ZBA Considers Split Condo Associations At Walnut Tree Village

By Andrew Gorosko

The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is considering a request for a zoning variance from Walnut Tree Developers, Inc, which would allow the developers to create two separate condominium associations for the controversial Walnut Tree Village condo complex on Walnut Tree Hill Road in Sandy Hook.

ZBA Chairman Charles E. Annett, III, said September 5 the ZBA will have its attorney review the complex application before the panel acts on it at an upcoming session.

Walnut Tree Village is the town’s first condominium complex. It is intended for people over age 55. In 1995, the developers gained approval to construct an 80-unit complex, which has been completed, on a relatively level 18-acre site at 26 Walnut Tree Hill Road, near Evergreen Road.

In August 2000, the developers gained approval to build a 110-unit expansion of Walnut Tree Village on a rugged, steep adjoining 35-acre site at 14 Walnut Tree Hill Road, just south of the existing 80-unit complex. The 110-unit expansion project, which is expected to take several years to complete, is now under construction.

The Walnut Tree Village project has faced controversy for years, involving conflicts between the developers and adjoining property owners, as well as conflicts between the developers and people who own condos in the initial 80-unit complex. Also, the developers and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) became embroiled in various conflicts over construction changes which the developers had made during the 80-unit construction phase, without first having sought formal approvals from the P&Z.

Following the P&Z’s August 2000 approval of the 110-unit expansion project, a total of seven plaintiffs filed three separate lawsuits against the P&Z and the developers in unsuccessfully seeking to block the expansion project.

As currently constituted, one condominium association would cover both the initial 80-unit condo complex and the 110-unit expansion project which is now under construction, thus representing all 190 condo owners.

ZBA member Richard H. Kessler, Jr, disqualified himself from participating in the zoning variance application, stating that he is a resident of Walnut Tree Village.

Stephen Wippermann, a vice president of Walnut Tree Developers, told ZBA members that in its 1998 application to the Conservation Commission to expand the complex, the developers proposed creating an entranceway to the complex from Church Hill Road. But town officials did not want such an access created, citing earthmoving, wetlands, and public safety issues, Mr Wippermann said.

The developers then proposed an accessway to the project from Walnut Tree Hill Road, he said. However, the width of that accessway at the street was less than the minimum 100 feet required by the zoning regulations, he said. Consequently, the developers then “combined” the 18-acre parcel, where the initial 80 condos lie, with the 35-acre parcel, where the 110 new units are now being built, for legal purposes, in applying for the expansion project. It was that combination of the two properties which resulted in the creation of one condominium association covering all 190 units in Walnut Tree Village.

Mr Wippermann pointed out that the residents of the 80-unit first phase of the complex and the 110-unit second phase of the project will have different needs, and thus should have separate condominium associations.

For example, the first phase is constructed on level ground and its units have wood siding, which requires repeated repainting. The second phase is being built on steep land and its units have vinyl siding, which will require much less maintenance.

Obtaining a zoning variance, which would allow the creation of two separate condo associations, also would make it simpler for the developers to sell the 110 new condos, Mr Wippermann noted.

The residents of the 80-unit complex clearly want their own condo association, Mr Wippermann pointed out. The residents of the 80-unit section believe that they would always be in the minority when issues affecting a 190-unit complex would be decided by condo association voting, Mr Wippermann said.

George Trudell, II, a partner in Walnut Tree Developers, said the only change that the firm is seeking from the ZBA involves condo associations. The application does not involve construction density or the layout of the complex, he stressed. The matter concerns “internal operations,” he said.

Mr Trudell said residents of the 80-unit complex have told him they want to be members of a smaller 80-unit association, which would be easier to manage, rather than a 190-unit association.

Villagers

Attorney Ted Backer told ZBA members he represents 90 percent of the people living in the 80 existing condo units at Walnut Tree Village. Those residents favor having two separate condo associations, Mr Backer said.

Harold Lange, who lives at 62 Elizabeth Circle in Walnut Tree Village, represented village residents. “We felt we wanted to be masters of our own destiny,” he said. “We feel that we want to have more autonomy. We want to be separate,” Mr Lange said.

Another village representative, Dolores Winans, who lives at 21 St George Place in Walnut Tree Village, stressed that residents in the 80 existing condos want a separate condo association. “We want to be autonomous,” she said.

Village residents want to avoid the internal strife which they feel would exist within one association representing 190 condo owners, Mr Backer said.

Opposition

Not everyone at the well-attended September 5 ZBA meeting favored the creation of two separate condo associations.

Attorney Helen McGonigle, representing Duane and Linda Jones of 16 Walnut Tree Hill Road, said that the Joneses’ house is directly adjacent to the 14 Walnut Tree Hill Road accessway, which will provide entry and exit for traffic arriving and departing at the 110-unit section of the 190-unit complex.

The developers’ proposal to construct the 110-unit expansion was hotly contested by nearby property owners, Ms McGonigle noted. The issue was thoroughly discussed at P&Z meetings, she added.

Ms McGonigle charged that the developers presented differing information to the ZBA and the P&Z concerning the issues at hand.

“The developer has created their own hardship,” Ms McGonigle said, in challenging the legitimacy of the zoning variance application.

The developers created a “self-imposed hardship,” she said, adding that the developers do not have a “legal hardship,” which would allow a zoning variance to be granted.

Mr Wippermann challenged assertions made by Ms McGonigle.

ZBA member Steve Berg asked what difference it makes to the Joneses whether there is one condo association or two condo associations.

If there is no unity of management for the entire 190-unit complex, it would damage the Joneses, Ms McGonigle said.

Mr Jones cited the potential for traffic-related problems if there are two condo associations.

Mary Burnham of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road said she considers the problem that Walnut Tree Developers faces to be “self-inflicted.” The developers combined the 18-acre site and the 35-acre site in order to get approval for the 110-unit expansion project, she said.

Tim Kochuba of 52 Walnut Tree Hill Road said he does not see the basis by which the ZBA could grant the developers permission to form two condo associations.

The developers retained their control of the condo association governing the 80-unit initial phase of the complex, Mr Kochuba said.

Now that the developers no longer need to control that 80-unit section, they will seek to control a separate condo association for the new 110-unit section, Mr Kochuba said.