Date: Fri 20-Jun-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Tamarack-Woods-M&E

Full Text:

Tamarack Woods Is Rejected Again

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

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

controversial Tamarack Woods, a proposed 10-lot residential development on

almost 33 acres within the area bounded by Tamarack Road, Sanford Road, and

Echo Valley Road.

P&Z members turned down the home building proposal at a June 13 session.

The rejected proposal, which was submitted by M&E Land Group, was the third

version of M&E's plans to develop the rustic site.

M&E withdrew its initial version of Tamarack Woods from P&Z consideration in

the summer of 1996, before the matter reached the P&Z public hearing stage.

The P&Z rejected a second version of Tamarack Woods last December following a

public hearing on it.

P&Z members had requested a legal opinion from Town Attorney David Grogins on

whether the application must comply with land use regulations on providing

water storage on the property for firefighting.

In a June 5 opinion, Mr Grogins wrote the application didn't provide for

firefighting water storage on the property as required by P&Z regulations

approved in September 1995. State law doesn't allow the application to be

exempted from the water storage rules, the lawyer wrote.

At a May public hearing on the third version of Tamarack Woods, attorney

Robert Hall, representing M&E, had argued that the third development proposal

was exempt from the water storage regulations, noting that the second Tamarack

Woods application had been submitted to the town before the water storage

regulations had taken effect. The third application is thus part of a

"continuum" and not subject to the water storage rules, according to Mr Hall.

On June 13, P&Z member Heidi Winslow made a motion to turn down Tamarack

Woods, but she noted she expects the applicants to return to the P&Z with yet

another version of the development plan for review.

Ms Winslow said she hopes the applicants recommend on their next subdivision

map that the buyers of the individual building lots have additional soil

testing done to ensure the land meets septic waste disposal requirements.

Ms Winslow added she prefers that the next version of the plan have lot

frontages facing outward toward Tamarack Road, Sanford Road, and Echo Valley

Road, instead of fronting inward toward a dead-end street extending into the

property from Tamarack Road.

Previous versions of the development proposal have alternately included lot

frontages either facing the three roads or lot frontages facing a dead-end

street. The design plans changed as various neighboring property owners

pressured M&E to present designs which would have minimal effects on their

individual properties.

Ms Winslow said the most appropriate place for open space on the site would be

along the south side of Sanford Road where it would create a buffer between

the development and Upper Paugussett State Forest.

P&Z member James Boylan said the property holds much rock ledge and will

require much blasting for development.

P&Z members have heard nearby property owners describe well water supply

problems in the area, he said, adding he expects such water supply problems

would be intensified with added development there.

The proposed Lot 2 is too wet a lot for home construction, Mr Boylan said.

Mr Boylan suggested that the developers create only five building lots on the

33-acre property.

On that note, P&Z members unanimously turned down the Tamarack Woods

application.

M&E Land Group partner Thomas Maguire said he will return to the P&Z with

another development proposal for the site. Mr Maguire is a M&E partner with

land engineer Larry Edwards.

Mr Hall said he will be talking to his clients about what steps to take in

light of the Tamarack Woods rejection.

Mae and Robert Schmidle of 53 Echo Valley, who were granted intervenor status

in the Tamarack Woods development application, have a lawsuit pending against

the Conservation Commission and M&E over the Conservation Commission's

approval of a wetlands construction license for Tamarack Woods in March 1997.

The Schmidle property abuts the development site.

Also, M&E has a lawsuit pending against the P&Z over the P&Z's rejection of

the second version of Tamarack Woods last December.

In a now-defunct lawsuit filed in March 1996, Cordalie Benoit Eliscu of 23

Sanford Road sued the Conservation Commission and M&E over the Conservation

Commission's approval of a wetlands construction permit for its first Tamarack

Woods application. That lawsuit was withdrawn after M&E agreed to withdraw its

first application and submit a second revised application.

Besides water supply concerns, neighboring property owners' objections to

Tamarack Woods have focused on disturbing an isolated area; damaging the

area's rustic character; potential environmental hazards; creating traffic

problems; and damaging archaeological artifacts and local plant life.

Controversy over developing the site dates back to early 1996.