Date: Fri 16-May-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Watch-Hill

Full Text:

P&Z Rejects Watch Hill Subdivision Plan

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members have unanimously rejected Watch

Hill, a 15-lot residential subdivision proposed for 31 acres in the Riverside

section, near Interstate 84.

The P&Z's May 8 rejection hinged on Town Attorney David Grogins' legal opinion

that, as proposed, the development would result in more than 15 houses on the

town-owned, dead-end street, Alpine Drive. The town allows a maximum of 15

houses on dead-end streets.

The town limits the number of houses on dead-ends to keep down the number of

families who would be isolated from the town road network, and emergency

services, if access to the street is blocked.

In a letter to the P&Z, Mr Grogins wrote that if P&Z members want to approve

the proposed Watch Hill, they would have to modify the land use regulations

concerning dead-end roads.

Developers Robert Mathison and Emory Palmer applied for Watch Hill.

P&Z member Daniel Fogliano said he inspected the site proposed for

development. The land is off Alpine Circle, Alpine Drive, Bancroft Road, and

Pole Bridge Road.

If the developers submit another subdivision proposal for the property, they

should modify some aspects of their application, Mr Fogliano said.

Mr Fogliano recommended that a road easement be extended out to a neighboring

property line. P&Z development approvals sometimes require such road easements

being extended out to property lines to facilitate possible future development

in the area.

Mr Fogliano said the open space area designated by the developers is

relatively small and difficult to reach due to the presence of water. Other

land on the parcel would make for better open space, he said.

The proposal which P&Z members rejected is similar to an initial 16-lot

version submitted in the past. The developers withdrew that application in

August 1995.

In 1995, nearby residents had raised questions about the practicality of

building 16 houses on that site, noting that the area already has a high

population density. Many area residents then said they feared that building a

subdivision there would cause drainage problems on their properties.

At a recent public hearing on Watch Hill, attorney David Harting of

Middlebury, representing the developers, told P&Z members the 15-lot limit on

dead-end subdivision roads applies only to new lengths of roadway, and doesn't

apply to the specific development plan proposed by the developers.

"I think we have a unique situation with the Watch Hill subdivision," he then

said.

"The plans submitted meet the intent and conditions of the zoning regulations

and the subdivision regulations," engineer Larry Edwards said at that hearing.

Mr Edwards represents the developers.

But, in his review of the development plans, Town Engineer Ronald Bolmer found

that subdividing the land as proposed would create more than 15 lots on the

dead-end Alpine Drive.

At the recent hearing, people living near the site expressed fears that new

development would intensify existing drainage problems, pose pollution

problems from new septic systems, endanger domestic water supplies, and create

an unacceptably high construction density in the area.

At that session, engineer Charles Spath represented the Sullivan family, which

owns 32 acres of property adjoining Watch Hill. Mr Spath requested that the

P&Z require the Watch Hill developers to extend a road easement to the end of

the Watch Hill property toward the Sullivan property in light of the area's

residential development potential.