per mile crashes involving driven than any other group For Boomers Only drivers 80 years and except young drivers." For GLBT Only older occur at For Men Oniv intersections. Insurance Institute for Highway Further, a survey safety ,. For Singles Only done 4y the Highway Loss Data Institute For Women Only University of Utah, Salt Lake City, found that left t Government Related hand turns cause the most problems. In fact, Grandparents older drivers were found to be more than twice Hobbies Activities as like!y as younger drivers to have accidents 1 Home& Famiiv wen making left-hand turns. "I think it's the Insurance& Legal ability to judge how ast traffic is moving," said Money Matters one Lawrence I Cook, of the researchers. Nostalgia What's Being Done? Pets$Us Retirement Care In the last couple of years several states have Safe and Secure attempted to pass new legislation regulating Senior Health testing and licensing of older drivers. Currently Sex After 50 several states require elderly drivers to renew their licenses more frequently than other Supporting Us drivers, but very few require road tests or medical exams. Due to the activism of the AARP, Subject Library these new measures have failed - so far. �c L Driving-Privilege or Eight? Page 2 of 3 All articles on this People age 75 and older have more What Does This Overactive topic motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 Mean to You? Bladder? people than other groups except people younger than 25. IS there an elderly Wh rt is 0A `. Stay up-to-date! The motor vehicle death rate per driver in your lifee you need to so Do I h�luo OaB? 100,000 people begins to rise If Y Subscribe to our among males at age 70. By age so evaluate their Bladder: # newsletter. and older,the rate among men is ability to drive llok>tnci QtheFs Enter Email �a0t.. more than twice as high as it is at age 40-74. safely. This is ,a�n�t a Doctnf never an easy Ttoatrnent Advertising Per licensed driver,fatal crash process to start. > Free Credit Report rates rise sharply at age 70 and Losing the ability > Free Psychics older. to drive a car F ro i it th e D octor I Insurance Institute for takes away the all Highway Safety important sense of Highway Loss Data Institute freedom and independence that helps keep seniors active and healthy. In fact, studies have shown that when seniors maintain an active social life involving functions like club meetings, they stay healthier longer and suffer less depression. Taking away what they may consider their "right to drive" can drive them into a depression that can impact Did You Know? their long term health. ...over 17 million Determining the right time to take away the car people in the U.S. keys is not easy. In fact physicians have a suffer from overactive bladder?That's more difficult time making this determination. In part than the entire two we'll cover some of the steps you can take population at Florida. to help you make the right decision at the most Overactive bladder is appropriate time. not normal at any age. >> Page Z, Guidelines for taking the keys away Loam More >> Page 3, Automobile Accident Death Rates by about Trealmeint Gender/Age ___.,_ Email this page! Sponsored Links Having a Hard Time Hearing Your Loved Ones? Hearing loss is about more than what you hear.It can affect how you communicate with your family, http://seniorliving.about.com/library/weekly/aa06l 700a,htm 1/20/2003 ,rDriving-Privilege or Right? Page 3 of 3 your friends —even the clerk at your local grocery store. Locate a hearing professional near you. http://www.sonus.com/ (Cost to Advertiser:$0.21) Buy a Link Now! Explore More on the About Network! Related Sites Fabulous MLK Quotations Tax Tins Search About Adult/Continuing Fondue Quotations Guide Ray Job Searching Education Planning a party? Gallagher has Guide Alison Doyle Arthritis Home Cooking memorable excerpts ,explains how job Death and Dying Guide Peggy from Martin Luther seekers can Explore more... Family Crafts Trowbridge has King Jr.'s speeches. deduct some of Genealogy terrific fondue their expenses. recipes and tips. About Us I Advertise on This Site I User Agreement I Privacy Policy I Kids'Privacy Policy I t IP Copyright m 2QW About,Inc.About and About.com are registered trademarks of About,Inc.The About logo is a trademark of About,Inc. All rights reserved. httpJ/seniorliving.about,com/library/weekly/aa06 l700a,htm 1/20/2003 Public Nuisances 19-13-B1. onditions specifically declared to constitute public nuisances wing conditions are specifically declared to constitute public nuisances: (a) Bakeries, restaurants and other places where food is prepared or served that are not kept in a clean and sanitary condition; or in which persons who have any communicable disease are employed; or for which suitable toilet facilities are not provided; or in which there is evidence that rats, mice or vermin are present. (b) Spoiled or diseased meats, whether exposed and offered for sale or being transported or kept for sale. (c) Barns or stables, hogpens, chicken yards or manure piles or accumulations of organic material so maintained as to be a breeding place for flies. (d) The discharge or exposure of sewage, garbage or any other organic filth into or on any public place in such a way that transmission of infective material may result thereby. (e) Privies not screened against flies in populous districts and privies likely to pollute the ground or surface water from which water supply is obtained. (f) Transportation of garbage, night soil or other organic filth except in tight, covered wagons which prevent leakage or access of flies. (g) Stagnant water likely to afford breeding places for mosquitoes within a residential district or within a distance of one thousand feet therefrom. Bone boiling, fat rendering establishments, or tallow or soap works, or other trades, when they can be shown to affect public health or produce serious offense. (i) Buildings or any part thereof which are in a dilapidated or filthy condition which may endanger the life or health of persons living in the vicinity. 19-13-B2. Abatement of nuisance (a) Any local director of health, upon information of the existence of a nuisance or any pollution occurring within his jurisdiction, or when any such nuisance or pollution comes to his attention, shall, within a reasonable time, investigate and, upon finding such nuisance or pollution exists, shall issue his order in writing for the abatement of the same. (b) Such order shall specify the nature of such nuisance or pollution and shall designate the time within which such abatement or discontinuance shall be accomplished; and if such order is not complied with within the time specified, the facts shall be submitted to the prosecuting authority. Copies of all orders shall be kept on file by the director of health in his office and copies of the same shall be furnished the state commissioner of health on request. 19-13-631. Stagnant water o pe n shall maintain or permit to be maintained any pond, cesspool, well, cistern, rain barrel or other receptacle containing water or accumulation of stagnant water in such a condition that mosquitoes may breed therein or may injure health or cause offense to other persons. i v -76 rP I� BOND RELEASE TRANSMITTAL DATE• I l�I0-7 i! APPLICANT NAME Let, ADDRESS I A✓J� Oc-I vi? 00�41 Vl/ t✓1 �Sor� ?- (a 0� I f PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS LOT —_ P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBEI; SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER Son � g ORIGINAL BOND AMOUNT O `' I Please release the bond indicated above as all of the required work has been completed. DATE 399 L�07 BY CHECK # ISSUED DATE i 1 I HAPlanning Depatment\Holmes%forms\BONDRELEASETRANSNHTTAL08-27-Ol.doc SUMMERWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 35 Summerwood Lane South Windsor, CT 06074 July 8, 2010 Ms. Michelle Lipe, Asst. Director of Planning Town Hall, Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Lipe: As we discussed last week, we have identified a tree in the buffer zone that is either dying or dead and poses a hazard to a nearby home in our community. The buffer zone is north of the home at 5 Day Drive. The tree is shown in the attached photos. The tree is of such a height and proximity to the home that should it fall, it could cause personal and/or property damage to the resident and house. We will contract with a tree service to remove the tree in January, 2011. Sincerely, William Maleskis, President cc: File (An Active Adult Community 55+) , r t };,� -' r`i •tr �Fl gip.� ��Y. � ' �� .Z^ ,l ,�` ',*��► � ;spa ��t..itr->• i, Y w• 1 f^ 1 \ ��. yew •'� `y! S'ir'�'� ��I^ � " G