17-Lot Subdivision—

Residents Push Developer To Keep Split Rock Road’s Dead End

By Andrew Gorosko

In response to concerns expressed by Split Rock Road residents, the developers of a proposed 17-lot residential subdivision off Eden Hill Road, have agreed to revise their design plans for Oak Ridge III, with an eye toward keeping Split Rock Road as a dead-end street rather than converting it into a through-road that would connect to the subdivision.

The Oak Ridge III subdivision proposal, comprising 17 lots on 79.3 acres, is the largest single-family house development project that has been submitted for P&Z review during the past several years. P&Z members aired the developers’ proposal and public comments at a January 8 hearing.

The applicants for Oak Ridge III are Nick and Gina Vona, Mason Contractors of Fairfield, which is a partnership, and also W.F. Brothers, LLC. The applicants own the former farmland at 46 Eden Hill Road, near the Easton town line.

Oak Ridge III would be the final phase of the Oak Ridge subdivision. In 1989, the Vona brothers gained town approval for 16 lots in Oak Ridge Phase I. In 1996, they received approval for 28 lots in Oak Ridge Phase II. The Oak Ridge complex contains large, elaborate houses on heavily landscaped lots.

Attorney James Murphy of Wilton, representing the developers, told P&Z members that the applicants plan to construct the same type of development that they built in the first two phases of the project.

“They plan to do the same high quality work and produce the same high quality result,” Mr Murphy said.

The proposal meets the requirements of the land use regulations, he said, noting that the details for the project are described on 41 large sheets of development drawings.

About 31 acres of the site would be protected by conservation easements and more than 11 acres would be designated as open space land, Mr Murphy said. The proposed open space would link to other existing open space in the area, he said. The Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) has endorsed the project, he added.

An existing fire pond on the property would be removed and replaced by two 30,000-gallon underground water storage tanks for firefighting.

“The topography drives this project,” Mr Murphy said, adding that the developers are sensitive to the environmental issues posed by the presence of wetlands and the slope of the land.

“This is a heavily wooded site and it’s designed to stay that way, as much as possible, “ Mr Murphy told P&Z members.

The site proposed for development holds mature trees, fields, and forested wetlands. The site also holds some stone walls that remain from its former farm uses, as well as some trails.

As proposed to the P&Z on January 8, the development would require the construction of approximately 3,100 feet of new roadway to serve the building lots.

Residents’ Concerns

Several residents of Split Rock Road said they do not want the dead-end street that they live on to become a through-road extending to Oak Ridge III, as was proposed by the developers.

Split Rock Road is a residentially zoned street containing 17 properties that extends westward from Eden Hill Road and lies south of the development site. The plans presented by the developers on January 8 would extend Split Rock Road northward into the development site, creating through-traffic on a street which has always been a dead end.

Resident Norman Urquhart of 23 Split Rock Road, which lies on the road’s turnaround circle, said his family moved there because the site was at the end of a dead-end street.

Extending Split Rock into the Oak Ridge development would result in increased traffic on Split Rock Road, he said.

“We’d like the cul-de-sac to remain a cul-de-sac,” he said.

Mr Urquhart said his family paid a premium price for their house because it is located at the end of a dead-end street, and thus would like to get that premium back when the house is eventually sold.

Resident Douglas Guion of 16 Split Rock Road presented P&Z members with a petition from that road’s residents calling for the street to remain a dead-end street. Mr Guion said he is concerned about preserving the quality of the neighborhood and does not want through-traffic flowing through it.

Resident Charles Foster of 4 Split Rock Road said that having through-traffic in the neighborhoods would make it a less safe place and would decrease house values. He suggested some development design that would place a barrier at the end of Split Rock Road that would allow only fire trucks to enter Oak Ridge, as needed.

Resident Gary Dimmick of 2 Split Rock Road endorsed keeping through-traffic out of the Split Rock Road neighborhood.

Resident Robert Hutchinson of 8 Split Rock Road voiced safety concerns about allowing Split Rock Road to become a through-road.

In response to Split Rock Road residents’ concerns, Mr Murphy, representing the developers, said that alternate road designs for Oak Ridge are possible.

The developers are amenable to modifying the road design of Oak Ridge, he said, adding that the project could be constructed without converting Split Rock Road into a through-road, if required by the P&Z.

P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean said, “I don’t think it’s necessary to build a road out [from Oak Ridge] to Split Rock Road.” She asked the developers to return to the P&Z with alternate road designs that would not require Split Rock Road to become a through-road.

Ms Dean also asked the developers to consider a subdivision design that does not contain shared driveways for property owners because such designs tend to create conflicts between adjacent property owners. The developers’ plans presented to the P&Z at the January 8 hearing contained some shared driveways.

The P&Z plans to resume the public hearing on Oak Ridge II on February 5.