Condo Developers Defend Expansion Plan In The Face Of Neighbor Criticism

By Andrew Gorosko

Plans to expand the Walnut Tree Village condominium complex in Sandy Hook from 80 units to 190 units have drawn criticism from nearby residents who are objecting to the expansion project on several counts, and in some cases are asking the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) to reject the proposal.

P&Z members held a public hearing on the expansion proposal June 15. They continued the hearing until July 6 to address legal questions concerning the site on which new units would be built and vehicular access to the property from Walnut Tree Hill Road. About 50 people attended. (See related story.)

The development proposal is a scaled-down version of a 133-unit expansion project which the P&Z rejected last November. The developers propose building 110 new condos on a rugged 35-acre site adjacent to the 18-acre site where the 80 condos stand. Unlike the 18-acre site, which is relatively level, the 35-acre site is steep and poses a more complex construction project than did the 18-acre site. The developers propose constructing the second phase of Walnut Tree Village in three distinct stages to limit erosion and sedimentation problems. The developers would create 266 parking spaces for the expansion project.

Dolores Winans of 21 St George Place in Walnut Tree Village, in a hand-delivered letter, urged P&Z members to deny the expansion proposal, claiming that Walnut Tree Developers, Inc., does not have the legal standing to pursue the application.

Duane Jones of 16 Walnut Tree Hill Road said he bought his house there in 1991, before the condo complex existed. A buffer zone which the developers propose to create between his property and a new driveway to the complex is inadequate, Mr Jones said.

 Mr Jones said the project would involve blasting, create steep slopes, cause drainage problems, result in poor motorist sight lines, and would worsen existing traffic problems on Walnut Tree Hill Road. He urged P&Z members to reject the expansion proposal to preserve nearby property values and protect the public health and safety.

Lucy Sullivan of 10 Walnut Tree Hill Road presented a petition to the P&Z listing the names of 48 area residents who oppose the expansion project. If the petition is found to meet P&Z requirements, it could force the P&Z to muster a 4-to-1 vote, not a simple majority, to approve the expansion proposal.

 Jack Bestor of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road said he is surprised that the private roads proposed for the complex, including “hammerhead” style turnarounds at the ends of roads, received approval from the fire marshal. Mr Bestor said the road design could result in congestion problems for emergency vehicles.

 Mr Bestor cautioned that there is a steep slope between the development site and Rocky Glen State Park. The slope could pose physical hazards to grandchildren visiting their grandparents at Walnut Tree Village, he said. The village is designed for people over 55.

Mr Bestor cautioned that creating new cliffs in the second phase of Walnut Tree Village would pose legal liabilities. An incorrectly cut rockface created during the first phase of the project posed hazards to some of the condo units, resulting in the P&Z having the developers recut that rockface for safety reasons.

Tim Kochuba of 52 Walnut Tree Hill Road said the existing condo complex is unsightly. He criticized the design of its driveway network, saying it makes for poor vehicle circulation in a place where people are more likely than average to have medical problems. Access to the site may be most hazardous during the construction phases of the five-year expansion project, he said.

Initial construction at Walnut Tree Village required extensive blasting, he said, adding that more blasting will be needed. He cautioned that the complex is near a high-pressure natural gas transmission pipeline, voicing concerns about a possible catastrophe.

“Make sure the enforcement is there,” he said of the need for strict enforcement of applicable regulations during construction.

Mary Burnham of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road warned that a P&Z approval of the project could prompt a lawsuit by neighboring property owners against Walnut Tree Developers and the town. Ms Burnham urged that a blasting plan for the project be submitted to the town and approved before any construction starts. Ms Burnham said a proposed accessway to the site for the expansion project does not meet applicable regulations.

“You guys have to turn this down,” she told P&Z members.

Michael Nowak of 7 Patriot Ridge Road said an expanded project would damage his property’s value and could damage his well water supply. Blasting during the first construction phase caused sedimentation in his 680-foot-deep well and property damage in his house, he said.

“This is bad development. This is not what we want Newtown to be. This development is based upon greed,” he said in urging the P&Z to reject the application.

Paul Nonnemacher of 6 Patriot Ridge Road said Walnut Tree Hill Road is hazardous, adding that the increased traffic generated by more residents would make the road more hazardous.

“I really think this is bad development. I really think that we don’t need it. I really think that you should reject it,” he said.

In a detailed letter to the P&Z, attorney Helen McGonigle, representing Duane and Linda Jones, lists various reasons why the expansion proposal should be rejected for a second time.

Ms McGonigle states the property has an insufficient accessway. The lawyer adds that the site of the 80 existing condo units and the site of the proposed 110 units are separate lots, not one lot, as is claimed by the developers.

Ms McGonigle asks the P&Z to reject the expansion proposal. “The proposal is not in harmony with the general character of the neighborhood, will substantially impair property values, create additional traffic hazards on existing streets, and will create health and safety hazards for the [Joneses] and prospective [condo] unit owners,” she writes.  

P&Z Chairman Daniel Fogliano urged P&Z members to thoroughly review the contents of Ms McGonigle’s letter.

 

Developers’ View

The applicant countered the various criticisms of the development application.

Architect Michael Stein said the revised expansion application addresses all the issues which the P&Z raised in denying the earlier expansion proposal.

The developers say the property had EH-10 zoning for elderly housing before they bought it, adding that the town zoned that property for that use.

Mr Stein said that discussion between the developers and town land use staff members helped shape the expansion application. The 80-unit first phase of the project proved successful and there is market interest in the proposed second phase, he said. Significant demographic forces are creating a demand for housing for people over 55, he said.

 A study indicates that additional traffic generated by the new units would not degrade traffic conditions on Walnut Tree Hill Road, he said. The expansion project would be served by public water, sewers, and natural gas service, he said, adding that the public infrastructure for such development is already in place. The complex would have private roads and would house no school children, he added.

The developers seek to minimize the physical disruption of the site by creating four terraces, Mr Stein said, terming the design a “dynamic and uncluttered plan.”

The plan calls for planting 500 new trees and 700 new shrubs, he said. The site is buffered by Rocky Glen State Park on the east, he added. The development site will be gated during construction and dust control measures will be employed, he said. A 1,600-square-foot community building would be constructed. Walking trails would be created and a pond and waterfall on the site would be preserved.

Condo buildings would contain between four and seven units. Units would range in size from 1,030 to 1,450 square feet. Optional features would include screened porches, extra windows, dormers, and cathedral ceilings, he said. Mr Stein described the proposed units as New England style capes with earth-toned clapboard exteriors.

 When rejecting the initial expansion proposal last fall, the P&Z stated the developers proposed too much physical disturbance of the site, involving too much earthen cutting and filling, Mr Stein noted.

In the current version of the expansion project, the grading is gentler and some proposed buildings have been removed, he said. The new version reduces the number of condo units near a ridge top, reducing the proposed complex’s visibility from a distance, he said.

The previous expansion proposal called for twelve 7-unit buildings, while the current version proposes six 7-unit buildings, he said.

The previous version proposed disturbing 21.7 acres of the site, while the current version proposes disturbing 18.7 acres, he said.

The revised version eliminates some rock cutting on the property, he added.

“I believe it’s a project that we’ll all be proud of when it’s completed,” he said.

 William Carboni, the developers’ engineer, said the revised expansion plans include many more engineering details than the previous plans. The developers would employ a geotechnical engineer on the project to ensure that rock cutting meets specifications, he said.

Walnut Tree Hill Road, with a posted 25-mph speed limit, has good motorist sight lines which exceed state standards, according to a traffic engineering report prepared on the project by Irving Chann. The project would not have an adverse effect on area traffic flow, according top Mr Chann.

Attorney Stephen Wippermann, representing the developers, disputed project opponents’ assertions that the developers must have a 100-foot-wide accessway to the expansion site. The developers’ accessway is just less than 97 feet wide at 14 Walnut Tree Hill Road.

 Mr Wippermann described the mechanics of the condominium association, explaining that developers Louis DeFilio and George Trudell would turn over its control to condo owners 60 days after the 114th condo unit is sold.

P&Z member Heidi Winslow suggested the developers seek a zoning variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the accessway width issue.

In rejecting the 133-unit expansion plans last fall, P&Z members questioned the high construction density of the project and urged that the developers preserve the property’s natural features and limit paving on the site. 

Issues included the extent of regrading; the amount of fill which would be removed from the site; unacceptably steep slope cuts; and the closeness of buildings. The P&Z suggested that extensive physical disturbance to the site could be reduced by a revised site design in which building sizes are reduced and housing densities are reduced to a point that would better maintain the natural features and contours of the land.

Following the rejection of the earlier expansion proposal, the developers had conferences with town land use staff members to determine what would make for an acceptable development plan.