Hunter Ridge—

P&Z Reviews Revised Version Of 14-Lot Resubdivision

By Andrew Gorosko

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) is again considering a controversial proposal to create a 14-lot residential resubdivision on a 30-acre sloped site lying between Mt Pleasant Road and Taunton Lake.

P&Z members on August 20 held a public hearing on developer Hunter Ridge, LLC’s, proposal for the Hunter Ridge development, which would be built on the hilly site at 41-47 Mt Pleasant Road. A new 1,400-foot-long dead-end street known as Dakota Drive would be built to serve the 14 houses.

The site has 454 feet of frontage on Taunton Lake, a more than 100-acre, spring-fed lake that is ringed by privately owned properties. All stormwater from the site would eventually drain to the lake. Houses in the resdubdivision would have individual septic systems. The homes would be served by a public water supply.

The developer gained town wetlands approvals for the project in 2002. But in October 2005, the P&Z unanimously rejected the resubdivision proposal, citing various concerns about the open space aspects of the project.   

The developer then appealed that rejection in Danbury Superior Court in seeking to have a judge approve the project.

In June 2006, an intervenor entered the court proceedings, raising a variety of environmental issues about the proposed construction, charging that the project would have adverse effects on the lake and nearby land.

A trial on the intervenor’s claims was held late last year, with Judge Barbara Sheedy then remanding to the P&Z some revised plans for the resubdivision in which the developer addressed various environmental concerns that had been raised by the intervenor.

“This is an unusual situation for us. This is a remand from the court to hear this [application] again,” said P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean at the August 20 P&Z session.

Attorney Robert Hall, representing the developer, said that before the P&Z had rejected the application in 2005, the prime issue was whether the developer would provide the town with open space land at the site, or instead provide a fee in lieu of open space. Mr Hall has maintained that applicable land use rules do not require the developer to provide open space to the town.

In a tentative settlement of the initial court case, the developer had agreed to provide a $350,000 fee in lieu of open space to the town, Mr Hall said.

Before the P&Z had rejected the resubdivision proposal in October 2005, the developer had offered to provide a $172,000 fee in lieu of open space to the town. The town uses such funds to acquire open space elsewhere.

Typically, subdividers provide at least 15 percent of the acreage at a given site as public open space. Alternately, developers sometimes provide money to the town equivalent to ten percent of the value of the undeveloped land at the site as a fee in lieu of open space.

Mr Hall pointed out that the developer’s latest version of the project, which was formulated this year, modifies previous versions of the project with some changes in the placement of building-lot boundary lines.

Attorney Robert Fuller, representing the P&Z, said the judge’s having returned the project to the P&Z for its review and action pertains to the environmental issues raised by intervenor Spencer Taylor of 15 Taunton Lake Road. The court has not acted on the tentative settlement of the lawsuit that had been reached by the P&Z and the developer, Mr Fuller said.

Showing the P&Z a variety of landscape photos of the site, Mr Hall said that the area nearest the lake is the most environmentally sensitive section of the property.

Engineer

Engineer Larry Edwards, representing the developer, said the Hunter Ridge 14-lot proposal would involve a resubidivision of four undeveloped lots of the Rochambeau Woods subdivision that the P&Z had approved in 1970.

Mr Edwards said the latest version of the project would reduce the length of Dakota Drive by 15 feet; would reconfigure two building lots near Taunton Lake to realign their proposed driveway locations; would improve stormwater control measures to meet the latest engineering standards; would modify the proposed location of a house; and would reposition a proposed stormwater detention basin.

Modifying the proposed locations of the two driveways would be done in response to the intervenor’s concerns that the developer not disturb an inclined area on the site known as a “talus slope.” Such slopes of fragmentary rock provide flora/fauna “microhabitats.”

Mr Edwards said the proposed house nearest to Taunton Lake would be set back at least 200 feet from the lake, noting that the developer has sought to minimize environmental disturbances at the site.

George Logan of REMA Ecological Services, LLC, of Manchester, representing the developer, said a search at the site turned up no “box turtles” there, which were thought to exist on the property.

Most environmental research at the site focused on preventing the potential pollution of Taunton Lake, he said.

Current resubdivision plans seek to protect: the lake’s water quality, wetlands, the talus slope, and mature trees, he said. Mr Logan said the development design seeks to protect the lake from phosphorus contamination, which occurs when sediments and fertilizers enter the lake.

The current resubdivision proposal succeeds in environmentally protecting the lake, he said.

Mr Hall said that when the property is developed, some trees will need to be removed from the site.

“There are mature trees throughout the site, and some are going to be saved and some are not,” he said.

Ms Dean pointed out that the property holds “some big beautiful trees.” The P&Z wants assurances that such trees will not be unnecessarily removed from the site through unneeded clear-cutting, she said.

Mr Edwards said the developer can specifically identify mature trees on the site that would be preserved.

 

Intervenor

Attorney Joseph Hammer, representing Mr Taylor, told P&Z members that Taunton Lake “is a very special lake.” Mr Taylor, a lakeside resident, is not seeking to prevent development from occurring, the lawyer added.

Mr Taylor’s goal is to ensure that the development which occurs is “appropriate” for the site, Mr Hammer said.

Judge Sheedy found that that Mr Spencer’s expert witnesses at the court trial established the prospect of development causing environmental damage to the area, so the revised development proposal has been referred to the P&Z for review, according to Mr Hammer.

Mr Hammer termed the 14-lot resdubdivision proposal “a very, very aggressively dense development.” He asked that the intervenor’s experts be allowed to return to the site to check the accuracy of the developer’s revised mapped plans with the land itself.

The boundaries of the talus slope that have been depicted on the new mapping are “crucial,” he said, stressing the importance of the intervenor making another visit to the site.

Mr Hall, representing David French of Hunter Ridge, LLC, said the intervenor will not be allowed to return to the site.

Mr Hammer said the intervenor may ask the judge to obtain permission to reenter the property.

Ms Dean suggested it would be good for the developer to allow the intervenor to return to the site.

“We would hope they would reconsider,” Mr Hammer said.

Any P&Z action on the resubdivision proposal would be subject to Judge Sheedy’s review and action.

The P&Z public hearing on the Hunter Ridge resubdivision proposal is scheduled to resume on September 17.