Date: Fri 29-Nov-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Tamarack-Woods

Full Text:

Neighbors Scrutinize Second Version Of Tamarack Woods

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

Some residents of the Tamarack Road area have raised concerns about the second

version of Tamarack Woods, a 10-lot subdivision proposed for 33 acres off

Tamarack Road, near Lake Lillinonah and Upper Paugussett State Forest.

M&E Land Group presented its second version of the housing development to

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members at a November 21 public hearing.

The initial version of Tamarack Woods presented at a June public hearing drew

intense criticism from nearby residents who opposed the project saying it

would disturb the isolated area, damage its rustic character, pose

environmental hazards, create traffic problems, jeopardize the adequacy of

existing well water supplies, and potentially damage archaeological artifacts,

among other complaints.

Neighbors also criticized the initial project because it would have extended

driveways from Tamarack Road, Sanford Road and Echo Valley Road into the

development site.

Besides the intense opposition to the initial subdivision proposal, the

developers faced a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Conservation Commission's

approval of a wetlands construction license for the project. The Conservation

Commission also was a defendant in the suit.

Last summer, the developers, Thomas Maguire and Larry Edwards, withdrew their

initial development application and started work on a new plan.

The second version involves construction of a 750-foot-long dead end street

into the site from Tamarack Road. The new road, Lafayette Trail, would serve

nine of the ten building lots. One lot would front on Echo Valley Road.

In redrawing plans for Tamarack Woods, the developers have reduced the

environmental impact of the project and maintained the neighborhood's

character as much as possible while still developing the site, Mr Edwards told

P&Z members. The site holds more than eight acres of open space land.

The developers have reached a road work agreement with the selectmen

explaining how they will improve town-owned roadway in the area in connection

with subdivision construction.

All proposed development alongside Sanford Road has been eliminated in the

second version of the subdivision, Mr Edwards said. The site will hold a

natural stormwater detention basin, he added. Such basins are used to regulate

stormwater flowing off the property after heavy rains. The developers designed

the project for four-bedroom houses.

Resident Lillian Strickler of 6 Tamarack Road, who lives near the site, said

the developers were coerced into reconfiguring the subdivision by the lawsuit

filed over the wetlands license.

"Tamarack Road will be extremely adversely affected," but people living on

Echo Valley Road and Sanford Road will benefit from the revised development

plans, Mrs Strickler said.

The dead end street planned for the site will pose dangers to people living in

the subdivision, she claimed, explaining that the homeowners would be trapped

there in the event of emergencies. Lafayette Trail should be extended out to

Sanford Road for improved vehicle access to the site, she said, terming the

proposal "a disaster waiting to happen."

Cordalie Benoit Eliscu of 23 Sanford Road thanked the developers for listening

to area residents' complaints about the initial development plan and then

making changes. Ms Eliscu, an attorney, had sued the Conservation Commission

and M&E Land Group over the wetlands construction license issuance.

Ms Eliscu asked P&Z members to inspect the development site saying, "The land

is either ledge or wetlands."

"I have grave concerns for trying to put ten wells in this neighborhood," she

said. She said the ruggedness of the land results in limited siting options

for houses and septic systems. She questioned some large changes in elevation

between some houses and septic systems in the proposed development, including

one situation in which a septic system would be substantially higher than the

house it serves. Blasting needed for the development may damage existing

inadequate wells in the area, she said.

Ms Eliscu said up to three lots of the nine lots served by the dead end street

could be eliminated from the subdivision plan.

Of the lot layout for the project, she said "There's not any room here for

flexibility."

One Tamarack Road man said the number of houses proposed for the site is too

high for what amounts to "a piece of rock."

He warned that as new homes are built in the area, a hazardous new traffic

corridor will develop linking Sandy Hook to Exit 9 of Interstate-84 via some

substandard roads. The corridor of narrow, dirt roads would connect Alberts

Hill Road to Echo Valley Road to Tamarack Road to Butterfield Road to

Currituck Road to Hawleyville Road, he said. That corridor would serve as a

shortcut from Sandy Hook to Hawleyville.

In response to the various criticisms of the revised subdivision plan, Mr

Edwards said the subdivision layout complies with town planning regulations.

Town regulations allow up to 15 lots on a dead end street, he said.

A proposed house on the site would be separated from its septic system due to

house positioning concerns raised by a nearby resident, he said. Blasting on

the project would be done by a professional blaster who follows blasting

rules, he said. The proposed development complies with the town's wetlands

regulations, Mr Edwards added.

Some people at the hearing had questioned why the developers propose having

Lafayette Trail intersect with Tamarack Road at a 60-degree angle instead of

the preferred 90-degree angle.

Mr Edwards responded that building an intersection at a 90-degree angle would

involve more rock removal from the site, thus causing a greater environmental

impact through increased blasting. The regulations allow 60-degree angle

intersections, he said.

P&Z members will inspect the property before ruling on the subdivision

application, said P&Z Chairman John DeFilippe.