Date: Fri 27-Dec-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Tamarack-Woods

Full Text:

P&Z Rejects Second Version Of Tamarack Woods

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

In a 4-0 vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has rejected the

second version of Tamarack Woods, a controversial 10-lot residential

subdivision proposed for the land within the triangle formed by Tamarack Road,

Sanford Road and Echo Valley Road.

The development proposal rejected by the P&Z on December 19 involved extending

a proposed dead-end road, Lafayette Trail, off Tamarack Road to provide access

to the 33 acres. The earlier version wouldn't have involved any road building.

It instead would have provided lot frontages on each of the three existing

roads.

Developers Thomas Maguire and Larry Edwards of M&E Land Group withdrew the

initial version of Tamarack Woods last summer in the face of heavy opposition

from area residents and a lawsuit filed against M&E over its gaining

Conservation Commission approval for wetlands construction work at the site.

P&Z member Daniel Fogliano noted the proposal for a dead-end street to serve

the development has drawn public opposition because it would limit access by

emergency service vehicles. The proposed road could have been extended to

connect Tamarack Road to Sanford Road, providing another entrance/exit at the

site, he said.

"I really think we missed the boat on this plan," he said.

Mr Fogliano said the proposed "Lot 1" at the site is "a real tough lot" at

which to install a septic system. "That's just an accident waiting to happen,"

he said.

P&Z member Heidi Winslow noted the initial version of Tamarack Woods was

withdrawn so the developers could work with area residents to create a more

workable subdivision plan. But the second version of the subdivision isn't

liked by all the residents involved, she noted.

"The developer has gone in the wrong direction on this plan," she said.

The proposed eight-acre open space area at the site runs alongside the south

side of Sanford Road for nearly the entire length of the site, she said. Ms

Winslow said she doesn't believe such an area meets the P&Z's criteria on what

makes for suitable open space. She termed the strip of land "essentially a

waste area beside the roadway."

Ms Winslow suggested the developers devise a plan in which access to the homes

is provided from Tamarack Road, Sanford Road and Echo Valley Road, thus

spreading the traffic flow onto the three streets.

"I'm not satisfied with the application," she said, adding that it doesn't

meet the P&Z's open space criteria and the sense of the town's plan of

development.

P&Z Chairman John DeFilippe said "I really know the developer spent a lot of

time, energy and effort" in drawing plans for Tamarack Woods. But, he added,

he believes the points raised Ms Winslow are valid ones.

The P&Z members present, Mr DeFilippe, Ms Winslow, Mr Fogliano and Thomas

Paisley, then voted against the plan .

M&E Land Group presented its second version of the housing development to the

P&Z at a November public hearing.

The initial version of Tamarack Woods presented at a June public hearing drew

intense criticism from nearby residents who opposed the project saying it

would disturb the isolated area, damage its rustic character, pose

environmental hazards, create traffic problems, jeopardize the adequacy of

existing well water supplies, and potentially damage archaeological artifacts,

among other complaints. Neighbors also criticized the initial project because

it would have extended driveways from Tamarack Road, Sanford Road and Echo

Valley Road into the development site.

At the November hearing, resident Lillian Strickler of 6 Tamarack Road said

the developers were coerced into reconfiguring the subdivision by the lawsuit

filed over the wetlands license.

At that session, Cordalie Benoit Eliscu of 23 Sanford Road thanked the

developers for listening to area residents' complaints about the initial

development plan and then making changes. Ms Eliscu, an attorney, had sued the

Conservation Commission and M&E Land Group over the wetlands construction

license issuance.

In response to the various criticisms of the revised subdivision plan, Mr

Edwards has said the subdivision layout complies with town planning

regulations.