Ridge Valley Estates—

P&Z Considers Proposed 16-Lot Subdivision in Botsford

By Andrew Gorosko

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members are considering a developer’s application to create 16 new house lots on a site at 15 High Bridge Road in Botsford — a development proposal that has sparked concern among nearby property owners.

Hawley Enterprises, Inc, is seeking P&Z approval to subdivide a 65-acre parcel, which would be known as Ridge Valley Estates. The development site is on the north side of High Bridge Road, near High Bridge Road’s intersection with Botsford Hill Road.

P&Z members held a public hearing on the subdivision application on March 4.

Unlike most residential subdivision proposals, the developer simultaneously submitted applications to the Conservation Commission, which serves as the town’s wetlands agency, and to the P&Z.  

Applications typically are initially submitted to the Conservation Commission, which rules on the wetlands aspects of the project, after which plans are submitted to the P&Z, which reviews matters including building lot creation, septic system design, water well placement, road construction, stormwater drainage control, and open space areas, among other topics.

The Conservation Commission was scheduled to continue a previously opened public hearing on Ridge Valley Estates proposal on March 10. At a previous session, conservation officials urged the developer to keep construction on the site well away from wetlands. 

At the March 4 P&Z public hearing, the developer submitted to the P&Z a schematic version of a subdivision map, which was based on design revisions that had been recommended for the project by conservation officials. That schematic did not contain the level of detail that is required for P&Z review of a subdivision proposal.

One basic revision to the initial plans has the dead-end street proposed for the site about 210 feet shorter than was previously shown.

 Engineer Barry Hammons, representing the developer, said initial plans have been altered to meet town officials’ concerns about the project, including a Conservation Commission requirement that development be at least 50 feet away from wetlands. The 65-acre site holds approximately 16 acres of wetlands.

The site would hold multiple sedimentation basins and an infiltration basin to control stormwater runoff from the site. Soil tests indicate that the property would meet state standards for septic waste disposal, Mr Hammons said.

Attorney Robert Hall, representing the developer, said that open space land proposed for the site would be linked to an existing open space corridor on adjacent property.

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil stressed that subdivision applications typically are sequentially submitted to the Conservation Commission and then to the P&Z. But the developer has opted for simultaneous submissions, Mr O’Neil added.

In the past, such simultaneous submissions resulted in various regulatory complications, which, at times, caused applications to be rejected by the P&Z for procedural reasons.

Mr O’Neil said he had warned the applicant of the perils of simultaneous submissions. The P&Z is unable to act on its application until the Conservation Commission acts on its application, he said.

Public Comments

Todd Bobowick of 1 Rowledge Pond Road, represented Rowledge Pond, Inc, and Rowledge Pond Aquaculture at the public hearing. Mr Bobowick encouraged the P&Z to close the Ridge Valley Estates public hearing on March 4, and not continue the session, as had been requested by Mr Hall. The development application still requires Conservation Commission review, Mr Bobowick noted.

The fish hatchery at Rowledge Pond would be affected by the proposed subdivision, Mr Bobowick said.

Brent Hazzard of 32 Marlin Road said the development site holds a large amount of wetlands. The developer is seeking to “squeeze” much development onto the property, Mr Hazzard added. He also voiced concerns about traffic that would be generated by a 16-lot subdivision, and about a subdivision’s effect on underground water supplies. Mr Hazzard urged a careful P&Z review of the development application.

Laura Roche of 21 High Bridge Road said that the revisions to the subdivision drawings, which would be made by the developer, should be submitted to the P&Z in the form of a new application, not as a revised application. She urged the P&Z to close the public hearing that night.

Mr Hall told P&Z members that the developer wants to submit design plans which meet the land use regulations and which will be approved.

If the P&Z rejects the subdivision application, the developer would then have to file a court appeal to protect its legal rights in terms of developing the property, Mr Hall said. The developer does not look forward to filing such an appeal, the lawyer added.

In response, Mr O’Neil asked, “Just out of curiosity, what basis would you use for an appeal?”

“I’d come up with something,” Mr Hall replied.

The lawyer suggested that arbitrariness, capriciousness, or a lack of reasonableness could be the basis for an appeal.

Mr Hall asked that the P&Z hearing be left open so that the developer could submit revised plans for the project.

“I don’t see any justification for keeping it open,” Mr O’Neil said. The chairman then closed the hearing.