P&Z Approves Parmalee Hill Subdivision

By Andrew Gorosko

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members have approved Daniels Hill Estates, a controversial 13-lot residential subdivision planned for 40 acres off Parmalee Hill Road.

P&Z members July 6 unanimously approved the development project, which had drawn objections from area residents who complained that the wet, rugged site is an inappropriate place to build that number of houses. The opponents had added that the traffic generated by new homes would worsen hazardous traffic conditions on Parmalee Hill Road.

The P&Z rejected an earlier version of Daniels Hill Estates a year ago, citing public safety hazards posed by added traffic on the narrow, winding, hilly Parmalee Hill Road. Daniels Hill Development, LLC, of Trumbull then sued the P&Z in seeking to overturn the subdivision rejection. But Superior Court Judge Dennis Eveleigh dismissed the developer’s lawsuit last January, ruling in favor of the P&Z.

Daniels Hill development, LLC, then submitted a revised version of the subdivision for P&Z review, which the P&Z approved July 6.

“The application is a significant improvement over the previous one,” said P&Z member Heidi Winslow.

Although the site poses vehicle access problems, the spot where the subdivision road enters the site from Parmalee Hill Road appears to be the only practical place to put a road, she said. It then becomes important to make that access point as safe as possible, she added.

P&Z member Robert Taylor noted that residents living near the site had expressed concerns about drainage problems and about the potential for flooding due to site development. The site is extremely wet, he said. One or two lots could be cut from the development to make it a more workable subdivision, he said.

But the development proposal does not violate applicable zoning regulations, he added.

P&Z member Lilla Dean said it is unclear what further steps the P&Z could take to improve the Daniels Hill Estates project.

In unanimously approving the development, the P&Z placed many requirements on it.

The developer will be required to place a $316,500 performance bond on the project to guarantee the construction of a new subdivision road; to implement minor improvements to Parmalee Hill Road; to install an underground water tank for firefighting; and to build common driveways.

The P&Z is requiring the developer to provide an at least six-foot-wide road shoulder to minimize the need for guard railing.

Also, the developer is being required to seek permission from nearby property owners to allow the water level in a pond on the site to rise during storms. If such permission is not obtained from nearby property owners, the developer would then be required to build a stormwater detention basin on the site.

The P&Z is requiring the developer to protect and preserve to the fullest extent possible all significant trees on the site, especially along the new road.  

Also, the developer is being required to remove debris from open space land on the site and to improve a trail on open space land by cutting brush and installing wood chips. Also, permanent markers to show access points to open space at roadways must be installed.

The P&Z also decided to place limits on the workdays for construction workers at the site. Mondays through Saturdays, hours will extend from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. During July and August, the workday would start one hour earlier.

Just as the first application did, the second application met with opposition from area residents at a May P&Z public hearing. At that hearing, resident Penny Meek of 40 Butterfield Road, who had spoken strongly against the first application, also criticized the second version.

Ms Meek expressed concern that added traffic would pose safety problems on Parmalee Hill Road. The heavy truck traffic that would accompany subdivision construction would pose safety hazards, she said, noting it takes several years for the construction in such a subdivision to be completed. The section of Parmalee Hill Road north of the development site is too narrow for two vehicles to pass, she said, adding that the street is hilly and has many blind curves. The road is difficult to travel in the wintertime, she said. Ms Meek had provided P&Z members with a variety of photos depicting sets of skid marks on Parmalee Hill Road.

Ms Meek said the development site contains steep slopes and much water, adding that the property is inappropriate for the construction density proposed by the builder. Much blasting and grading will be needed, she said. The soil on the property is thin and trees will be destroyed in the development process, she said. She also expressed fears that developing the property would result in local flooding problems.

In light of Parmalee Hill Road area residents’ concerns that the presence of a new subdivision would generate additional local traffic and worsen hazardous traffic conditions on Parmalee Hill Road, P&Z members rejected the initially proposed subdivision in May 1999.

In December 1997, Daniels Hill Development, LLC, had applied to the Conservation Commission to do regulated construction work in wetland and watercourse areas on the site. The commission conducted public hearings on the application in February and March 1998, and rejected the application in April 1998. The developers sued the Conservation Commission in May 1998 in seeking court approval for the project. The developer later submitted a revised wetlands application to the Conservation Commission which gained commission approval in September 1998.