Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting (linked)

Aesketh Hi
F. A. Hesketh
& Associates, Inc.
Civil & Traffic Engineers » Surveyors « Planners * Landscape Architects
November 12, 2024
1721, LLC
49 Twin Lakes Drive
Waterford, CT 06385
Attn: Mr. Daniel DelGrosso
RE: _ Traffic Impact Report
Roberts Village Housing
430 Mohegan Ave Parkway (Route 32) Public Hearing
Waterford, CT Roberts Court 8-30(g)
Our File: 23186 PL-24-14
Exhibit 34
Dear Mr. DelGrosso:
Pursuant to your request our office has prepared this letter presenting a response to concerns
raised by the Planning & Zoning Commission at the recent public hearing on October 22, 2024
and a response to the Peer Review report prepared by SLR dated November 8, 2024.
Commission Comments
Site Access
The site access is currently proposed to Roberts Court, an existing Town Roadway. The
commission expressed concerns about the volume of site generated traffic and safety concerns
on Robert’s Court. The commission inquired about providing access to Old Norwich Road
and/or to Route 32.
Roberts Court
In our report dated February 20, 2024 and revised through October 15, 2024 we presented that
the proposed 24 housing units would have a trip generation of 271 trips daily, with peak hour
volumes of 20 trips and 26 trips during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively.
The capacity analysis presented in the report indicated that all approaches at the intersection of
Senkow Drive and Roberts court will operate at a LOS A during peak hours.
To demonstrate how much excess capacity remains at the intersection of Senkow Drive and
6 Creamery Brook * East Granby, CT 06026 Tel 860.653.8000 » Fax 860.844.8600
www.fahesketh.com

Mr. Daniel DelGrosso
November 12, 2024
Page 2
Roberts Court, our office has conducted a capacity analysis of the intersection with the traffic for
200 residential units located on Roberts Court. The results indicate that all approaches at the
intersection will operate at a LOS A during peak hours. The capacity analysis worksheets are
attached for review.
The Town of Waterford Subdivision Regulations, Section 5.6.2 requires that a cul-de-sac have
50 feet of right of way and 22 to 24 feet of pavement. A Local Access Street requires 50 feet of
right of way and 24 to 26 feet of pavement.
Field measurements and available right of way maps indicate that Roberts Court has 50 feet of
right of way and approximately 32 feet of pavement. Therefore, the roadway complies with the
Town Subdivision regulations for a local street, with respect to right of way and pavement width.
The Town of Waterford Subdivision Regulations, Section 5.6.4 reads as follows:
Sec 5.6.4 Street Access — All streets in a subdivision shall have access to one or more
accepted streets or highways, except that any section of a subdivision which may contain more
than thirty-five (35) lots may be required by the Commission to be accessible from at least two
directions.
This indicates to me that the Commission has determined that residential roadways can safely
accommodate the traffic volumes from up to 35 residential units. The subject development
proposes a total of 24 residential units. When added the existing seven units with driveway
access to Roberts Court, the total number of units is 31. This number is below the 35 units
referred to in the subdivision regulations.
The Town of Waterford Subdivision Regulations, Section 5.6.2.5 reads as follows:
5.6.2.5 Sidewalks — Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with Town Standard Details,
as amended, and shall be provided consistent with the design objectives listed in Subsection
5.6.1. Ata minimum, a sidewalk shall be provided on one side of a collector street within five
thousand (5,000) feet of an existing or proposed school, park, playground, or community facility
or where shown in the POCD.

Mr. Daniel DelGrosso
November 12, 2024
Page 3
This regulation indicates that sidewalks are not required on cul-de-sac or local streets, but when
they are provided they need to be constructed in accordance with the Town Standard Details. If
sidewalks were required on all roadways, there would not be a reference to “at a minimum,
”
sidewalks shall be provided on one side of a collector street......
5.6.1.4 Streets shall incorporate design elements such as bike lanes and sidewalks to
encourage these modes of circulation in those areas identified as nodes on the Town’s POCD
or where pedestrian or bicyclist demands are not being met.
Section 5.6.2.5 indicates that sidewalks are required at a minimum on one side of a collector
street or within 5,000 feet of a school, park, playground or community facility. Roberts Court is
listed in a Priority Pedestrian Area but is not located ina POCD node. Roberts Court is located
approximately 5,400 feet from the sidewalk entrance to the Quaker Hill School. | am not aware
of any parks, playgrounds, or community facilities within 5,000 of Roberts Court. Therefore,
sidewalks are not required on Roberts Court, according to the Town of Waterford Subdivision
regulations.
Old Norwich Road
The commission asked about the potential to provide site access directly to Old Norwich Road
through the existing easement across 23B Old Norwich Road. Attorney Sweeney indicated that
the easement configuration did not allow access to the subject site for vehicular traffic, only
pedestrian access, and that without the agreement of all parties to the existing easement, that
vehicular access was not an option. Attorney Sweeney has further indicated that, subsequent
to the October 22, 2024 hearing, he contacted the the owner of the easement and they
confirmed their objection to any modification of that easement or any access between the
project and Old Norwich Road.
At the hearing | said that we had not considered access directly to Old Norwich Road in relation
to this application, since the proposed access was through Roberts Court. | indicated that | had
reviewed the potential for access to Old Norwich Road in relation to an earlier application on the
parcel, and that it was my recollection that there was a limitation to the available sight distances
at that location.

Mr. Daniel DelGrosso
November 12, 2024
Page 4
| have subsequently had the opportunity to review the situation in the field. My observations
and measurements indicate that the available ISD’s are 300 feet to the south and 435 feet to the
north. | believe that it may be possible to extend the ISD to 600 feet looking to the north by
clearing existing vegetation located within the right of way. The ISD to the south is limited by
right of way and the grade on the east side of Old Norwich Road. It would be necessary to
obtain a sight distance easement and temporary rights to grade, and then to clear the existing
vegetation and regrade the area to obtain the minimum required sight distance. Attorney
Sweeney has indicated that the same property owner that has objected to any access to Old
Norwich Road holds title to the property where that easement and rights would need to be
acquired.
A review of recent ConnDOT speed data indicates that 85% speeds are 46 miles per hour in
both the northbound and southbound directions. The minimum required ISD for 46 miles per
hour is 510 feet.
Route 32
Our office has been in contact with the ConnDOT District II office to determine if direct access to
Route 32 would be allowed. The DOT response was as follows:
The Division of Traffic Engineering has completed the review of the
submitted documents for the proposed development and based on the
preliminary and limited documents submitted. We do not oppose granting
access to the proposed development from Route 32, however additional
investigation is necessary to ensure that, if access is granted from Route
32, the proposed driveway would not adversely affect the State highway
system.
Please ask the designer to submit the followings:
e The proposed development impacts at the signalized:
o Intersection No. 152-235 — Route 32 at Benham Ave
o Intersection No. 152-240 — Route 32 at Fitzgerald Ave
o Anyneed for NTOR restrictions, longer turn lane storage, queuing,
timing and phasing revisions, etc.
Any operation deficiencies, speeds and crash patterns for existing and
future conditions
ie)

Mr. Daniel DelGrosso
November 12, 2024
Page 5
e Design of a right-turn lane or deceleration lane on Route 32 for the
proposed development driveway if warranted per the Highway Design
Manual
e Design of an acceleration lane on Route 32 for the proposed
development driveway if warranted per the Highway Design Manual
Crash analyses
Sightlines
In response to the DOT response the applicant has moved forward with a design that
incorporates a one way exit only driveway to Route 32. The driveway would be a 12 foot wide
driveway. The driveway approach to route 32 would operate under stop sign control. Since
Route 32 is a divided highway, all vehicles would exit via a right turn. To construct the
driveway, it will be necessary to break through the existing guiderail on the west side of
Route 32. The guiderail would need to be replaced.
Preliminary cost estimates for the driveway indicate the cost to be approximately $250,000.
This cost appears excessive compared to the potential benefits of including the driveway as part
of the proposed development and would undermine the affordability of the development.
SLR Report
Outlined below is a response to each of the SLR Review Comments.
Comment 1. We concur that Roberts Court is an existing cul-de-sac roadway. We note
however, that the cul-de-sac extends to the subject property, indicating that it was anticipated at
the time of construction of Roberts Court, that access to the subject parcel was to be provided
from Roberts Court.
In our review of the Town Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Regulations and the Plan of
Conservation and Development we find no reference to cul-de-sacs being intended for use by
children and residents to play and congregate. In addition, we have reviewed the websites of
both the Federal Highway Administration and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The
pages related to Traffic Calming were reviewed. The ITE website includes a list of eighteen
measures for traffic calming. Cul-de-sacs are not included in that list.

Mr. Daniel DelGrosso
November 12, 2024
Page 6
It is true that in an established neighborhood involving numerous roadways that connect two
collector roadways, that closing off an existing through street, (i.e. a roadway closure or cul-de-
sac) will reduce through traffic volumes on that roadway. That is not the case in this situation.
The applicant is not proposing to create a through roadway, only to connect to an existing local
residential street to provide access to residential properties. This is consistent with the current
use of the roadway.
SLR refers to the conversion of Roberts Court from a cul-de-sac to a through street. The
current proposal is to provide a private driveway access to the end of Roberts Court. That
private driveway would be constructed as a loop. There is no proposed through access to
another local roadway in the original plan set. We are of the opinion that the access point is not
necessary.
Roberts Court has a current daily traffic volume of 87 trips with peak hour volumes of 7 trips and
8 trips, respectively. The proposed 24 units are projected to generate 271 trips with peak hour
volumes of 20 trips and 26 trips, respectively. These volumes represent an increase on Roberts
Court of 311%, 286% and 325%, respectively. These increases appear large until you consider
that the background volumes are so low. We note that even with this volume of traffic all
movements at the intersection operate at a LOS A during peak hours.
Comment No. 2 The traffic impact report is dated February 20, 2024. It was submitted to the
Town for review in August of 2024. Based on those dates the data presented in the report is
appropriate. We have reviewed the UCONN Crash Data Repository and we have found that
there have been five accidents in the study area between October 1, 2023 and November 11,
2024. All five accidents occurred on Rote 32. There were no accidents reported on Old
Norwich Road, Senkow Drive or Roberts Court. A list of those five accidents is attached.
Comment No. 3 As outlined above, the Subdivision regulations allow for up to 35 residential
units within a subdivision without the need for a second point of access.
Comment No. 4 The applicant has considered a layout for a one way egress only driveway for
the consideration of the commission. The driveway would provide 12 feet of pavement for

Mr. Daniel DelGrosso
November 12, 2024
Page 7
exiting vehicles from the development. The intersection of the site driveway with Route 32
would be designed through consultation with the ConnDOT District Il Office. Appropriate
driveway widths and radii could be provided to accommodate emergency vehicles. However,
the cost of this egress driveway is excessive and would undermine the affordability of the
development.
Comment No. 5 The traffic impact report was submitted to the Town for review in August 2024.
Since the project, as originally proposed did not require review or approval from ConnDOT, we
did not consult with the Bureau of Policy and Planning. Town staff would certainly be aware of
any recently approved developments that would add traffic to the study area. To date we have
not been made aware of any such developments. Since background traffic volumes have
declined between 2011 and 2023, there is no need for the use of a growth rate for background
traffic volumes. Level of service calculations indicate more than acceptable levels of service at
all intersections located within the study area. A growth rate of a few percentage points would
not significantly alter the outcome of the analyses.
Comment No. 6 The proposed development has a very low peak hour generation. The
proposed 24 single family housing units have a peak hour generation of 20 trips and 26 trips, for
the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. Because Route 32 is a divided highway, it
is necessary for vehicles exiting the site to the north, or approaching the site from the south, to
either execute a u-turn at a nearby signalized intersection on Route 32, or to utilize Old Norwich
Road, to gain access to a signalized intersection to execute a left turn. Because we are not
certain which route would be most desirable to drivers, and to ensure that we have reviewed a
worst-case scenario, we have assumed that all drivers will execute a u-turn and that all drivers
will utilize Old Norwich Road. Therefore, the site generated traffic was assumed to be 140% of
the ITE projected volumes. Even with this overestimation of the site generated traffic, the
Levels of Service of nearby intersections remains unchanged. We therefore respectfully
suggest that revised movement diagrams are not necessary.
Existing Residential Developments
We would like to note that there are several existing residential developments in the Town of
Waterford that have more residential development than that being proposed by this applicant.

Mr. Daniel DelGrosso
November 12, 2024
Page 8
Some have only one point of access, some have two, but all have more units per access point,
and therefore higher traffic volumes, than Roberts Court with the proposed development. None
of the developments provide sidewalks or other traffic calming devices.
- The Milton Road, Dunbar Road, Rainbow Drive development has a total of 68
units and two access points to Old Norwich Road. In addition, the
neighborhood provides access to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints. The church has a total of approximately 60 parking spaces.
- The Watergreen Avenue development has a total of 39 units and one access
point to Old Norwich Road.
- The Meadow Drive development has a total of 35 units and one access point
to Vauxhall Street Extension.
- The Millstone Road East development has a total of 108 units and one
access point to Gardiners Wood Road.
- The West Neck Road and Westwood Drive development has a total of 29
units and one access point to Great Neck Road.
- Pepperbox Road has a total of approximately 42 units and one access point
to Braman Road.
- The Trumbull Road neighborhood has a total of 109 units on a total of nine
roadways and one access point to Great Neck Road.
- The Twin Lakes Drive, Pond Edge Drive neighborhood has a total of 78 units
and two points of access.
- The end of Scotch Cap Road provides access to 10 single family homes and
an 87 unit apartment complex, with one point of access.
- The Upper bartlett Road neighborhood provides access to 63 single family
homes with one point of access to Lathrop Road.
The record indicates that the Planning Commission has granted approval to
numerous residential developments of significantly more units than the current
proposal with similar access to the current proposal, without a determination that
the traffic volumes represent an unsafe condition.

Mr. Daniel DelGrosso
November 12, 2024
Page 9
Conclusion
After a review of the evidence, it is my professional opinion that the best access for the
proposed development is to Roberts Court. Roberts Court meets the Town’s minimum design
requirements for not only a cul-de-sac, but a local street. Based on the level of service results,
Roberts Court is more than capable of safely accommodating the anticipated volume of traffic
from the proposed development. Providing access through Roberts Court will allow residents of
the development the option to access Route 32 either by Senkow drive or by way of the
signalized intersections at Benham Avenue or Fitzgerald Avenue, via Old Norwich Road.
Access directly to Old Norwich Road is not possible due to the restrictions on the existing
easement across 23B Old Norwich Road. It is also unlikely that it will be possible to obtain the
necessary easements and grading rights to provide the minimum ISD looking to the south.
Direct access to Route 32, although possible, is impracticable due to the cost of construction
and does not appear to offer much relief from a volume standpoint.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to you. If you require any additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Very truly yours,
: ciates, Inc.
Manager of Transportation Engineering
cc: Mr. Joe Wren, Indigo Design, LLC
Attorney William Sweeney, Tobin, Carberry, et.al.
T:\23186\Traffic.2024.11.01.docx

Waterford Subdivision Regulations
And
2012 Plan of Preservation, Conservation and Development

WATERFORD
2012 Plan of Preservation, Conservation and Development
_ Effective— January 1, 2012

Transportation Plan
Waterford, CT
Larger scale maps are
available at Town Hall,
Montville
161
Lake
Ledyard
Konomoc
Groton
New London
Niantic
River
Legend
Road Classifications
Pag Interstate Highway
PRs Arterial
“NOS collector
Local
Southeast Area Transit
District Bus Route
Potential Road
NN Connections

TOWN OF WATERFORD
CONNECTICUT
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Revised Through Effective Date: April 5, 2018
Last Comprehensive Review of the Subdivision Regulations: April 5, 2018
First Subdivision Regulations Effective: May 4, 1948
The Town of Waterford Zoning Commission was created on June 3, 1939
The Planning & Zoning Commission was created on November 15, 1951
The Planning and Zoning Commission
Joseph Bunkley, Chairman
Susan Stott, Secretary
John Bashaw
Gregory Massad
Joseph DiBuono
Alternates:
Edwin J. Maguire
Staff
Abby Piersall, AICP — Planning Director
Mark Wujtewicz Planner
Maureen FitzGerald Environmental Planner
Thomas Lane Zoning Official
Dawn Choisy Recording Secretary

SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN shall mean a scheme that minimizes soil erosion
and sedimentation resulting from development and includes, but is not limited to, a map and
narrative and conforms to the Connecticut General Statutes and the Waterford Zoning
Regulations.
STORMWATER shall mean water resulting from rain or snowmelt that runs off surfaces such as
rooftops, paved streets, highways, parking lots and landscapes.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY shall mean a structural or landscaped component of
any system designed to control or manage the path, storage, or rate of release of stormwater
runoff and/or provide water quality treatment for stormwater.
STREET, ARTERIAL shall mean a major thoroughfare whose main function is to carry large
volumes of traffic between major points. Arterials are designated in the Community Facilities
Element of the Plan of Preservation, Conservation and Development.
STREET, COLLECTOR shall mean a street whose primary function is to carry moderate traffic
volumes between local streets and arterial streets. It may also provide access to abutting
properties. Collectors are designated in the Community Facilities Element of the Plan of
Preservation, Conservation and Development.
STREET, LOCAL ACCESS shall mean a street whose primary function is to provide access to
abutting properties. For the purpose of these Regulations, a local access street is any street
other than an arterial or collector street as defined above, and includes cul-de-sacs.
STREETS shall include roads, avenues, boulevards, lanes or other vehicular ways, unless
specifically specified as a Local Access Street, a Collector Street, or an Arterial Street as defined
in this section. It shall mean a public way accepted by the Town of Waterford or the State of
Connecticut, or a street in an approved subdivision, but shall not include private rights of way.
STREET RIGHT OF WAY shall mean that portion of land between property lines over which a
public road is built and the adjacent area reserved for future widening and improvements.
STRUCTURE shall mean anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires i) location
on, in, or under the ground or water; or ii) attachment to something having location on the
ground or water including, but not necessarily limited to, buildings and other structures, fabric
covered frame enclosures, swimming pools, tennis courts, towers, paddle or platform tennis
courts, docks, balconies, open entries, porches, decks, handicap ramps, signs, permanent
awnings, gas or liquid storage tanks that are principally above ground, ground-mounted
antennas, ground-mounted solar panels or satellite dishes, and fences or walls more than six
feet in height.
SUBDIVISION shall mean the division of a tract or parcel of land into three or more parcels or
lots for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale or building development, expressly
x Town of Waterford, CT

5.6.2
5.6.1.6 The elevations of proposed streets within Areas of Special Flood
Hazard shall be at a minimum of 1 foot above the Base Flood
Elevation (BFE).
Street Design Standards — Applicants shall design streets using the elements
shown within the Town’s Roadway Cross-Section Details (Appendix F). The
purpose of these details is to illustrate how elements within the street right of
way (e.g., sidewalks, swales, travel lanes, curbing, etc.) may be assembled to
meet the design objectives in Subsection 5.6.1. Applicants may propose a
cross-section as it is depicted in the Town’s details, or may propose a different
assembly of elements that better meet the design objectives in the context of
existing site conditions. A summary of pavement width and street right of way
width standards is provided in the table below and serves as a supplement to
the Town’s Roadway Cross-Section Details.
Street Right of Way | Paved Width
Cul-de-Sac 50' 22’ -24'
Turn-around Area 58’ radius 50’ radius
Local Access 50’ 24’ - 26’
Collector 60’ 32!
Arterial 60’ — 100’ 40’
In addition to the street design standards provided above, the following shall
apply:
5.6.2.1 Cul-de-Sac Length — A cul-de-sac shall not exceed eight hundred (800)
feet in length unless it is of a temporary nature and is planned for
extension and can reasonably be expected to connect with an existing
or proposed road on adjoining land. For temporary cul-de-sacs, the
pavement shall extend to the property line, and the turnaround at
the end of the cul-de-sac shall include a temporary right of way for
the area outside of the required street right of way width, which
temporary right of way shall be released by the Town when the street
is extended.
33 Town of Waterford, CT

SUBDIVISION PROPERTY LINE
CUL-DE-SAC BROUGHT TO.
SURROUNDED BY EDGE OF SUBDIVISION
LOTS. NO FUTURE PROPERTY LINE, FUTURE
CONNECTION CONNECTION POSSIBLE
ROW
ROW /
; tors / tora i ! LoT3 LOT 4
| i I
bee----t-] ( #£| Beebe 4 ee ee oe eee 4
| 1 on i}
LOT LINE
LOT LINE y TYP
TYP. Es
1 Lor2 LoTs 1 Et LoT2 LOT s I
i
| 131 \
a
&
2
fo}
g
beseeenrreecer| [ecto + ene fl
1 1 31 1
| | |
Lor LOTS tort tore
UNACCEPTABLE acceersece
CUL-DE-SAC LAYOUT FOR FUTURE CONNECTION
NOT TO SCALE
5.6.2.2 Curves —The tangent distance between reverse curves shall not be
less than two hundred fifty (250) feet on collector streets and fifty
(50) feet on cul-de-sacs and local access streets. Except for
intersections and turn-arounds on cul-de-sacs, no local access street
curve shall have a radius of less than one hundred (100) feet and no
collector street curve shall have a radius of less than three hundred
fifty (350) feet, as measured radial to the center line. Curves greater
than 8 degrees on collector roads may be super-elevated. Horizontal
and vertical sight distances, horizontal and vertical rates of curvature,
and super elevation shall satisfy the requirements of the Connecticut
Department of Transportation Geometric Highway Design Standards
(See illustration).
34 Town of Waterford, CT

5.6.23
5.6.2.4
5:6:2:5
5.6:2.:6,
MINIMUM CURVE RADIUS
350' FOR ARTERIAL AND
\
MINIMUM TANGENT DISTANCE
BETWEEN REVERSE CURVE:
250' ON ARTERIAL AND
COLLECTOR STREETS AND
50' ON ALL OTHERS
100' FOR ALL OTHERS
|
Intersections — Except where impractical because of topography or
other conditions, cul-de-sacs and local access streets shall be
perpendicular to intersections for a distance of at least one hundred
(100) feet and collector streets shall be perpendicular to intersections
for at least one hundred fifty (150) feet. Corners shall be rounded
with a radius of not less than twenty-five (25) feet. Center lines of
alternate side streets shall not be closer than one hundred twenty
five (125) feet, measured along the center line. Wherever a cul-de-
sac or local access road intersects with a collector or arterial road, a
minimum sight distance of two hundred fifty (250) feet shall be
required in each direction along the major road.
Grades — Street grades shall have a maximum allowable grade of
eight percent (8%) on arterial and collector streets and ten percent
(10%) for a distance of up to 500 feet on all other streets and a
minimum allowable grade of one percent (1%). Whenever possible,
grades shall be no greater than two percent (2%) within one hundred
(100) feet of an intersection.
Sidewalks — Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with Town
Standard Details, as amended, and shall be provided consistent with
the design objectives listed in Subsection 5.6.1. At a minimum, a
sidewalk shall be provided on one side of a collector street within five
thousand (5,000) feet of an existing or proposed school, park,
playground, or community facility or where shown in the POCD.
Street Trees — Trees shall be planted at fifty (50) foot intervals along
the sides of every street abutting lots of the proposed subdivision
except where, in the opinion of the Commission, existing trees are to
be retained by the developer in sufficient number and location to
meet the intent of this section. Where existing trees will be retained,
snow fencing shall be installed prior to the start of construction to
prevent disturbance of roots.
35 Town of Waterford, CT

5.6.3
5.6.4
5.6.5
5.6.6
5.6.7
5.6.8
Street trees shall be planted at least twelve (12) feet from any
underground utility. Where street trees are required in the vicinity of
existing overhead utilities, street trees shall be placed at a distance at
least equal to the average height of the selected species at maturity
from overhead utilities. Determination of precise locations for trees
shall consider future possible locations of driveways and utility
connections. Street trees shall be installed in accordance with section
6.11 and appendix D of these regulations. The developer may request
a waiver of street tree provisions where site conditions prohibit strict
conformance with this section.
Future Street Connections — Streets shall be laid out to provide connections
with existing streets on adjacent properties, where appropriate. Consideration
shall be given to connecting with future streets on adjacent property where
future subdivision appears probable. Where rights-of-way for future streets
are to be deeded to the Town, easements shall be provided on abutting lots for
sloping rights. Such easements shall be at least 10' wide, although a greater
width may be required by the Commission upon recommendation of the Public
Works Director where physical conditions make such additional width
desirable.
Street Access — All streets in a subdivision shall have access to one or more
accepted streets or highways, except that any section of a subdivision which
may contain more than thirty-five (35) lots may be required by the Commission
to be accessible from at least two directions.
Arterial Streets — Where a tract to be subdivided occurs in the vicinity of a
proposed arterial street as shown on the Town POCD, the applicant shall build
the appropriate paved road, but may be required to set drainage lines to
accommodate a larger road in the future.
Street Names — No duplication of street names already in use shall be
permitted unless they are joined or are in alignment with each other. Names
that may be confused with ones already in use shall be avoided. All street
names are subject to Commission approval.
Street Lights — An executed agreement for the installation and operation of
street lights shall be provided to the Commission at the time of request for
street acceptance. Street lights shall be approved in number, location, and
type by the Director of Public Works during the final approval process.
Marking Proposed Streets — The developer will have his/her engineer place
stakes at the even hundred foot stations on center lines of proposed streets
before the subdivision plan is submitted for approval.
36 Town of Waterford, CT

ITE Trip Generation Worksheets
Existing Roberts Court
7 Single Family Units

(We) EF “(Anug) pp “(leOL) 28 -enung paniy
(xa)
ge
“(Anug)
g¢
‘(ie101)
99
:aley
aGerony
ispug diy pareinsjea,
Bupxa %og ‘Buvalus Og
$60
aw
89° + (x)UT 2670 = (LUT
onenbg ening pants
s1z
uoneiasg puepueis.
leze-sry
sre
saiey aBerony
ove
‘suun Buyjamq jo “wn “Bay
Lt
apnan
Kepyaayy
suun
Guyjomq
Sioa
Ber
pUE
TETRIS
Se
JEFFS (012) Bursnoy paysejag Apwiey-aj6urg
ssn puey
SOMSILVIS VIVG
|o00’e oos’z
“SONIEA | pue X MIA 0} SiUIOd eeP UO JaIUIOd asNoW aL 1OACH
*U] WOOZ JO INO WOOT o} j9aym asnow ayy asp
anund pani aus Apmis x
oo0'% o0s'T 000’ os 0,
000’s
xX
x
ser #
x
3
m
3
x
&
x
iS ooo'st |
x
000'0z
uonenb3 pue joj e3eq
#SdIML BAVINDTWO O1 SNTWA AI HSINS
saorad aN.
“uequngngyueqin fezauag
NOLWOOTVONULLIS
fA sg trv
Bulsnoy payserag Aue 4-a)Buls - OLZ |
3Sn
anv
lenuapisay (662-002) |
ANOS
3SN
GNVT
|
#3009 3SN GNVT AS HONWaS
[A
ino 6s @) WS¥SBH 09g (?) dieH @
ddy paseg-qay uandiuy sy}

| “sanjea | pue X ma1A 0} Siuiod e1eP UO JoIWOd asNoW! ay 49AOH
*U] W00Z 40 ING WOOZ 0} J294M asnow ays asp
(xg)
¢
“(Anug)
z
“(re1oy)
2
anunD
pang
(wa) »
(Kau)
4
“(ierol)¢
-s1ey
aBerany
Bunxa %G 1 ‘Buuiarue %Sz.
lonnquisiq |euonoaiiq
:
210 + (X)U7-46°0 = (WUT
suonenb3 aning panty
ajey abeiany
MQ
JO
BqUINN
=
X
000' oos'z 00s't
| ve'0 E
1A9Q PJBPURIS
sriey jo abuey
x
oo | 2 x
aiey oBeiony | |
gee) | as
zou
:saipmig yo sequin
apowen : s
| radAy diay , os
ueqingng/ue@n 1e8u99 x
onesorjBumes |
wre 6 pue J UaaNIag INoH aUQ
Mes] BANS TWadelpYy Jo NOH Head x
Repyaayy |
spoweg aus ||
sa}qene, quapuadapuy | x
x
000'T 00s
aus Apmis xX
x
xe
*
x
000't
spug dul = 4
00st
000'z
uonjenb3 pue jojq e1eq
'SdlML BLVINDIW O1 SNTWA AI NSINA
[aL ee : apiyer
(
200 rad SWNlL
( Sta)
uequngngjueqin jesauag |
NOLLWOOVONILLAS
{a ; cae
"A ODSAVOENS BSN ANY
A Bulsnoy payoejag Aywe4-aj6ulg - oz
OO 3S ONVT
lenuapisay (662-002) |
~ a ‘dNOND 3SN ANY)
© (2)
sa9yNos wiv
dp yoo 7 ydein Jars
ino UBis GH) tsyseH noos eo *@
ddy paseq-qay vend ayy

Qrxg) ¢ “(Anug) ¢ “(leioy) 8 :@ning pang
(xg)
¢
"(Anua)
y
(eIOL)
2
ey
aBerany
Bunixa ze ‘BuLaIUe %€9 |
suonnqinsig euon2a1g
| z60
2
220 + (X)U7 P60 = (LUT
suonenbg aning pania
Leo |
1Aag paepuers |
60
arey oBei9ny
srz
‘suUn Buyamq Jo “won “Bay
soz
:SeIpnig jo saquinN,
OPIIOA
AL diay
uegingngjueqin
1esauag
|
w'd 9 pur p uaamjag snoH 2UD
‘DJ2d]. JANE TUADE{pY JO NOH yeag
Aepyaany
spoueg aun,
a
BTEC
PUR
UOTE
JOLIET (91.2) Buisnoy payserag Aqwie-2}6uIg
SOUSILVIS Viva
ajyey abesoay
|000’e
oos‘’e
“Sanjen 1 pue X Ma!A 0} sS\uIOd eep UO JaUIOd asnow atp ACH
aus Apmis x
oos’t 000'T ous x |
x BB
xx x x a8
x x
%&
us * * 000'T
xX 4
"
iz
3
vs 3)
m
-
oos’t
2
|
x
000’
x
oos'z
uonenby pue jojq B3eq
Bani aa
[A sujei 1eang qacelpy jo noH yeag ‘Kepyeam |
sgoriad amv.
ia ‘suun Buyjamg |
(ni) S1@VIEWA LNBONSGZONI
ueaingngjueqin 1e:8Ua5
ey
seis
wi
|
A Bulsno}y paypeiag Ajwes-a/6ulg - 012
fenuapisay (662-002)
7 dNONS 3SN ANYT
OC)
+3009 3sn aNV7 As HOYVAS
[a
Lae)
da yoo7 udeig ne
ino u8s @) WAYSAH NOIS (?) daH @
ddy paseq-qann, wapdip 1)

ITE Trip Generation Worksheets
200 Single Family Units
SHNCHRO Capacity Analyses

QSNIGNOO
wn
OD
‘Ud sous!
19 S1Y380Y
INIYTINIING
ONINNVId
92090 LO ‘AENVHD LSVS "HOOKS ALEINVSHO 9
‘Ou ‘seyBloOssy 8 YOISeH "V
JWOS OL LON
TNOMOINNOO CuOsuaLVM
(Z¢ LY) AVMYNVd JAV NVOSHOW OS
SOVTIA S.LY3g0u
SLINN IWILNAGISSY 002
OldsVYL GANIGNOD GNV
GSLVYSNS9D ALIS ‘ANNOYNOMOVE
yc0c—cl—l1
zg —“
|—p>
QSNISWOo
nn
oO
“ud wes
19 S1Y380¥N
él
—
Vo SYNdld
YNOH MV3d “Wd
G3LVYANS9 ALIS GNNOYO MOVE
16 WILOL
iL LIX3 ~ z
Oz) USING s &
a za
a a
On
<b ” a fe
“YQ. MODNAS “U_MODNAS £
—> |—>
G3LVYSNSO SLIS GQNNOYDMOVE
Ovi WIOL
SOL LIX3 2 2
Sf MLNG & &
a a
as |S ar |S
< Je Ll ’ lec |
“N_MOYNIS "UC_MODNAS 4 9
81
sl
l
_4
-—» 7—>

Henwado.
| Qxea) sor ‘(Anua) se "(ieioL) ov s1ey aBesany |
| Bunixa %SZ ‘Buveiua %Sz |
suenngiysig jeuon2a1q
oso
ala
ZL0 + (XIUT L60 = (U7
vz0
uoneinag puepueig
2 1z0
sajey jo abuey
|
040
|
ge)
swun Buyjama jo “wn “Bay
ze|
:Se1pMyg JO sequINN |
apie
rodAy dup
tuoneso7/Bumes,
“wre § pue J uaamiag snoH aud |
OWJedl 1BOA WADEIpY JO INOH Head |
fepyaan |
‘S0jd BleC Pue VOHASSEq
FOFWIG (012) Busnoy payoerag Aute4-2/6urg
| resp puey
1] SOUSiivis Viva
aqey aberany
oos'z
“sanjen 4 pue x main 09 squtod evep Uo sajUJod asnow! ayy 42A0H
aAinD Panis
000'z oos'T 000’
x
aed
x *
at
x
ays Apmis x
oos 0,
00s
4
1"
Zt
a
a)
00s'T
000't
uonenbg pue 30/q Beq
$SdIL BLVINDTVD OL SNIWA Al LNB
‘A duel] 188Ng JWEdelpy Jo sNoH Yeag ‘Aepyaann |
apiuen |
igonad Sil.
A
uA
Buona|
+l) STSWISWA LNZON3d30NI
ueqingngjueqin
tei
|
Bujsnoy paysei9g Awes-aj6uls - 01z |
5 ~ fenuapisey (662-002) }
az ~ PAUILL ‘Tenuey uoneiauag duy |
QJ
dp yoo7 udeig BY
Ino uBis GH) WerseH os EY cio
ddy peseq-qayy uenduj sis

] “SOnjeA 1 pue X MajA 0} sjUIOd eeP UO 1ajUJOd asnow ay 4aAo}
“ul wioez 40 3n9 W007 0} jaaym asnow aun esp
3)
2
(Anu3)
gui
“(iereL)
gay
:a1ey
aberany
|
:spug diy pareingje9,
| Bunxa %2¢ ‘Suuaua %E9
:
| 220 + (XU1 960 = (WUT | |
ajey abeany
BAIND paris
tego, 000'E oos’z 000'z oos’t 000'T
uoneinag prepurig
862 -Se°0 |
| :sa7ey Jo aBuey x
60 x x
aiey aBeraay 5 %&
x
x
x
“ex
vz
| SuUN) Buyliama Jo “WNN “Bay
80%
AIPM 30 sOqUINNY x
a1o14en
radAy dus,
ueqingngjueqin jelaueg,
w'd 9 pue F uaamag soy AUD
‘Dyers eaNg wadelpy Jo NOH Heag
Aepyaann,
:pouag aw,
aiqeen Juapuadepul x
Siojg BIE pUE TOHURESAg
5 (012) Suisnoy paypeyag Ajuies-a/6uIg
esp pur |
SOMLSTLVIS Viva |
os
x
xx
Pe:
aus Apmis x
oo0'T
4
3
z
m
oos't 2
000'2
o0s’z
uonenby pue jojg ejeq
$SdIL BLW INDIO OL SAAWA Al NSLNS
AdAL dIML
A died J2aNg yaDelpy Jo INO} Heag ‘epyaam |
s0ORsad SNL.
a ~ syup Buljamg |
a ueaingngyuequn jesouas
NOLLWSOVONILLAS
nae
"AMOOALVOENS BSN ONYT
7 Buysnoy payseyeg Ajmies-a)6uIs - O12 |
"asn
an
e “Tenuapisey (662-002) |
a dNOWO ASN ANY
ola
13009 3SN GNWT AS HONVaS
[- Pata Tenuey uoneieua5 day
a
dq yoo? ydeig ww
ddy paseq-qay uendus 31)

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Combined - 200 Units
3: AM Peak Hour
> yy rf ~*~ AN PF
Movement EBT EBR WBL__WBT _NBL__NBR
Lane Configurations b ¢ Wf
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 18 19 2 54 56
Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 18 19 2 54 56
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 092 002 092 092 092 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 20 21 2 59 61
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 27 61 17
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 27 61 ie
tC, single (s) 44 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 33)
p0 queue free % 99 94 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 1587 933. 1062
Direction, Lane# BR 2V8 (i es a a ee
Volume Total 27 23 120
Volume Left 0 21 59
Volume Right 20 0 61
cSH 1700 1587 994
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0,12
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 10
Control Delay (s) 0.0 67 9.1
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 6.7 9.1
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 12
Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 18
T:\PROJECT\JUNK DO NOT USE\23186 - Waterford Housing\AM 200.syn Synchro 11 Report
11/04/2024 Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Combined - 200 Units
3: PM Peak Hour
>- > ff 7 NN
Movement EBT EBR WBL_ WBT NBL___NBR
Lane Configurations b qf WW
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 63 62 { 36 38
Future Volume (Veh/h) 3 63 62 { 36 38
Sign Control Free Free — Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 092 002 092 092 002 092
Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 68 67 il 39 41
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 71 172 37
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol “1 172 37
tC, single (s) 44 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 22 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 96 95 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 1529 782 = 1035
Direction, Lane # EB1 WB1 NBt
Volume Total val 68 80
Volume Left 0 67 39
Volume Right 68 0 4
cSH 1700 1529 894
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.04 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 vf
Control Delay (s) 0.0 74 9.4
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 74 9.4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
T:APROJECTWUNK DO NOT USE\23186 - Waterford Housing\PM 200.syn Synchro 11 Report
11/04/2024 Page 1

Other Residential Developments
In Waterford

11/8/24, 10:52 AM Waterford CT, Web GIS
Name, Address, Parcel ID Mal sho | 6 2 Le vise
Layers
identify
Email Map Link
https://hosting. tighebond.com/waterfordet_public/##info-address 1/2

11/8/24, 10:49 AM
Waterford CT, Web GIS
Name, Address, Parcel ID
a
ers
Lay
Email Map Link
oe AOTGL
lat OFS. tonge-72. 7222
https://hosting. tighebond.com/waterfordct_public/##info-address
12

17/8/24, 10:45 AM Waterford CT, Web GIS.
Name, seers Parcel ID | eager boy U > Li, vey
Que xt
ADDU
New Lon
Layers
identify
Email Map Link
one eond
Wate UBB. Ran 72: ORFS
https://hosting. tighebond.com/waterfordct_public/##info-address 1/2

11/8/24, 10:39 AM
Name, Address, Parcel ID |
ee
Email Map Link :
Tighe. Bond
at BO7G, 1Onge-72: 1287
https://hosting.tighebond.com/waterfordct_public/##info-address 4/2

10/30/24, 9:23 AM Waterford CT, Web GIS
Name, Address, Parcel ID
ADout
L
Identity
ip
Email Map Link
gine Bond
faligd SOME, larg: 72: 1082
https //hosting. tighebond.com/waterfordct_public/##info-address 1/2

10/30/24, 9:50 AM Waterford CT, Web GIS
3 a
Email Map Link
hatte SOO lange 72 1918
https//hosting. tighebond.com/waterfardct_public/##info-address 1/2

10/29/24, 9:28 AM
Name, Address, Parcel ID
GIS Maps
Welcome to the Town of Waterford's Interactive
Geographic Information System.
Quick Tips
Disclaimer
This website provides access to town maps
and geographically referenced property
information.
While every reasonable effort has been made
to produce high-quality map data, the Town of
Waterford provides this information with the
understanding that it is not guaranteed to be
accurate, correct, or complete, and conclusion:
drawn from such information are the
responsibility of the user. The Town of
Waterford assumes no responsibility for actual
or consequential damage incurred as a result ¢
any user's reliance on this data ar information
herein, even if The Town of Waterford is
advised of the possibility of such damage.
These data do not constitute a Land survey an
are not legally recorded, and are not intended
to be used as such. Users are requested to
notify the Town of Waterford of any errors or
discrepancies found in using the data. The
Town of Waterford is providing the data "as is",
without any guarantee of technical support.
Data Status
The parcel data was updated through
40/1/2024
Ownership information was last updated on
10/16/2024
Contact Us
%
Email Map Link
https://hosting. tighebond.com/waterfordct_public
Waterford CT, Web GIS
lave. SABO, bigeF2 1270
1/2

11/8/24, 10:26 AM Waterford CT, Web GIS
Name, Address, Parcel ID TE = 2 <1 Hore
identify
Email Map Link
hate) SRST Wait 72 1S
ntps://hosting. tighebond.com/waterfordct_public/##info-address

11/8/24, 9:23 AM Waterford CT. Web GIS
Name, Address, Parcel ID
AmMaAary
a
644 SCOTCH CAP ROAD
Null
Parcel 1D: Null
View Details
mall Map Link
(ates AORB, Lerg- 72. 0BS
https://hosting. tighebond.com/waterfardct_public/##info-address 4/2

1118/24, 9:06 AM Waterford CT, Web GIS
Name, Address, Parcel ID “Se ov yer of. “7 ‘'e S 4
th
Email Map Link
ate AE. Fong 2
https.//hosting. tighebond.com/waterfardct_public/ 1/2

14/8/24, 8:59 AM Waterford CT, Web GIS
Name, Address, Parcel ID .
Fa)
\
Email Map Link
ined. A210, lenge 7ROPT*
https //hosting. tignebond.com/waterfordct_public: 1/2

UCONN Crash Repository
Accident data
October 1, 2023 thru November 11, 2024
Route 32, Old Norwich Road, Senkow Drive
& Roberts Court

faa
2M
‘ug
1994
Ag
puog
aoeyins
peoy
sng
palyan
ion-weq
1481Keq
uorpueg wr
wag,
urew
e219,
uiey
121
fempeoy uo
Aempeow vo
‘Kempeoy uo
sea} 013U034
aigeonddy 10,
asss
ajqeanddy ion
asss
apo1van JOO
19algo pants s01N0
NAINA 12O
AIDINGA JONIO
s
von2a10
904
0g
904
wag
un
er6
zor
SE
oot
soueisia
As weyuag Ne az 0
any previa Sze 98% °
anuany weyuog Nee let °
owen aH
Jo 22quinN,
rane
z
Aunty ssod
Aug weg doig
hug weg doig
hug weg doig
SA]OIYOA JOIN AyLaNIg ySeID
0
awl.
Aepsont —pz0z/T/Ot_ogavoct = S
Kepsauoam —vzoz/Te/e © gtusett
Kepisy veowug § goesstt
fepsounom —peoz/a/e © avgeett =z
fepng —eCORILET gstsott = T
weamjokeq = eg pluses
YZ0Z ‘LL 49qQUIDAON MYL €Z0Z ‘LE 4290390
Psopaze~A JO UMOL