Environmental Review—

P&Z Advises Judge on Hunter Ridge Resubdivision Proposal

By Andrew Gorosko

After lengthy review, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has made a series of environmental protection recommendations to a Danbury Superior Court judge on a controversial proposal to create a 14-lot residential resubdivision on an environmentally sensitive 30-acre sloped site lying between Mt Pleasant Road and Taunton Lake.

At a December 17 session, P&Z members endorsed a letter to Judge Barbara Sheedy describing the panel’s consensus of opinion on environmental protection for the Hunter Ridge project, as proposed by developer Hunter Ridge, LLC. The judge retains the final jurisdiction in the case.

P&Z member Jane Brymer, however, said she believes the proposed construction project would amount to an overdevelopment of the site at 41-47 Mt Pleasant Road.

The P&Z’s recommendations to the judge on environmental protection come after the panel conducted four lengthy sessions on the Hunter Ridge proposal in August, September, October, and November, listening to comments from the applicant and from a legal intervenor in the case.

Hunter Ridge represents an unusual case because, as the subject of a court appeal, the judge remanded the matter to the P&Z for environmental advice.

Also, the P&Z’s environmental review of Hunter Ridge became the stimulus for the panel to approve a set of new environmental protection regulations at its December 17 session. Those regulations will apply to future applications for subdivisions, resubdivisions, site development plans, and special permits. (See related story)

Developer David French, doing business as Hunter Ridge, LLC, 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.

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, of 15 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 intervener’s claims occurred in late 2008, with Judge 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.

P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean told P&Z members December 17 that after reviewing the P&Z’s environmental recommendations, Judge Sheedy would issue a decision on the pending court appeal.

In the letter to the judge, P&Z members wrote, “The plan submitted by Hunter Ridge, LLC, at the 2009 hearing is an (environmental protection) improvement over the original (2005) plans.”

Environmental Review

The P&Z considered four general environmental aspects of the development proposal.

The issues included: the protection of a geological feature known as a “talus slope” on the site; the preservation of mature forest; the preservation of wetlands; and the protection of the present character, water quality, and use of the nearby Taunton Lake.

The P&Z considered those issues in view of the many changes to the landscape that would be made when forested land would be converted into the site for 14-single-family homes served by an approximately 1,400-foot-long new dead-end street, public utilities, driveways, septic systems, and stormwater control devices, among other features.

At a November P&Z session on the Hunter Ridge proposal, an environmental consultant representing Mr Taylor had urged that no development occur on the section of the site nearest to Taunton Lake, where the developer has proposed constructing four of the 14 building lots for Hunter Ridge.

Representatives for the developer countered that the site’s design, as currently proposed by the developer, provides suitable environmental protection.

In their commentary submitted to the judge, P&Z members found that under the developer’s revised proposal to environmentally protect the talus slope, a stormwater control basin, as well as two driveways would be relocated, and the proposed road would be shorter than was initially planned. Also, a conservation easement would be put in force to protect the talus slope, they found.

Also, P&Z members noted that conservation easements proposed for three building lots would protect areas of mature forest. An inventory of mature trees has been performed, they added.

Additionally, various design changes have been made for the sake of wetlands preservation, the P&Z found.

Concerning the protection of Taunton Lake, P&Z members found that the placement of a 200-foot-wide buffer area adjacent to the lake, in which no construction would be allowed, would environmentally protect the area and would protect the appearance of the shoreline.

Also, the design of the stormwater drainage system for the proposed Dakota Drive, plus larger stormwater control basins on the site, should reasonably protect Taunton Lake water quality, they found.

In their consensus, P&Z members found that the proposed development “will not unreasonably pollute, impair or destroy the natural resources on this property.”

However, the panel asks that the judge impose two requirements on the developer in view of the environmental sensitivity of the site.

To prevent sedimentation problems during the construction process, the P&Z wants the developer to file weekly erosion/sedimentation reports with the town’s wetlands protection unit.

Also, to ensure that the stormwater control basins on the site adequately control stormwater flow, the town wetlands unit should inspect the devices one year after they are put into use. Also, the developer should be required to conduct a water quality sampling program to gauge the effectiveness of the stormwater control devices.

The Hunter Ridge 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.

The homes on the site 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.

Early in 2001, Ginsburg Development Corporation of Westchester County, N.Y., had proposed using the 30-acre Mt Pleasant Road site, plus some adjacent land, as the location for an age-restricted condominium complex which would include 110 attached townhouses.

But in the face of strong local opposition and questions about the availability of sanitary sewers for such a complex, Ginsburg later dropped its plans for the property.