Pine Crest Estates—

Developer Pursues Zone Change For 56 Condos; Neighbors Continue Opposition

By Andrew Gorosko

A developer’s requested change of zone for an Alberts Hill Road site envisioned for a 56-unit age-restricted, luxury-grade condominium complex has drawn continued strong opposition from nearby residents, who charge that constructing such a high-density project there is unwise.

Developer Jack Dweck of New Canaan, doing business as Pine Crest Estates, Inc, is seeking Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) approval to rezone a 20-acre property at 32 Alberts Hill Road from R-2 (Residential) to EH-10 (Elderly Housing).

The site formerly held The Cornerstone of Eagle Hill, a private drug and alcohol rehabilitation hospital, which closed several years ago.

P&Z members conducted a second public hearing on the rezoning proposal on December 15. An initial public hearing was held November 3. The P&Z is scheduled to discuss and possibly act on the requested zone change on January 19.

In 2003, Mr Dweck bought the property from Lutheran General Behavioral Health Corporation of Oak Brook, Ill., at a foreclosure sale for $1,375,000. P.W. Scott Engineering & Architecture of Brewster, N.Y., represents the applicant in the Pine Crest Estates proposal.

The site’s current R-2 zoning is intended for single-family houses on building lots of at least two acres. EH-10 zoning is intended for high-density, multifamily housing for people over age 55. The site lies on the north side of Albert’s Hill Road, about one-quarter mile from that road’s intersection with Walnut Tree Hill Road.

Obtaining a change of zone for the site is a preliminary step in developing the property with high-density construction. Condo complex construction also would require a special exception to the zoning regulations, plus a site plan approval.

On December 14, the developer submitted a P&Z application for a special exception to the zoning regulations. That application describes a condo construction proposal for the site.

The December 15 public hearing, however, was limited to the pending zone change application. A hearing on the special exception application has not yet been scheduled.

Project opponents have listed a variety of complaints about the development proposal, including additional traffic on hazardous roads in the area, environmental concerns, damaged property values, the prospect of depleted underground water supplies, and an adverse effect on the area’s character, among others. Opponents have submitted a petition to the P&Z bearing the names of more than 125 people who oppose the rezoning application. Many of the signers live in the vicinity of the site.

On December 21, First Selectman Herb Rosenthal said he does not support the 56-unit condo proposal because it represents too intensive a redevelopment of the site. The first selectman cited traffic issues as a prime concern about the project.

Development Proposal

Architect/engineer Peder Scott, representing the developer, told P&Z members December 15 that six buildings remain on the site from the former drug/alcohol rehabilitation hospital. Those structures enclose approximately 30,000 square feet of space.

The developer proposes both new construction and the conversion of existing structures for a 56-condo unit complex. New construction would create 38 of those units.

Engineer Mike Shortell, representing the developer, said one additional water well would need to be drilled to supply water to the 56 condos. That water would be channeled to an existing water supply system on the site. By a conservative estimate, 56 one-bedroom condos would require 8,400 gallons of water daily, he said. Water system upgrades would meet applicable heath department requirements, he said. The site would be served by a large-scale septic waste disposal system.

Traffic engineer Michael Galante, representing the developer, said that in view of the traffic concerns that were expressed at the November 3 public hearing, additional traffic studies were conducted on nearby roadways.

Mr Galante said that traffic generated by a condo complex would not create traffic problems at intersections in the area.

Douglas Rose of Scalzo Group Real Estate Services, representing the developer, presented a demographic study to P&Z members.

If it is not possible to construct a 56-unit condo complex on the site, the developer would prefer that the facility revert to its previous use as a drug/alcohol rehabilitation hospital, rather than being the site of nine single-family houses, Mr Rose said.

Prices for age-restricted condos would range from $375,000 to $600,000, with the average price of a unit being approximately $550,000, he said. The lower-priced condo units would be built within existing structures at the site, he said.

The presence of age-restricted housing would create property tax revenues for the town, Mr Rose said.

Mr Dweck has said a marketing study indicates that residents of the proposed condo complex would move there from the “general geographic area,” broadly “the Northeast,” and more specifically from places such as Westchester County, N.Y. The proposed condo complex would enhance property values in the area, Mr Dweck has stressed. He has predicted that nearby homes would increase in value by 20 to 30 percent due to their proximity to such a complex.

Attorney Peter Scalzo, representing the developer, told P&Z members that if the proposed condo complex does not materialize, the site could be used again as a hospital, or could hold nine or ten single-family houses, or could hold an “affordable housing” complex.

Some estimates of the site’s potential for single-family house construction have placed the number of houses as low as seven.

Mr Dweck’s first development choice for the site is age-restricted condos, Mr Scalzo said. The 2004 Town Plan of Conservation and Development calls for housing diversity and for elderly housing, he said.

Mr Scalzo stressed that 32 Alberts Hill Road is a good place to build 56 condos.

Mr Scott said that a condo complex would have minimal impact on the surrounding area. Developing the 20-acre site with single-family houses would damage the area’s appearance, he said.

Mr Scott termed the 56-unit condo proposal “a responsible development.”

In response, P&Z member Robert Mulholland asked whether the developer had considered creating an “open space subdivision” on the site. Town zoning regulations allow such development, also known as “cluster housing,” in which single-family houses are clustered on a site in order to preserve relatively large open space areas.

Mr Scott responded that such development would not be practical for the property. “It would be infeasible…It’s not viable,” he said.

Public Comment

Dan Calandro of 4 Hearthstone Lane read a lengthy statement describing his many strong objections to the condo complex proposal.

Mr Calandro asked how many Newtown residents would buy condos at such a complex. Granting a zone change for such residential growth would set a dangerous precedent, he said. The effect of increased traffic on the area is a prime concern, he added. “The [steep] landscape dictates harsh travel in this area,” he said. 

“There are many reasons to reject this proposal,” he said, adding that traffic safety is the prime reason to do so.

Mr Calandro termed Pine Crest Estates “a dangerous and irresponsible development.”

Lincoln Sander of 211 Walnut Tree Hill Road said that only three of the 62 existing age-restricted condos at Liberty at Newtown at 178 Mt Pleasant Road were purchased by Newtown residents. Ginsburg Development Corporation Connecticut, LLC, plans a total of 96 units on 40 acres at that luxury-grade condo complex.

Mary Fellows of 120 Walnut Tree Hill Road said that it is insulting to hear that if an age-restricted condo complex is not approved for the Alberts Hill Road site, an affordable housing complex might be sought as an alternative. The property does not have a public water supply or public sewers service, she said.

Bruce McLaughlin of Alberts Hill Road said that developing the site would mean creating many impervious surfaces, such as pavement and roofs, which would generate stormwater runoff that would damage the area’s surface water quality for aquatic life.

Mr McLaughlin also questioned the prospect of the developer finding another water source on the site in a place known for its limited well water supplies.

Joseph Hovious of 3 Leopard Drive, representing the town’s Open Space Task Force, expressed concern that the developer is not considering cluster housing for the site as a way to preserve open space land.

Timothy Haas of 1 Hearthstone Lane told P&Z members that the residents of a condo complex would require town services across time.

In response to the public comments, Mr Scott said the developer has hired the best available consultants to study the condo proposal. “This is a realistic proposal,” he stressed.

In a recent review of the condo proposal, Elizabeth Stocker, the town’s community development director, wrote, “While the site may be attractive for conversion to a higher density development, it poses serious challenges for development into independent elderly housing due to its remote location.”

The potential for additional development on surrounding properties, the lack of public sewers and a public water supply on the site, the nature of the roadways in the area, plus the site’s location within a sensitive watershed near the Housatonic River must be considered by the P&Z in reviewing the application, she added.

“The local roadways leading to this site pose serious challenges to any driver, regardless of the capacity of the roadway to absorb additional traffic,” Ms Stocker wrote. “So far, the low development density found in this area has been appropriate. The design of the roadway system in this area should be reviewed carefully to assure that additional housing density will not cause future safety hazards.”