Date: Fri 13-Jun-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

Tamarack-Woods-Schmidle

Full Text:

Tamarack Woods Intervenors Answer Attorney's Questions

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

Intervenors to the proposed Tamarack Woods residential subdivision have

explained to the Tamarack Woods applicants their qualifications to interpret

land use information pertaining to the project.

At a June 5 Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) public hearing, Robert and

Mae Schmidle, of 53 Echo Valley Road, the intervenors, explained to attorney

Robert Hall, who represents applicant M&E Land Group, how they prepared

mapping they used to describe the effects of the project at a May public

hearing.

At the May hearing, Mr Hall had questioned people who spoke in opposition to

Tamarack Woods. The Schmidles, however, declined to answer Mr Hall's

questions, instead opting to provide him with written responses to his

queries.

P&Z members are considering the third version of Tamarack Woods, a

controversial 10-lot residential subdivision proposed for 33 acres near Upper

Paugussett State Forest. The land lies within the area bounded by Tamarack

Road, Sanford Road, and Echo Valley Road. M&E Land Group and nearby residents

made clear their conflicting views on the construction proposal at the May

hearing.

The developers withdrew their initial application last summer. The P&Z

rejected a second application last December.

The Schmidles' intervention allows them to be a third party to the application

to protect their environmental interests. The Schmidle property abuts the

development site.

Five building lots would front on Sanford Road, four lots would have frontage

on Tamarack Road, and one lot would have a driveway extending from Echo Valley

Road. The developers would donate 3.8 acres to the town for open space use.

According to documents provided by the Schmidles:

In his queries, Mr Hall asked whether the Schmidles have any special training

or expertise in engineering, hydrogeology, environmental science, or geology.

The Schmidles responded they are able to look at plot plans which identify

wetlands, rock outcroppings and dense vegetation, then color in the

significant areas with marking pencils and then, using common sense, draw very

obvious conclusions from the maps.

Mr Hall asked what evidence the Schmidles have to allege that building the

subdivision would "change the watercourse in the whole area."

The Schmidles responded that watercourses could change as a result of blasting

rock outcroppings and bedrock for the construction of house foundations and

septic systems.

Mr Hall asked why the Schmidles consider engineered septic systems to be

unusual in Newtown.

They responded engineered systems are subject to more problems than

conventional septic systems. Also, engineered systems can change local

topography and watercourses, as well as pose aesthetic concerns, they say.

Mr Hall asked why the Schmidles think that a heating oil spill would be more

likely at Tamarack Woods than at other places in Newtown.

The Schmidles responded they are concerned about a spill occurring at the

proposed Lot 2, saying that a driveway there would parallel a stream and cross

wetlands. A spill there could have a major impact on wetlands and an

underground watercourse, they state. Also, the narrow, winding Sanford Road

which crosses a wetland could be the site of a damaging heating oil spill,

they add.

Also, Mr Hall asked what testing has been done or what scientific evidence is

available that shows that the ten houses proposed for the 33-acre site would

have inadequate water supplies.

The Schmidles responded that environmental analyst Barbara Obeda had prepared

a report on Tamarack Woods last year in response to M&E's initial development

application. In the report, which wasn't submitted to the P&Z last year, Ms

Obeda stated the project proposes too great a construction density to

guarantee a long-term, viable water supply from a bedrock aquifer for 10 new

houses, plus the existing houses in the area.

At the June 5 session, Mr Hall stressed there's an adequate underground water

supply in the area for new home construction.

Following his comments, Mrs Schmidle objected to the P&Z's allowing Mr Hall to

make such remarks.

Mrs Schmidle said she should be given equal time to prepare statements and

refute allegations.

But P&Z Chairman Stephen Koch pointed out that applicants or their

representatives are always provided with the final opportunity to comment on

their applications at public hearings.

The Schmidles have a lawsuit pending against the Conservation Commission and

M&E Land Group over the Conservation Commission granting M&E a wetlands

construction permit for the third version of Tamarack Woods.

P&Z members are expected to act on the Tamarack Woods proposal at an upcoming

session.