Revised Subdivision Plan Still Draws

Criticism On Parmalee Hill Rd

By Andrew Gorosko

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) is considering a modified version of Daniels Hill Estates, a controversial 13-lot residential subdivision, proposed for a wet and rugged 40-acre parcel west of Parmalee Hill Road, which the P&Z rejected a year ago.

The P&Z rejected the earlier version of Daniels Hill Estates, citing public safety hazards posed by the presence of added traffic generated by new development on the narrow, winding, hilly Parmalee Hill Road.

Daniels Hill Development, LLC, of Trumbull then sued the P&Z in seeking to overturn the subdivision rejection.

But Superior Court Judge Dennis Eveleigh dismissed the developer’s lawsuit in January, ruling in favor of the P&Z.

Besides filing the second version of Daniels Hill Estates with the P&Z, the developers have filed an appeal of Judge Eveleigh’s decision with the Connecticut Appellate Court.

Just as the first application did, the second application met with opposition from area residents at a May 18 P&Z public hearing. P&Z members took no action on the application.

Resident Penny Meek of 40 Butterfield Road, who had spoken strongly against the first application, also criticized the second version.

Using a variety of graphics, Ms Meek explained her opposition to the plan to P&Z members in detail.

Ms Meek lives next to the Butterfield Woods, a development constructed during the past several years by builder Michael Burton, who is one of the partners in Daniels Hill Development, LLC.  

Ms Meek expressed concern that added traffic would pose safety problems on Parmalee Hill Road. The heavy truck traffic that would accompany subdivision construction would pose safety hazards, she said, noting it takes several years for the homes in such a development to be built. The section of Parmalee Hill Road north of the development site is too narrow for two vehicles to pass, she said, adding that the street is hilly and has many blind curves. The road is difficult to travel in the wintertime, she said. Ms Meek provided P&Z members with a variety of photos depicting sets of skid marks on Parmalee Hill Road.

Ms Meek said the development site contains steep slopes and much water, adding that the property is inappropriate for the construction density proposed by the builder. Much blasting and grading will be needed, she said. The soil on the property is thin and trees will be destroyed in the development process, she said. Ms Meek charged that the development application does not conform to the P&Z’s regulations on open space land.

Ms Meek questioned how well the proposed construction work would be done. She also expressed fears that developing the property would result in local flooding problems. The developers of the site are only interested in making profits, she said.

The Butterfield Road resident presented P&Z members with a petition signed by area residents endorsing her viewpoint.

Also, Ms Meek presented P&Z members with a list of requirements that she wants put in force if the Daniel Hills Estates application is approved. The requirements concern: portable toilets on construction sites; covered dumpsters for waste disposal; gravel aprons on new driveways; the disposal of grease cartridges; construction work hours; the prohibition of parties by construction workers; noise restraints; the limitation of water runoff; and blasting.

Resident Joseph Pastorkovich of 14 Georges Hill Road expressed concern over the presence of extensive wetlands on the development site and the potential for flooding problems. A beaver dam on the property holds back a significant amount of water, he said.

Resident Robert Dresser of 134 Currituck Road said, “This is really a very delicate area,” in raising concerns about potential flooding problems.

Resident Justin Scott of 40 Parmalee Hill Road said if the development is approved, the neighborhood can expect much more traffic on a hazardous road. Mr Scott urged that the developers’ traffic engineer to recheck his calculations that indicate no problems with extending a new road off Parmalee Hill Road. Each new subdivision built in the area worsens traffic hazards and drainage problems, Mr Scott said.

Resident Stephen Greenfield of 29 Parmalee Hill Road told P&Z members “Public safety is a significant issue here.”

 

Applicant

Attorney William Denlinger, representing the applicant, said the developers have negotiated a roadwork agreement with the town specifying the improvements the developers would make at their expense to Parmalee Hill Road if the subdivision is approved. The developers obtained the agreement because not having such a pact was one reason the P&Z turned down the first version of the development, he said.

The agreement calls for the developers to install some curbing in the area where the proposed subdivision road would intersect with Parmalee Hill Road.

The developers have made certain changes to the project since the initial rejection, including the construction of a stormwater detention basin and a revised grading plan, Mr Denlinger said.

The proposed development complies with all applicable town land use regulations, said engineer Larry Edwards, representing the applicant.

In light of Parmalee Hill Road area residents’ concerns that the presence of a new subdivision would generate additional local traffic and worsen hazardous traffic conditions on Parmalee Hill Road, P&Z members rejected the initially proposed subdivision in May 1999. At a March 1999 public hearing, Parmalee Hill Road area residents had warned P&Z members that the proposed subdivision would pose added safety hazards on that steep, narrow, winding street.

In December 1997, Daniels Hill Development, LLC, had applied to the Conservation Commission to do regulated construction work in wetland and watercourse areas on the site. The commission conducted public hearings on the application in February and March 1998, and rejected the application in April 1998. The developers sued the Conservation Commission in May 1998 in seeking court approval for the project. The developer later submitted a revised wetlands application to the Conservation Commission which gained commission approval in September 1998.