Date: Fri 14-Mar-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Watch-Hill

Full Text:

Commission Considers 15-Lot `Watch Hill' Subdivision

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members are considering a proposed 15-lot

subdivision on 31 acres in the Riverside section of Sandy Hook, near

Interstate-84.

Robert Mathison and Emory Palmer are seeking approval for Watch Hill, located

at Alpine Circle, Alpine Drive, Bancroft Road, and Pole Bridge Road. To

provide sufficient road frontage for the proposed lots, some 1,700 feet of new

roadway would be built at the site.

Land engineer Larry Edwards, representing the developers, told P&Z members at

a March 6 public hearing the proposal pending before them is similar to an

initial 16-lot version submitted in 1995. The developers withdrew that

application in August 1995.

The site, which has one-acre residential zoning, meets all minimum

requirements for such zoning, Mr Edwards said. The developers have designated

about three acres near Bancroft Road as open space land, he said.

The development will not increase water runoff from the site, he said. The

developers will obtain a town road work agreement from the selectmen as part

of the town's development process, according to Mr Edwards.

"The plans submitted meet the intent and conditions of the zoning regulations

and the subdivision regulations," Mr Edwards said.

In his review of the development plans, Town Engineer Ronald Bolmer found that

subdividing the land as proposed will create more than 15 lots on the dead-end

Alpine Drive. Town subdivision regulations allow a maximum of 15 lots on

dead-ends.

The driveways from Lot 1 and Lot 15, as depicted on the subdivision proposal,

don't have legal road frontage, according to Mr Bolmer.

"I cannot recommend approval of this application," Mr Bolmer wrote in his

review of the development proposal.

Attorney David Harting of Middlebury, representing the developers, told P&Z

members the 15-lot limit on dead-end subdivision roads applies only to new

lengths of roadway, and not the specific development plan proposed by the

developers.

"I think we have a unique situation with the Watch Hill subdivision," he said.

Although the selectmen have approved Alpine Drive as a town road, it was never

submitted as a town road to the P&Z, the lawyer said.

Neighbors' Views

Resident Michelle Paniccia of 11 Long View Terrace said residents in the area

already experience drainage problems. She asked what effect a 15-lot

subdivision will have on drainage along Long View Terrace and Poplar Drive.

"The water just flows. It's just a muddy, wet mess," she said.

Land engineer Charles Spath represents the Sullivan family, which owns 32

acres of property adjoining Watch Hill. Mr Spath requested that the P&Z

require the Watch Hill developers to extend a road easement to the end of the

Watch Hill property toward the Sullivan property in light of the area's

residential development potential.

Resident Glen Bosquet of 41 Engleside Terrace said the Watch Hill proposal

would have a developmental impact on the area. Watch Hill would require the

installation of 15 new septic systems, he said, questioning what effect those

septic systems would eventually have on the water quality in nearby Lake Zoar.

Mr Bosquet said he's concerned that building 15 new homes would lead to

additional water runoff in the area. The water drawn from the ground to serve

15 new houses could adversely affect area domestic water supplies, he said.

Resident Alison Bosquet, of the same address, said Engleside Terrace now has

serious water runoff problems.

"The open space they have there (Watch Hill) is a cliff ... and I don't think

a cliff is quality open space," she said.

Resident Matthew Kascak of 31 Long View Terrace, who owns property abutting

the development site, said the proposed construction will bring the number of

houses in the immediate area to 52 homes. Some 37 homes already exist on a

series of dead-end roads in the area, he said. Mr Kascak asked whether an

additional 15 septic systems in the area wouldn't contribute to Lake Zoar

pollution problems.

Resident Michael Long of 35 Poplar Drive said emergency vehicles would have a

difficult time reaching the proposed new homes.

Not all abutting property owners were notified by mail of the public hearing

on Watch Hill, he added.

Edwards' Response

In response to the various comments made by nearby property owners, Mr Edwards

said a new road and drainage structures to be built on the development site

would collect and channel water runoff. The proposed construction would lessen

drainage problems in the area, he said.

The construction project would contain two underground water storage tanks to

provide Watch Hill and other houses in the area with fire-fighting water, he

said.

Mr Edwards said the developers are considering connecting the proposed

development to an existing community water system in the area instead of

providing each new home with an individual water well.

Hearing Continued

P&Z Chairman John DeFilippe continued the public hearing on Watch Hill to

April 3 so that several questions about the proposal can be resolved.

The developers will seek a road work agreement with the selectmen specifying

what work will be done to improve existing town roads in the area in

conjunction with the development project.

The town attorney's opinion will be sought concerning the number of houses

that can legally be built on the dead-end Alpine Drive in light of the town's

15-house limit on dead end roads. Also, the town attorney's opinion will be

sought on whether nearby property owners were properly notified of the March 6

public hearing.

Also, the P&Z will seek the Traffic Authority's opinion on what effect Watch

Hill would have on area traffic flow.

Watch Hill's applicants encountered strong opposition to a previous version of

the development, which was pending before the P&Z during the summer of 1995.

In August 1995, Mr Mathison and Mr Palmer withdrew their application for Watch

Hill, which was then a 16-lot subdivision proposal.

Residents then had raised questions about the practicality of building that

many houses on that site, noting that the area already has a high population

density. Many area residents then said they feared that building a subdivision

there would cause drainage problems on their properties.