Citing Environmental Concerns—

P&Z Rejects Nine-Lot Subdivision In Sandy Hook

By Andrew Gorosko

After determining that creating nine building lots for single-family houses on a steep, rugged 33.8-acre site off Walnut Tree Hill Road in Sandy Hook would amount to overdeveloping an environmentally sensitive property, Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members have unanimously rejected the controversial development proposal.

 P&Z members on December 21 rejected the proposal for the unnamed subdivision at 127 Walnut Tree Hill Road from the Schultz Family Limited Partnership. The densely forested site is near the intersection of Walnut Tree Hill Road and Alberts Hill Road.

The property has R-1 and R-2 zoning designations, which require minimum lot sizes of one acre and two acres, respectively. The developer had proposed donating approximately four acres of the site as open space for public use for passive recreation.

P&Z members listed a variety of reasons why they consider the submitted development plans for the property to be inappropriate.

P&Z found that an easement for a common driveway for two lots of the nine lots does not comply with the terms of applicable land use regulations.

“The plan to provide the maximum number of lots that would be permitted under the zoning regulations is not a practical approach to development upon this sensitive parcel,” P&Z members decided.

“The subdivision of this north-facing, steeply sloping terrain, as proposed, involves extensive disturbance of the natural [vegetative] ground cover, extensive re-contouring of the land, and the installation of several highly-engineered drainage systems, in order to provide usable home sites, septic systems, wells, and access driveways … There is too great a risk in relying upon such extensive engineering in order to realize the … subdivision proposal for this land,” according to P&Z.

“The potential that one major storm … combined with an engineering failure of one or more of the drainage systems could lead to flooding downhill and hazardous conditions upon the public road is not consistent with protecting public health, safety and welfare,” P&Z added.

Consequently, the requirements of the subdivision regulations have not been met, P&Z stated in rejecting the development proposal.

Due to the site’s physical limitations, only 24.6 acres of the 33.8-acre property are considered “usable land” under the terms of the land use rules.

In the developer’s plans presented at a September public hearing, seven of the proposed houses would have individual serpentine driveways that would contain switchback curves to allow those driveways to meet the town’s maximum allowable driveway grades. The other two houses, which would be situated on a high spot on the site, would have a long common driveway. Those two houses, which would be located well back from Alberts Hill Road, would be located on “rear lots.”

At the September public hearing, Julia Wasserman of 113 Walnut Tree Hill Road, who owns adjacent property lying south of the development site, posed questions on topics including the discharge of stormwater drainage from the site and the primary public accessway to open space on the site.

Also at that session, Mary Fellows of 120 Walnut Tree Hill Road told P&Z members that the site is in an environmentally sensitive area. Ms Fellows questioned the practicality of constructing a long common driveway for two houses on such steep, rugged terrain.

At that hearing, Morgen McLaughlin of Southbury, representing her family, which owns property on Alberts Hill Road, pointed out to P&Z members that the proposed common driveway would be on a north-facing slope, resulting in wintertime icing problems there.

The proposed development poses the prospect of deforestation and consequent erosion problems, she then said. Such development would create drainage problems in an environmentally sensitive area, she added. Ms McLaughlin had then urged that the two building lots that would be served by a long common driveway be eliminated from the development proposal.