DOCSLIB.ORG

Drainage Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ENGINEERING REPORT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 132 FLAX HILL ROAD NORWALK, CONNECTICUT September 21, 2020 Revised April 20,2021 Prepared for: Workforce Partners, LLC PO Box 692 South Norwalk, CT 06856 Prepared By: Ricardo Ceballos, P.E. Professional Engineering Consulting Services 245 Sturges Highway Westport, CT 06880 (203)635-0922 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 132 Flax Hill Road Norwalk, CT PROJECT DESCRIPTION The descriptions and computations included within this Stormwater Management Plan and Appendix are provided in support of applications submitted by Workforce Partners, LLC to the City of Norwalk for permitting purposes related to site and building improvements at 132 Flax Hill Road in Norwalk. The site's storm water management system shall be sized to accommodate runoff from a 25-year design storm and the system shall be designed so that post development peak discharge rates, and stormwater runoff volumes, do not exceed predevelopment quantities. Per City requirements, the storm water management plan has been prepared by a Connecticut-licensed professional engineer. Location The project site is located at 132 Flax Hill Road, Norwalk, Connecticut (site); As shown in Figure 1 the site is located in South Norwalk. The 0.217-acre site is a fully developed urban area. Project Location Figure 1 Project Location – 132 Flax Hill Road, Norwalk, CT. Page 2 Existing Conditions The site has 1 existing residential building, a detached garage structure, a driveway, and walkways. The site’s open space are landscaped grass areas. The purpose of the proposed project is to demolish the existing garage structure and add additional parking and driveway areas. As shown on Appendix A, there are no stormwater features, catch basins, yard drains or storm pipes. All runoff infiltrates or discharges overland to the back of the property and a mostly grass covered area in the front discharges to Flax Hill Road where it enters the City’s storm system. Based upon FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map number 09001C0531G for Fairfield County, revised date July 8, 2013, the site is inside Zone X or area of minimal flood hazard (See Appendix C). According to the Soil Survey of Fairfield County, the site’s soil type of the site and where the storm water management infiltration system will be installed is entirely Urban land-Chatfield-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes – Hydrologic Soil Group D (see Appendix D). The results of a test hole and percolation test at the site show there is a topsoil layer approximately 3 inches deep, and then brown fine/medium sand, and urban fill to a depth of 5 feet. There are no wetlands or surface water bodies on site. There was no groundwater present during the test hole or percolation test. Groundwater in the area is classified with a GB ground water quality class. The water quality classes are based on the “Water Quality Classification Norwalk, CT” map prepared by CT DEEP dated November 2015 (See Appendix E). Proposed Project The proposed stormwater management system for this project is designed to collect and direct runoff to a subsurface infiltration system. The system will provide infiltration, temporary storage of runoff, reduction of post development peak discharge rates, and meet groundwater recharge volume and pollutant reduction requirements. The system has been designed in accordance with the City of Norwalk Zoning Regulations, Drainage Manual, and the guidelines and procedures set forth in the 2004 Connecticut Storm Quality Manual. The proposed development impervious area is a paved driveway and parking area, and the footprint of the existing residential building and walkways (Appendix B). The proposed stormwater management system includes a catch basin, and the stormwater infiltration chambers system. The proposed drainpipe is sized to convey the peak runoff discharge of the 25-year storm. Details of the size and location of the stormwater management system can be found on the site plan for the project. The results of the percolation test indicate a percolation rate of 1” in 10 minutes. Conservatively for design purposes an exfiltration rate of 6” per hour will be used. The system has also been designed to provide volume storage and infiltration of the first inch of runoff removing at least 80% of the average annual total suspended solids (TSS) load, removing at least 80% of floatable debris, providing peak runoff rate attenuation, and volume attenuation to improve the existing site hydrology, as well as to minimize sediment transport. Page 3 PEAK RUNOFF CALCULATIONS Calculations for the existing and proposed conditions were analyzed using the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, Formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service or SCS) TR-55 methodology which outlines procedures for calculating storm runoff volume, peak rate of discharge, and hydrographs on small watersheds. To complement the design results, the method utilized to predict the surface water runoff rate in this analysis and the impact of the proposed infiltration/detention system is a computer program entitled Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD Civil 3D 2020. The Hydrographs computer modeling program utilizes the same methods for computing runoff rates that were originally developed by the US Department of Agriculture NRCS, and they are also utilized in the TR-20 computer modeling program and others. Calculations are included in Appendix F. The runoff curve number is a land sensitive coefficient that dictates the relationship between total rainfall depth and direct storm runoff. The site as stated before is a fully developed urban area with paved parking lots, roofs, and driveways. The land cover types present at the project site are listed below and calculations are included in Appendix F: • Open space (Lawns, parks etc.) – Fair Condition; grass cover 50% to 75%: CN 84 • Open space (Lawns, parks etc.) – Good Condition; grass cover > 75%: CN 80 • Impervious Areas – Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways: CN 98 The time of concentration (Tc) is defined as the time for runoff to travel from the hydraulically most distant point in the watershed to a point of interest. Values of time of concentration were determined for both conditions based on land cover and slope of the flow path using methods outlined in TR-55. Considering how small the site is, a time of concentration of 0.1 hours was used, the minimum Tc allowed in TR-55. For this study, all rainfall depth and rainfall intensity were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Weather Service Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center Precipitation Frequency Data Server (PDFS). Enclosed for reference is a copy of the downloaded NOAA Atlas 14 table for rainfall depth and rainfall intensity (See Appendix G). The peak flow and total runoff volume were determined for all frequency storms analyzed including 1- year, 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 25-yr Storm. As shown on the tables below, the reduction of the peak runoff rate and runoff volume is achieved through the installation of the underground infiltration/detention system which provides temporary storage for runoff. The proposed retention system will be surrounded by 6 inches of stone to provide a stable base and to increase the storage volume. The total runoff volumes, and peak flows are as follows: Page 4 Table 1 Site Runoff Volume (cf) Comparison for 132 Flax Hill Road WS-1 Storm Existing Proposed Proposed Frequency Conditions Conditions Conditions CULTEC % Change Runoff Volume (cf) Runoff Volume (cf) Runoff Volume (cf) 1-Year 738 807 0 -100% 2-Year 971 1046 0 -100% 5-Year 1357 1440 160 -88% 10-Year 1688 1776 330 -80% 25-Year 2146 2239 583 -73% Table 2 Site Peak Discharge (cfs) Comparison for WS-1 Storm Frequency Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions % Change Peak Discharge (cfs) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1-Year 0.238 0 -100% 2-Year 0.311 0 -100% 5-Year 0.429 0.173 -60% 10-Year 0.528 0.421 -20% 25-Year 0.663 0.623 -6% 1-inch storm 0.026 0 -100% The underground infiltration/detention system will be located under the parking lot area on the South- East side of the property, and the proposed system storage volume capacity is 415 cubic feet. The system is a Cultec Recharger 330XLHD (4 chambers) and it is designed to also capture the stormwater runoff generated by the first inch of all rainfall events as shown above. The volume of the infiltration system meets the requirements of the groundwater recharge criteria and the pollutant reduction criteria set on the 2004 CTDEEP Stormwater Quality Manual. Included as Appendix H is a copy of the “Maintenance & Inspection Schedule” which has been prepared for the site to promote good housekeeping measures. Design plans accompany this report to provide additional design detail regarding the underground storage system proposed. The proposed improvements will have no adverse impacts on surrounding properties or city infrastructure. Page 5 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette Legend 73°25'42"W 41°6'10"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF Levee. See Notes.Zone X FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D GENERAL Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES Levee, Dike, or Floodwall 20.2 B Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation 8 Coastal Transect Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS Unmapped Ü The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location.
Recommended publications
  • Stamford Hazards and Community Resilience Workshop Summary Report Master

    Stamford Hazards and Community Resilience Workshop Summary Report Master

    Photo Credit: Bob Luckey City of Stamford Hazards and Community Resilience Workshop Summary of Findings City of Stamford Hazards and Community Resilience Workshop Summary of Findings Overview The need for municipalities, regional planning organizations, states and federal agen- cies to increase resilience and adapt to extreme weather events and mounting natural hazards is strikingly evident along the coast of Connecticut. Recent events such as Tropical Storm Irene, the Halloween Snow Storm, Hurricane Sandy, and most recently Blizzard Juno have reinforced this urgency and compelled leading communities like the City of Stamford to proactively plan and mitigate risks. Ultimately, this type of leader- ship is to be commended because it will reduce the exposure and vulnerability of Stam- ford’s citizens, infrastructure and ecosystems and serve as a model for communities across Connecticut, the Atlantic Seaboard, and the Nation. In the fall of 2013, a partnership formed between the City of Stamford, Western Con- necticut Council of Governments, and The Nature Conservancy. This partnership fo- cused on increasing awareness of risks from natural and climate-related hazards and to assess the vulnerabilities, and strengths within the City of Stamford. This was actual- ized through a series of presentations, meetings, and outreach to build stakeholder will- ingness and engagement followed by a Hazards and Community Resilience Workshop in December of 2014. The core directive of the Workshop was the engagement with and between community stakeholders in order to facilitate the education, planning and ulti- mately implementation of priority adaptation action. The Workshop’s central objectives were to: Deine extreme weather and local natural and climate-related hazards; Identify existing and future vulnerabilities and strengths; Develop and prioritize actions for the City and broader stakeholder networks; Identify opportunities for the community to advance actions to reduce risk and increase resilience comprehensively.
  • Appendix A-Water Quality-Town Of

    Appendix A-Water Quality-Town Of

    Appendix A Water Quality – Town of Greenwich Town of Greenwich Drainage Manual February 2012 [This page left intentionally blank] Impaired Water Bodies – Town of Greenwich Water Body Impaired Segment Location Cause Potential Source Segment Designated Use Size From mouth at Greenwich Harbor (just downstream [DS] of I95 crossing, at exit Habitat for Fish, Horseneck 5.78 3 offramp), US to Putnam Lake Other Aquatic Cause Unknown Source Unknown Brook-01 Miles Reservoir outlet dam (just upstream [US] Life and Wildlife of Dewart Road crossing) From head of tide (US of Route 1 Habitat for Fish, Sources Outside State Jurisdiction or Borders, Source crossing, at INLET to ponded portion of Other Aquatic Cause Unknown Unknown, Highway/Road/Bridge Runoff (Non- Byram River- river, just DS of Upland Street East 0.49 Life and Wildlife construction Related) 01 area), US to Pemberwick outlet dam (US Miles Illicit Connections/Hook-ups to Storm Sewers, Source of Comly Avenue crossing, and US of Recreation Escherichia coli Unknown confluence with Pemberwick Brook Putnam Lake Habitat for Fish, Impoundment of Horseneck Brook, just 95.56 Alterations in wetland Reservoir Other Aquatic Habitat Modification - other than Hydromodification south of Rt. 15 Acres habitats (Greenwich) Life and Wildlife Western portion of LIS, Inner Estuary, Dissolved oxygen LIS WB Inner - upper Indian Harbor (lower portion of Habitat for 0.025 saturation; Nutrient/ Residential Districts, Municipal Point Source Indian Harbor Greenwich Creek) from Davis Avenue Marine Fish, Square Eutrophication Discharges, Non-Point Source, Unspecified Urban (upper), crossing, US to saltwater limit at West Other Aquatic Miles Biological Indicators; Stormwater Greenwich Brother Drive crossing (includes I95 Life and Wildlife Oxygen, Dissolved crossing).
  • Norwalk Power Economic Impact Analysis City of Norwalk & Manresa Association

    Norwalk Power Economic Impact Analysis City of Norwalk & Manresa Association

    NORWALK POWER ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF NORWALK & MANRESA ASSOCIATION FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Photo Credit: Geoffrey Steadman 12/14/18 Table of Contents Introduction...........................................................................1 Summary of Findings................................................................3 Section 1: Context and Reuse Planning....................................7 Section 2: Site Characteristics & History.................................11 Section 3: Remediation Analysis.............................................19 Section 4: Natural Resources..................................................31 Section 5: Economic Development Profile...............................37 Section 6: Community Perspective........................................45 Section 7: Development Constraints......................................53 Section 8: Reuse Options........................................................59 Section 9: Remedial Strategies & Cost Estimate...................77 Section 10: Recommended Redevelopment Concepts.........81 Section 11: Implementation Plan...........................................91 Appendix................................................................................95 Introduction Manresa Island is comprised of two parcels that occupy approximately 144 acres of Norwalk’s shoreline. In 1960, a power plant was commissioned on the southern parcel by Connecticut Light & Power. The plant begun operations as a coal fired plant but was converted to oil in 1972. In 1999, the
  • Connecticut Town Guides: Compiled from Collections at the CT State Library

    Connecticut Town Guides: Compiled from Collections at the CT State Library

    Connecticut Town Guides: Compiled from Collections at the CT State Library Compiled by Jeannie Sherman, Reference Librarian, History & Genealogy Unit, Connecticut State Library, 2016 Introduction Many people visit the Connecticut State Library to research their family history. We hold one of the best genealogy collections in Connecticut including our indexes to pre-1850 vital records, cemetery inscriptions, church & family bible records, marriage & death notices, and probate estate papers. Though these indexes are state-wide by surname, we also hold records for each town. As any person who attempts to do genealogy research in Connecticut discovers, knowing what town a family lived in is very important. Connecticut currently has one hundred and sixty-nine towns each with their own vital, land, and probate district chronology. As towns in Connecticut were created, most were set off from a parent town. County boundaries also changed throughout Connecticut's history, so knowing a parent town or knowing in which county a town was located over time can help researchers search for court and other records. The purpose of these Town Guides is to have in one place basic information about each town. This includes the year it was established, the parent town, historical county information, vital and church record information, a probate district chronology, and a list of cemeteries that were inventoried in the Hale Collection. For town vital records and church records, both the Connecticut State Library (CSL) microfilm number and the Latter-Day Saint (LDS) microfilm number are given where applicable. Researchers are encouraged to search by film number within the LDS catalog as many vital records can be found online.
  • CONNECTICUT TERCENTENARY BULLETIN No

    CONNECTICUT TERCENTENARY BULLETIN No

    State of Connecticut Tercentenary Commission 1635-1935 Hartford, Conn. CONNECTICUT TERCENTENARY BULLETIN No. 10 June 17, 1935 TERCENTENARY FURNITURE A visitor to the exhibit, entering the west end of the Tapestry Hall, will find in the first section transition pieces, EXHIBITION OPENS AT corner cuboards, tip tables and highboys made of pine, MORGAN MEMORIAL cherry and maple. The first alcove, or room in the center partitioning of the Hall, finished in pink, holds a collection of Queen Anne period pieces. The second room, painted a One thousand and one pieces of the furniture and the buff color, is given over to furniture showing the transition furnishings which were part of the domestic life of Con- from European influence to the characteristic American necticut in Colonial times and the days of early statehood "Block Front" design, including some Hepplewhite. are now on display at the Morgan Memorial in Hartford The third, or green alcove, holds examples of the work forming one of the most complete ex- of Aaron Chapin, including highboys. hibitions of this character ever arranged. The last of the center partitions, done Selected from the wealth of material in a shade of yellow, shows late pieces, the people of Connecticut have pre- high-top and low desks, and a drop served of the fine things of their an- leaf table set with four chairs. cestors every article is a "museum Along the side platforms are arranged, piece". Almost any one or any group spaced as nearly as possible to coincide of the many period-collections is worthy with the period grouping in the center of a special showing.
  • AQUIFERPROTECTIONAREA SW Estport , CONNECTICUT

    AQUIFERPROTECTIONAREA SW Estport , CONNECTICUT

    n M ! R F S o N G o Godfrey Pond C e t Inwood Rd u P u n o d a r u d B W d r n n r t e R L r e t d R d b e r t e R o t t s n R 111 D i l n I o a e l a r o M o t e n l s S1 r R i t t V W w l r A O d n k a l d e K i i R e i S d 1 n M a n n l R W B e l y D H o id g e a a T u a l R t R i Wheelers Pond 1 H L l a a r x d n l B o a g e R d r r a v a d o F d d e d d R n r T t e Nod Hill Pond t e y n l n e R r e R R W d h d o e u d r D e D d i y n u D R v M R e e E w e e d n k d e o S H R u b n d w r r a r r r e Chestnut Hill r c d e o e d d w 7 R H u w o n b L e r D d l R d Mill River h B o d L w t S W n d b n s s s u Plymouth Avenue Pond £ a d s y e ¤ r A u o i R R s o n i b Pipers t o R h d Hill R n d o i n L c S d d e 5 C t a e d r r d d B o U H g Powells Hill k t t o r t 9 d e S k n Spruc u p r l d D o R d c r R R L P e S i a r n s l H r Cristina R 136 i h L Ln e n B l i r T R o d n r d s l L S o n r R V e o H o k L R i r M d t M Killian A H G L a S ve d R e s R y n l g e d Pin 1 i l C r a d w r n M e d d e r a a 1 i R r d c y e D h k h s r S R 1 d o d c E Cricker Brook i t c a k n l 7 r M d r u w a e l o R l n y g a R d r S n d l Dr c e B W od l e F nwo d r Nature Pond o t utt o l S i B t w d C h l S B n y i d r o t l e W ch R e i D R e e o o D p B r M Hill Rd i L d n r H R ey l on r il H P H n L H o ls illa w o d v r w t w a w on La n o s D D d d e O e S e n w r g r R e p i e i W k l n n e d d W t r g L e v e r t l y e l D l r y g l 53 e e T a e o R e l s d y d H n Plum rkw o a D i P a R n l r a S d R L V W i w o u r u Jennings Brook l
  • August 2015 ERA Bulletin.Pub

    August 2015 ERA Bulletin.Pub

    The ERA BULLETIN - AUGUST, 2015 Bulletin Electric Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated Vol. 58, No. 8 August, 2015 The Bulletin TWO ANNIVERSARIES — Published by the Electric SEA BEACH AND STEINWAY TUNNEL Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box The first Brooklyn Rapid Transit (BRT) was incorporated on August 29, 1896. 3323, New York, New steel cars started operating in revenue ser- BRT acquired the company’s stock on or York 10163-3323. N about November 5, 1897. The line was elec- vice on the Sea Beach Line (now ) and the new Fourth Avenue Subway one hundred trified with overhead trolley wire at an un- For general inquiries, years ago, June 22, 1915. Revenue opera- known date. contact us at bulletin@ tion began at noon with trains departing from A March 1, 1907 agreement allowed the erausa.org . ERA’s Chambers Street and Coney Island at the company to operate through service from the website is th www.erausa.org . same time. Two– and three-car trains were Coney Island terminal to 38 Street and New routed via Fourth Avenue local tracks and Utrecht Avenue. Starting 1908 or earlier, nd Editorial Staff: southerly Manhattan Bridge tracks. trains operate via the Sea Beach Line to 62 Editor-in-Chief : On March 31, 1915, Interborough Rapid Street and New Utrecht Avenue, the West Bernard Linder End (now D) Line, and the Fifth Avenue “L.” Tri-State News and Transit, Brooklyn Rapid Transit, and Public Commuter Rail Editor : Service Commission officials attended BRT’s Sea Beach cars were coupled to West End Ronald Yee exhibit of the new B-Type cars, nicknamed or Culver cars.
  • Transit Oriented Development Final Report | September 2010

    Transit Oriented Development Final Report | September 2010

    FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2010 In Cooperation with U.S. Department CONNECTICUT South Western Regional Planning Agency of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF Federal Transit TRANSPORTATION Administration FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2010 In Cooperation with U.S. Department CONNECTICUT South Western Regional Planning Agency of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF Federal Transit TRANSPORTATION Administration Abstract This report presents an evaluation of transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunities within the Danbury Branch study corridor as a component of the Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis/ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FTA AA/DEIS) prepared for the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT). This report is intended as a tool for municipalities to use as they move forward with their TOD efforts. The report identifies the range of TOD opportunities at station areas within the corridor that could result from improvements to the Danbury Branch. By also providing information regarding FTA guidelines and TOD best practices, this report serves as a reference and a guide for future TOD efforts in the Danbury Branch study corridor. Specifically, this report presents a definition of TOD and the elements of TOD that are relevant to the Danbury Branch. It also presents a summary of FTA Guidance regarding TOD and includes case studies of FTA-funded projects that have been rated with respect to their livability, land use, and economic development components. Additionally, the report examines commuter rail projects both in and out of Connecticut that are considered to have applications that may be relevant to the Danbury Branch.
  • Norwalk Power Economic Impact Analysis City of Norwalk & Manresa Association

    Norwalk Power Economic Impact Analysis City of Norwalk & Manresa Association

    NORWALK POWER ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF NORWALK & MANRESA ASSOCIATION Photo Credit: Geoffrey Steadman AGENDA Presentation Power Plant Trends Reuse Planning Process History of Manresa Island Site Conditions Remediation Strategy Environmental Features Market Conditions Case Studies Survey Results to Date Break Out Session Photo Credit: Geoffrey Steadman THE NORWALK POWER PLANT IS ONE OF MANY SHUTTERED PLANTS ACROSS NEW ENGLAND Other closed or retiring plants include: Mt. Tom (MA) Brayton Point (MA) Pilgrim (MA) Salem Harbor (MA) Vermont Yankee THE DECOMMISSIONING AND REDEVELOPMENT OF FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS IS OCCURRING THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY EPA GUIDANCE Site reuse options inform cleanup decisions and should be developed early in the process to determine the appropriate level of work needed for redevelopment. Understanding the range of reuse options will help in the development of realistic schedules and cost estimates. REUSE PLANNING PROCESS SUCCESSFUL MODEL FOR REDEVELOPMENT ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Position for engagement ✓ Source: Delta Institute: Transforming Coal Plants into Productive Community Assets, 2014 KEY CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH COAL PLANT REDEVELOPMENT INCLUDE: Scale – large and unconventional buildings Time – average time from closure to planned completion of redevelopment is 27 years Remediation – can vary in cost according to end use Financing – coal plants require extra effort and resources from private sector Models - Lack of demonstrated best practices MANRESA ISLAND MANRESA ISLAND HISTORY Manresa was formerly known as Bouton’s Island and then later as Keyser Island In the early 1900’s Father Terence Shealy opened a Jesuit retreat. Shealy’s retreat movement was called “Mount Manresa”. In 1911, Shealy moved the retreat to Staten Island MANRESA ISLAND HISTORY 1922 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Prior to 1958, Manresa Island was used MANRESA ISLAND HISTORY In 1953 the Norwalk Zoning Commission approved a plan to build a coal power plan on the island with a 3-1 vote.
  • A Q U I F E R P R O T E C T I O N a R E a S N O R W a L K , C O N N E C T I C

    A Q U I F E R P R O T E C T I O N a R E a S N O R W a L K , C O N N E C T I C

    !n !n S c Skunk Pond Beaver Brook Davidge Brook e d d k h P O H R R O F p S o i d t n n l c t u i l R a T S d o i ll l t e e lv i d o t R r r d r l h t l l a H r n l t r M b a s b R d H e G L R o r re R B C o o u l e t p o n D o e f L i s Weston Intermediate School y l o s L d r t e Huckleberry Hills Brook e t d W d r e g Upper Stony Brook Pond N L D g i b R o s n Ridgefield Pond a t v d id e g e H r i l Country Club Pond b e a R d r r S n n d a g e L o n tin a d ! R d l H B n t x H e W Still Pond d t n Comstock Knoll u d a R S o C R k R e L H d i p d S n a l l F tt h Town Pond d l T te r D o e t l e s a t u e L e c P n n b a n l R g n i L t m fo D b k H r it to Lower Stony Brook Pond o r A d t P n d s H t F u d g L d d i Harrisons Brook R h e k t R r a e R m D l S S e e G E o n y r f ll H rt R r b i i o e n s l t ld d d o r l ib l a e r R d L r O e H w i Fanton Hill g r l Cider Mill School P y R n a ll F i e s w L R y 136 e a B i M e C H k A s t n d o i S d V l n 3 c k r l t g n n a d R i u g d o r a L 3 ! a l r u p d R d e c L S o s e Hurlbutt Elementary School R d n n d D A i K w T n d o O n D t f R l g d R l t ad L i r e R e e r n d L a S i m a o f g n n n D d n R o t h n Middlebrook School ! l n t w Lo t a 33 i n l n i r E id d D w l i o o W l r N e S a d l e P g n V n a h L C r L o N a r N a S e n e t l e b n l e C s h f ! d L nd g o a F i i M e l k rie r id F C a F r w n P t e r C ld l O e r a l y v f e u e o O n e o a P i O i s R w e t n a e l a n T t b s l d l N l k n t g i d u o e a o R W R Hasen Pond n r r n M W B y t Strong
  • Norwalk Pedestrian & Bikeway Transportation Plan

    Norwalk Pedestrian & Bikeway Transportation Plan

    NORWALK PEDESTRIAN & BIKEWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN Introduction and Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum DRAFT Submitted by: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. 72 Cedar Street Hartford, CT 06106 Contents Vision..............................................................................................3 Executive Summary...........................................................................4 Key Points Plan Purpose....................................................................................5 Background Study Area The Case for Walking & Cycling Plan Development............................................................................7 Review of Existing Plans 2009 Connecticut Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan..........9 SWRPA Bicycle and Pedestrian Study......................................10 2008 Plan of Conservation and Development for Norwalk.......11 Existing Conditions Report..............................................................14 Population and Employment................................................14 Land Use...........................................................................15 Transportation Network.......................................................16 Overpasses & Underpasses..................................................17 Sidewalks & Footpaths.........................................................18 Major Pedestrian Routes......................................................19 Connectivity Plan................................................................23 On-Road Bicycling.............................................................26
  • Greenwich to Grand Central Train Schedule

    Greenwich to Grand Central Train Schedule

    Greenwich To Grand Central Train Schedule Crudest Hanan sometimes fathers his MacArthur allowably and readvertises so manly! Preterist and well-acquainted Hersch jammednever pipetted Town kinescopevisibly when clangorously Giffard grangerizes and extenuatingly. his parka. Karel usually dress artfully or halteres asymptomatically when The report tries to explain specifically what needs to be done to cut time while making the trip more convenient and enjoyable. Traveling by Amtrak train is the most comfortable way to get from Chicago to St. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Flirting with this trip? Only after World War II did the influence of railroads on community lives begin to diminish, even though they remained important in transporting freight. Not even in our cake doughnuts or cream fillings! Louis, we recommend taking a flight. Vineyard is available from Kingston. What is the cheapest way to get from Portland to Seattle? There are a variety of ways to get from San Diego to LA other than having to drive there yourself. BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. Police said the explosion may have been from a time bomb. Other features include Date Lab, etiquette blogs and chats and parenting stories. Bus or the Subway in the city. The queens midtown tunnel requires a toll both ways. With the sheer abundance of things to see, do and eat throughout the five boroughs, where do you begin? Have you tried Wanderu? Northeast Corridor is the busiest rail line in the United States. Want to Explore New York City Neighborhoods? For cheap cars and exit lists for each station with the least eight days of the last update, wanderu account using wanderu that the.