Environmental Concerns—

P&Z Reviews Nine-Lot Subdivision Proposed For Sandy Hook

By Andrew Gorosko

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members are reviewing the proposed construction of a nine-lot residential subdivision on a steep, rugged site in Sandy Hook on Alberts Hill Road, near Walnut Tree Hill Road.

The Schultz Family Limited Partnership is proposing the unnamed subdivision for a densely forested, steeply sloped 33.8-acre parcel that has both R-2 and R-1 zoning designations. The developer proposes donating approximately four acres of the site as open space for public use for passive recreation.

Under the terms of the zoning regulations, 24.6 acres of the site is considered “usable land” for development. The property’s street address is 127 Walnut Tree Hill Road.

Maps displayed at a September 7 P&Z public hearing on the subdivision proposal indicate that driveways for the single-family houses would enter the development site from the section of Alberts Hill Road that extends westward from Alberts Hill Road’s intersection with Walnut Tree Hill Road.

Seven of the houses would have individual serpentine driveways that would contain switchback curves to allow the driveways to meet the town’s maximum allowable driveway grades. The other two houses, which would be situated on a high spot on the site, would have a long common driveway. Those two houses, which would be located well back from Alberts Hill Road, would be “rear lots.”

Attorney Robert Hall, representing the development partnership, told P&Z members that the site amounts to “a big hill” where nine large lots would become available for new home construction.

Due to the steep slopes on the property, it is not possible for a new subdivision road to meet the town’s maximum allowable road grades, so the developer proposes extending multiple driveways from the existing Alberts Hill Road, Mr Hall said. Those driveways would necessarily be long driveways to allow them to meet the town’s grade requirements, he said.

Engineer Larry Edwards told P&Z members that the long common driveway for the two lots at the site’s high spot would have curbing and a drainage system installed to control stormwater runoff.

The developer has obtained a wetlands permit for the project from the Inland Wetlands Commission, he said. The proposed building lots meet applicable land use regulations, he added.

The four acres of open space land would be situated at a high spot on the property, Mr Edwards said.

Public Comment

Julia Wasserman of 113 Walnut Tree Hill Road, who owns adjacent property lying south of the development site, posed questions on topics including the primary public accessway to open space on the site and the discharge of stormwater drainage from the property.

Mary Fellows of 120 Walnut Tree Hill Road told P&Z members that the site is an environmentally sensitive area for such development. Ms Fellows questioned the practicality of constructing a long common driveway for two houses on such steep, rugged terrain.

Ms Fellows said her home has a low-yield domestic water well, adding that she hopes that new residential development does not deplete the underground water supply in the area.

“It’s a neighborhood that’s under a lot of development pressure,” she said.

Ms Fellows said she expects the future redevelopment of the nearby site of The Cornerstone at Eagle Hill at 32 Alberts Hill Road, a former private drug/alcohol rehabilitation center.

Last January, P&Z members unanimously rejected a developer’s requested change of zone from R-2 (Residential) to EH-10 (Elderly Housing), which was sought as a preliminary step toward constructing a 56-unit age-restricted condominium complex at the 20-acre Eagle Hill site. The proposal drew heavy opposition from nearby residents.

Morgen McLaughlin of Southbury, representing her family, which owns property on Alberts Hill Road, urged that the driveways at the proposed Schultz subdivision be paved with asphalt to prevent stormwater drainage problems.

Ms McLaughlin pointed out to P&Z members that the proposed common driveway would be on a north-facing slope, resulting in wintertime icing problems there.

The proposed development poses the prospect of deforestation in the area and consequent erosion problems, she said. Such development would create drainage problems in an environmentally sensitive area, she added.

Ms McLaughlin urged that the two building lots that would be served by a common driveway be eliminated from the development proposal.

P&Z member Robert Poulin asked that the developer provide the P&Z with mapping depicting the existing open space areas in the vicinity of the site to help the P&Z better review the developer’s proposed open space area. Such mapping is required by the land use regulations.

Response

In response to public comments, Mr Hall described some drainage-control aspects of the project.

Mr Edwards said a series of water-quality basins would be constructed on the site to protect the quality of stormwater runoff. The long common driveway would have an elaborate drainage system installed in view of icing hazards, he said.

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil said that because the development site is in a residential zone, the P&Z seeks to limit tree cutting on the property and ensure that good driveways are built for houses.

If such a development proposal meets applicable regulations, it is approved by the P&Z, he said.

“We can’t arbitrarily say, ‘We don’t want those two lots,’” Mr O’Neil said of Ms McLaughlin’s urging that the two lots served by the long common driveway be eliminated from the plans.

Ms McLaughlin responded that the common driveway for those two lots would be on a north-facing slope, resulting in that driveway having an environmental impact on land lying downslope.

Ms McLaughlin said that as local land for development has become more scarce, land that is as difficult to develop as the Schultz site becomes more desirable for growth. She added, though, that the development of steep sites has environmentally adverse effects.

P&Z member Lilla Dean responded that Newtown and New Milford have the most restrictive land use regulations in the state. 

Mr O’Neil said the P&Z’s existing construction prohibitions regarding steep slopes and wetlands are as restrictive as is  legally possible.

“There will be substantial environmental problems caused by those two lots” served by a common driveway, Ms McLaughlin predicted.

When the P&Z’s public hearing on the Schultz subdivision proposal resumes on October 5, the P&Z would review additional information to be provided by the developer on open space, motorist sightlines, and stormwater drainage, Mr O’Neil said.