Date: Fri 13-Mar-1998

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Tamarack-Woods

Full Text:

P&Z Approves Controversial Tamarack Woods Subdivision

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

After two years, during which four versions of the development proposal were

considered, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has approved Tamarack

Woods, an eight-lot residential subdivision on almost 33 acres near Lake

Lillinonah.

P&Z members March 5 unanimously approved the fourth version of the project for

the land lying within the triangle formed by Tamarack Road, Sanford Road and

Echo Valley Road. The applicant is M&E Land Group, headed by developer Thomas

Maguire and engineer Larry Edwards.

As part of the development project, the applicants will post a $30,000 bond

for a fire suppression tank. The P&Z now requires subdividers to have water

storage facilities on their parcels to provide a ready source of water when

firefighters arrive on the scene.

P&Z member Heidi Winslow said members have reviewed several versions of

Tamarack Woods and the fourth version, by far, is the best version yet. It has

the lowest construction density of all the proposals and meets all the P&Z's

land use regulations, she said. The parcel is rugged rocky terrain

interspersed with wetlands.

Ms Winslow said she is not persuaded by the intervenors' claims that the

development project violates P&Z regulations and places undue environmental

burdens on the land.

Robert and Mae Schmidle of Echo Valley Road were intervenors in the

application, becoming a third party to the application to protect their

interests. The intervenors hired environmental consultant Barbara Obeda to

study the development proposal. Ms Obeda prepared a report criticizing

Tamarack Woods on environmental grounds.

P&Z Chairman Stephen Koch said he has "mixed emotions" about how Sanford

Road's having gained "scenic road" status, through a Legislative Council

ordinance, bears on the P&Z's action on the proposal. It is not clear how the

"scenic road" designation relates to the P&Z regulations, he said.

Residents of the Sanford Road area sought and gained scenic road status for

that road last year, limiting how it can be physically changed when houses are

built there.

Before acting on Tamarack Woods, P&Z members reviewed M&E Land Group's written

responses to criticisms of the project which were made in Ms Obeda's

environmental report. Her report charges that building new houses in the area

would negatively affect nearby domestic well water supplies.

Last fall, the Conservation Commission approved a wetlands construction permit

for Tamarack Woods.

In the development project, four lots have frontage on Sanford Road, three

lots will face Tamarack Road, and one lot will have frontage on Echo Valley

Road.

In June 1997, P&Z members unanimously rejected the third version of Tamarack

Woods, which was then a ten-lot proposal. The P&Z rejected the second version

of Tamarack Woods in December 1996. M&E withdrew its first version of Tamarack

Woods from P&Z consideration in the summer of 1996, before the matter reached

the P&Z public hearing stage.

The developers have reconfigured the Tamarack Woods design plans as various

neighboring property owners have pressured them to present designs which would

have minimal effects on their individual properties.

At sessions on past versions of Tamarack Woods, nearby property owners

expressed concerns that building new homes in their area would threaten their

domestic well water supplies. Also, concerns have focused on: disturbing a

rustic area; potential environmental hazards; creating traffic problems; and

damaging archaeological artifacts and local plant life.

M&E Land Group says its fourth proposal will have less impact on the

neighborhood than the previous proposals, adding that road improvements to

Sanford Road and Tamarack Road won't be necessary.

The Tamarack Woods proposal has been the subject of three lawsuits.

The developers still have one of those lawsuits pending against the P&Z over

its rejection of a previous version of Tamarack Woods.

If the P&Z's approval of the fourth version of Tamarack Woods is not

challenged by someone in court, it is expected the developers will withdraw

that suit.