P&Z Reviews Eight-Lot Subdivision Proposed For Rugged Site

By Andrew Gorosko

Residents living near the rugged Sandy Hook site proposed for an eight-lot residential subdivision have raised environmental issues about the project, in questioning the construction proposal for 33.8 acres lying near the intersection of Walnut Tree Hill Road, Alberts Hill Road, and Black Bridge Road.

Those questions surfaced at a September 18 Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) public hearing conducted on the Schultz Family Limited Partnership’s proposal for an unnamed subdivision with a street address of 127 Walnut Tree Hill Road. The partnership, which owns the parcel, is based in Trenton, N.J.

In December 2006, the P&Z rejected a nine-lot version of the development proposal, citing various environmental concerns about the project proposed for the steep, thickly wooded site.

No new roads would be built to provide access to building lots. Two of the proposed driveways would serve two building lots each. The site lies in both R-1 and R-2 zones, which require minimum building lot sizes of one acre and two acres, respectively. Due to the ruggedness of the terrain, the lots are larger than the minimum allowable sizes, ranging in area from 1.8 acres to 6.5 acres.

Attorney Robert Hall, representing the developer, told P&Z members, “The land certainly is not crowded, as far as the [development]density is concerned…There are topographic considerations on this property, as you know.”

The project would provide a 5.7-acre parcel of open space land, allowing public access for passive forms of recreation. That open space acreage would abut existing open space in the area, Mr Hall said.

The site also would have two areas with conservation easements in effect, where development would be prohibited, Mr Hall said.

As part of the project, the developer has agreed to make certain public road improvements in the area.

Engineer/surveyor Larry Edwards, representing the developer, said that approximately 1,200 square feet of wetlands on the site would be physically disturbed as a consequence of developing the property.

In redesigning the proposal as an eight-lot project, the developer eliminated one of the lots with road frontage, he said. Thus, the design now allows there to be gentler slopes on the driveways that serve frontage lots, he said.

Also, the redesigned project contains somewhat gentler slopes on a long common driveway that would serve two interior lots, he said.

The stormwater drainage design has been upgraded in the revised version of the project, with drainage traversing gentler slopes than in the earlier version of the project, he said.

P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean urged that the developer incorporate so-called Cape Cod curbing in the project’s drainage design to allow amphibians to walk up and over the curbs. The shallow-sloped Cape Cod curbs pose less of a physical obstacle for amphibians than conventional steeply-sloped curbs.

Land Use Agency Director George Benson said that the development plans, which call for driveway easements, could prove troublesome, sparking conflict among property owners. Such easements would allow lot owners to have the right of passage on his or her driveway which crosses over other lot owners’ land.

Public Comment

During the public comment section of the hearing, resident Julia Wasserman of 113 Walnut Tree Hill Road asked for assurances that the public access to existing open space land in the area would remain undisturbed.

Resident Nina Ursko of 106 Walnut Tree Hill Road asked whether the developer has given full consideration to the potential negative effects of stormwater runoff resulting from construction. Physically disturbing the wooded site could adversely affect drainage patterns in the area, she said.

Resident Henry Colangelo of 121 Walnut Tree Hill Road asked whether some fire protection alternative might be pursued other than the proposed 30,000-gallon buried water storage tank. Also, Mr Colangelo asked whether there is some alternative to constructing a very long common driveway that would serve two interior lots on the site.

Resident Mary Fellows of 120 Walnut Tree Hill Road said of the proposed development, “This seems so dense,” considering the steep, rugged topography of the site.

“The interior lots seem like a really bad idea,” she said. It would be difficult to use the steep driveways during snowy conditions, she said.

Also, common driveways can lead to conflicts between their users, she said.

Ms Fellows asked why the developer must have interior lots as part of the project.

“This is a lot of development for a small piece of land,” Ms Fellows said.

Resident Janice Scott of 162 Walnut Tree Hill Road asked about the size of the houses that the developer proposes for the site, and what effect the new construction would have on nearby property values.

Ms Dean said she is concerned about the extent of land clearing that would be necessary at the site to create adequate sight lines for motorists. The land is rugged and rocky, she said, adding that the developer should preserve existing trees on the site.

Mr Edwards responded that the plans for the eight-lot subdivision call for less earthen cutting than would have been required by the previous nine-lot subdivision proposal.

Also, the developer expects that the new houses in a subdivision would have four bedrooms each, with house sizes ranging from 3,000 to 4,000 square feet, he said.

 Ms Dean said the public hearing on the subdivision application would resume at an upcoming P&Z session.

In December 2006, after determining that creating nine building lots for single-family houses on the site would amount to overdeveloping an environmentally sensitive property, P&Z members unanimously rejected the development proposal.

In its 2006 rejection, the P&Z found, “The plan to provide the maximum number of lots that would be permitted under the zoning regulations is not a practical approach to development upon this sensitive parcel.”

The P&Z then added, “The subdivision of this north-facing, steeply sloping terrain, as proposed, involves extensive disturbance of the natural [vegetative] ground cover, extensive recontouring of the land, and the installation of several highly-engineered drainage systems, in order to provide usable home sites, septic systems, wells, and access driveways … There is too great a risk in relying upon such extensive engineering in order to realize the … subdivision proposal for this land.”

In June, the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) modified the wetlands permit which it had granted to the developer in 2005 for the nine-lot version of the development proposal. The IWC placed a lengthy list of conditions on its June approval aimed at protecting the environmentally sensitive site which is now proposed for eight building lots.