Taunton Lake- P&Z Considers Environmental IssuesPosed By Hunter Ridge
Taunton Lakeâ
P&Z Considers Environmental Issues
Posed By Hunter Ridge
By Andrew Gorosko
The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) is again considering a controversial and contentious proposal to create a 14-lot residential resubdivision on an environmentally sensitive 30-acre sloped site lying between Mt Pleasant Road and Taunton Lake.
P&Z members on November 19 conducted a fourth public hearing on developer Hunter Ridge, LLCâs, proposal for the Hunter Ridge development, which would be built on the hilly, rocky site at 41-47 Mt Pleasant Road. A new, approximately 1,400-foot-long dead-end street known as Dakota Drive would be built to serve the 14 houses.
The site has about 450 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 resubdivision would have individual septic systems. The homes would be served by a public water supply.
Instead of creating open space on the site for passive forms of public recreation, the developer has offered to provide the town with a fee in lieu of open space in the amount of $350,000.
The Hunter Ridge proposal is unusual because the application was remanded to the P&Z for environmental review by a Danbury Superior Court judge.
The developer had gained town wetlands approvals for the project in 2002. But the P&Z unanimously rejected the development application in October 2005, citing various concerns about the open space aspects of the project.Â
The developer then appealed that rejection in Danbury Superior Court in seeking to have a judge approve the project. But in June 2006, intervenor Spencer Taylor, a lakeside resident at Taunton Lake Road, entered the court proceedings, raising a variety of environmental issues, charging that the project would have adverse effects on the lake and nearby land.
A trial on the intervenorâs claims occurred in late 2008, 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 Mr Taylor.
The P&Z closed its public hearing on Hunter Ridge on November 19. It is expected to discuss the application on December 3 and possibly formulate some developmental recommendations for Judge Sheedy. The judge retains the final jurisdiction in the case.
On November 19, attorney Joseph Hammer, representing Mr Taylor, and attorney Robert Hall, representing the developer, argued their respective clientsâ positions concerning the Hunter Ridge application.
A prime discussion topic was a recent letter to the P&Z on Hunter Ridge from Joseph Hovious, chairman of the Conservation Commission.
Mr Hovious objects to a proposal that calls for some fragmented conservation easements on the site, rather than large contiguous conservation easements.
Conservation easements are deed restrictions that are placed on privately owned land to prevent physical changes from occurring. Such easements are intended as environmental safeguards. Â
Mr Hovious wrote in the November 6 letter that, from a practical standpoint, it is difficult for the town to enforce the restrictions specified by such easements when those easements are scattered across a site instead of being contiguous.
As an alternative to the site design proposed by the developer, Mr Hovious recommends that cluster-style housing be constructed near Mt Pleasant Road and that the land near Taunton Lake be left undeveloped.Â
The Conservation Commission chairman expresses concern that placing 14 houses on the site would cause Taunton Lake pollution, result in the removal of mature trees, disturb the natural habitat, and cause soil erosion.
Mr Hovious urges that no pesticides or herbicides be used on the site, no mature trees be cut without permission, and that stiff penalties be levied in the event of oil spills or other pollution incidents.
Mr Hall questioned whether Mr Hovious had received the endorsement of the Conservation Commission in formulating that letter. Mr Hall characterized the Hovious letter as being âso antagonistic to the [Hunter Ridge] proposal.â
George Logan of REMA Ecological Services, LLC, of Manchester, representing the developer, challenged Mr Hoviousâs claim that conservation measures proposed for the site are inadequate. Mr Logan added that the letter contains misinformation.
Mr Hammer, representing Mr Taylor, said that several versions of the Hunter Ridge project that were presented by the developer since 2005 essentially amount to the same construction proposal.
Four proposed building lots, which are the lots that would be nearest to Taunton Lake, would be created on the most environmentally sensitive section of the property, he noted. Although the proposal has been revised several times, the current version âis still unacceptable,â he said. âIt will cause unreasonable harm to [natural] resources,â he said.
Environmental consultant Michael Klemens, representing Mr Taylor, said that âtalus slopesâ and bedrock outcroppings on the site need environmental protection in the face of home construction. Developing the four proposed building lots nearest the lake would require too much earthen disturbance and would unreasonably and irreparably damage the talus slopes and bedrock outcroppings, he said.
The intervenor claims that the talus slopes create special microhabitats for species on the site.
âYou have an old forest thereâ¦I do think this forest is important,â Mr Klemens added. âItâs part of a forested mosaicâ¦a forested ecosystemâ¦that surrounds Taunton Pond,â he said.
âWe do have important species here,â he said, adding that the proposed construction would eliminate important habitat for birds.
Mr Klemens recommended that no development occur in the area proposed for four building lots nearest Taunton Lake. Fragmentary conservation easements are ineffective in terms of environmental protection, he said.
Civil engineer Marc Goodin, representing Mr Taylor, charged that a stormwater detention basin proposed for the site does not meet applicable state standards and would be ineffective in controlling stormwater flows on the site. Mr Goodin said that the basin would lie too close to the underlying groundwater table to be effective, adding that water would drain from the structure too fast for it to be effective in protecting the lake.
Also, most conservation easements would unwisely be located in wetlands and would not be effective for environmental protection, he added.
The developer is seeking to create the maximum number of building lots possible on the site, Mr Goodin said.
The development design does not adequately protect Taunton Lake, he said, adding that âThere are feasible and prudent alternatives.â
Mr Hammer, representing Mr Taylor, charged that the development plans are âlacking and deficientâ and should be rejected by the P&Z. He urged that a lower, relatively flat area on the site nearest Taunton Lake not be developed. âThere will be unreasonable [environmental] harm, and there are alternatives,â he said.
Mr Hammer said that the P&Z should oppose any development in the area currently proposed for four building lots nearest the lake. Development should be allowed only in the area upgradient of the talus slopes on the site, he said.
Seeking to maximize the number of building lots possible on such an environmentally sensitive site is ânot practical,â he said.
Developer
Mr Hall, representing the developer, stressed that the P&Z would only be making a recommendation to Judge Sheedy on the Hunter Ridge proposal, not approving or rejecting the application.
The proposed conservation easements on the site are intended to restrict the locations of houses on the property, he explained. The currently proposed restrictions are stricter than previously proposed restrictions, he said.
The revised easement proposals have been expanded to include some forested areas to prevent the removal of certain trees, he said.
Civil engineer Larry Edwards, representing the developer, said that the stormwater detention basin proposed for the site would meet all applicable technical requirements and is a properly designed structure.
The developer would need to obtain state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) approval for the structure, Mr Edwards said. A detailed maintenance schedule would be provided for the townâs care of the structure, he said.
Mr Logan, representing the developer, said, âThe biodiversity of this site will be very much the same postdevelopment.â
âMy ânumber oneâ [environmental] focus has always been the lake,â Mr Logan said.
âWeâre not clear-cutting [trees] down to the lake,â he stressed, adding that the construction design does consider environmental protection.
All of the natural resources at the site that are worthy of protection would be protected by the construction design, he said.
âWe have preserved as much of that forest as is possible to preserve and still develop [the site] in a rational mannerâ¦Itâs not a dense development,â Mr Hall said. âThe plan today isâ¦a lot better⦠than it was in 2005,â he added.
The proposed subdivision road and a residential driveway have been altered to protect a talus slope on the site, he said.
P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean said P&Z members would be reviewing the information and testimony presented to them before discussing the construction at their December 3 session. The P&Z would then send some recommendations on the development application to Judge Sheedy for her consideration, Ms Dean said.