Date: Fri 16-May-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Tamarak-Woods-Schmidle

Full Text:

Residents Attack Tamarack Woods Plan At Public Hearing

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members are considering the third version

of Tamarack Woods, a controversial 10-lot residential subdivision proposed for

almost 33 acres near Upper Paugussett State Forest.

The land lies within the area bounded by Tamarack Road, Sanford Road, and Echo

Valley Road.

Applicant M&E Land Group and nearby residents made clear their conflicting

views on the construction request at a May 8 P&Z public hearing.

P&Z Chairman Stephen Koch granted Mae and Robert Schmidle of 53 Echo Valley

Road their requested intervenor status in the development application. The

intervention allows the Schmidles to be a third party to the application to

protect their environmental interests. The Schmidle property abuts the

development site.

Attorney Robert Hall represents M&E.

The developers withdrew an initial application last summer. The P&Z rejected a

second application last December. The Conservation Commission approved all

three wetlands construction applications which were submitted for Tamarack

Woods.

The pending application is similar to the initial one, Mr Hall said.

The current application isn't subject to the town's requirement that water

storage for firefighting be situated on the premises, he explained.

"This subdivision has received active opposition from many of the neighbors in

the vicinity," Mr Hall said.

Although the Schmidles have a legal appeal pending against the Conservation

Commission and M&E over the Conservation Commission's approval of the third

version of Tamarack Woods, no judge has issued a restraining order in the

case, Mr Hall said. "The (P&Z) is free to proceed on this application," he

added.

"We are between a rock and hard place on this property," Mr Hall said, noting

that no matter what approach the applicant has taken in developing the land,

there's always someone in the neighborhood who doesn't like the project.

Based on the various plan revisions that M&E has made since its initial

application, it has addressed the environmental aspects of the project, the

lawyer said.

In the current application, there is no dead-end street proposed, Mr Hall

said, noting that the presence of a proposed dead-end street was one of the

issues raised by the P&Z when it turned down the second version of the plan

last December. In the current application, driveways would lead from the three

roads bounding the site. P&Z members also had complained that the open space

land proposed in the second version of the plan was unsuitable.

Larry Edwards, an M&E partner and the engineer for the project, said 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 for open space use.

Road work proposed for the project would involve widening Sanford Road and

Tamarack Road, laying down gravel to improve the roads' surfaces, and

installing drainage structures.

A driveway would cross wetlands to reach the proposed Lot 2, Mr Edwards said.

All septic systems would be designed by engineers. Three of the 10 lots in the

subdivision would be rear lots. The driveway grades proposed for homes in

Tamarack Woods meet town standards, Mr Edwards told P&Z members.

Mr Edwards submitted an environmental study which was prepared for the

developers.

Opposition

Intervenor Robert Schmidle said although the dirt Sanford Road is 14 feet

wide, on average, the development plans indicate that Sanford Road would be 20

feet wide. "We're concerned that Sanford Road will be turned into another

(wide dirt) road like Alberts Hill Road," he said.

The dirt roads in the area should remain as they are, he said. Tamarack Road

is also largely a dirt road.

Development will increase water runoff, Mr Schmidle said, noting that such

runoff could pollute a wetland off Sanford Road which recharges area

underground water supplies. A home heating fuel spill into the wetlands could

be environmentally catastrophic, he stressed.

Noting the presence of extensive rock ledge at the development site, Mr

Schmidle said that blasting needed to remove the ledge could change the

character of watercourses in the area.

Mr Schmidle asked P&Z members to ensure the development proposal meets the

minimum requirements for positioning houses on building lots.

"I'm opposed to this subdivision," he said.

Intervenor Mae Schmidle, his wife, said the developers must obtain a new road

work agreement for improvements to Sanford Road and Tamarack Road, and not

submit the road work agreement which they had received from the selectmen for

their first development application.

"This proposal has taken the wettest of the wetlands and treated it like a

croquet lawn," she said.

Ms Schmidle suggested that Lot 2 and Lot 3 in the proposed development be

designated as open space land to protect underground water supplies. She

further suggested that the developers donate that land to the state to create

a buffer area between the development and the adjacent state forest where

hunting occurs.

In light of the wetlands and ledge on the proposed Lots 2 and 3, Mrs Schmidle

said, "You've either got to be a mountain goat or a lizard to live on those

two lots. But I think the lizard would be happier there."

"This proposal should be seriously revamped, with the environment in mind,"

she said.

Resident Lillian Strickler of 6 Tamarack Road said, "My property would be most

adversely affected by the development," noting its proximity to the site.

Traffic in and out of the development would create noise and shining headlamp

problems, she said.

Mrs Strickler said she fears new development nearby will damage her well water

supply.

"It is a rocky outcrop...The terrain has to be considered...It's too many lots

for this hunk of ledge," she said of Tamarack Woods.

Mrs Strickler said the developers' first application was the best one.

"A Hunk Of Ledge"

Attorney Cordalie Benoit of 23 Sanford Road, who represents the Schmidles in

their lawsuit against the Conservation Commission and M&E, said "It is a hunk

of ledge, and what isn't a hunk of ledge is underwater."

"You only need approve what you feel meets the proper planning and zoning of

the Town of Newtown," she told P&Z members.

"This open space is a total rock.... It has no value for recreation. They're

giving you something that cannot be utilized in any way," she said. A wetland

along Sanford Road would make for a better open space area, she said.

Half of the driveways for the development would extend from the most hazardous

road, which is Sanford Road, she said. Most site access should be provided

from Echo Valley Road, she said.

"Ten lots is too big (a project) for this hunk of rock," she said.

Ms Benoit suggested that some variant of the second version of Tamarack Woods

be submitted for P&Z review. In the second version, nine of the 10 lots would

have been served by a dead end road extending from Tamarack Road.

Of existing roads in the area, Ms Benoit said, "These roads are antique roads.

They are beautiful roads. We don't want to see them destroyed or damaged."

Even if town regulations don't strictly require the developers to install a

water storage tank for firefighting, such a water supply should be created on

the property, Ms Benoit said.

Resident Lou Reda of Tamarack Road suggested that access to the site be

provided by a road extending from Echo Valley Road. Mr Reda expressed concerns

about drainage in the area and the effect that development would have on his

house's stone foundation.

Resident Martha Wright of Tamarack Road said the steps planned to improve

roads adjacent to the development would only be temporary ones in light of the

damage done to gravel-covered roads by snowplows in the wintertime.

"Bad Statements"

In response to comments made at the public hearing, Mr Hall said, "There's bad

statements being made tonight."

"You should see it for yourself," Mr Hall told P&Z members in urging them to

convene a meeting at the development site. P&Z members said they had been to

the site in the past.

Mr Hall pressed P&Z members to allow him to cross-examine people who spoke

against Tamarack Woods at the public hearing.

Mr Hall indirectly received answers to some of his questions, but Mrs

Schmidle, an intervenor, refused to verbally answer Mr Hall's questions,

instead preferring to submit written responses.

Mr Hall's main questions to the Schmidles concerned a modified map of the site

which they presented at the hearing. Mr Hall wants to know how the map was

prepared and who prepared it.

The only environmental issue facing the P&Z is whether the property contains

enough underground water to supply people who move into new houses there,

according to Mr Hall. Mr Hall presented a hyrdogeologic study of the site

prepared for the developers.

In response to public hearing comments, Mr Edwards said it's not unusual to

have an engineer design all septic systems in a development.

The developers would provide some type of visual screening between Mrs

Strickler's property and the proposed new driveway alongside it, he said.

P&Z Chairman Stephen Koch decided to continue the public hearing to a future

meeting until the Schmidles submit written answers to Mr Hall's various

questions.