P&Z Rejects Walnut Tree Village Expansion

By Andrew Gorosko

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has rejected a proposed expansion of the Walnut Tree Village condominium complex in Sandy Hook, citing numerous objections to the development plan which would have increased the number of condo units there from 80 to 213.

P&Z members November 18 unanimously rejected the controversial expansion plans, but held out the possibility that Walnut Tree Developers return to the P&Z with some modified plan that would be more acceptable. The P&Z denied the application “without prejudice,” meaning the developers would not have to undergo a one-year waiting period before returning with a new proposal.

Walnut Tree Village is the town’s first condominium project. Construction on the complex intended for people over age 55 started on an 18-acre site on Walnut Tree Hill Road in 1995. The initial construction phase, plus the proposed expansion, have both been controversial plans, drawing criticism from nearby residents.

“I’m not in favor of approving this [expansion] for a host of reasons,” P&Z Chairman Daniel Fogliano told P&Z members at the outset of the November 18 session.  “There are so many things they [developers] want to change in this application,” he said. Such changes involve driveway lengths, sidewalk widths, building setbacks and building heights, among other features.

“They need to come back to us with a better plan,” Mr Fogliano said. “There are too many things wrong with it,” he said, adding that approving the expansion plans would leave the P&Z in a similar situation to the quandary it faced recently when it approved various construction changes to the initial plans for the 80-unit complex.

Earlier this month, the P&Z started reconciling the differences between the 1995 construction plans for the 80-unit Walnut Tree Village and the complex, which was eventually built. The developers had made many changes to the complex’s construction plans since 1995 without first receiving direct approvals from the P&Z. The developers then sought to get approvals for the changes after those changes were made. P&Z members agreed to alter many aspects of the construction plans, but balked at approving certain changes, such as the creation of walkout basements in some condo units.

P&Z member Heidi Winslow noted that the steeply sloped property eyed for the condo expansion project is heavily wooded. About 70 percent of the 35-acre expansion site would need regrading, resulting in the loss of many trees, which stabilize soil on the hillside, she said.

Ms Winslow questioned the high construction density of the project. The developers’ approach in expanding the complex is to maximize the number of units on the property by greatly altering the landscape, she said. Ms Winslow questioned the wisdom of placing a building atop a ridgeline as proposed by the developers. She also questioned the need to build roadways with hairpin turns to meet town road grading standards, adding that such an approach to development leads to an extensive paving of the landscape. Ms Winslow said the developers must make an effort to preserve the property’s natural features.

Mr Fogliano said the developers’ plans are too disruptive to the landscape. He questioned the value of the open space parcel, which the developers offered for passive recreation. The community center proposed by the developers is too small for the number of people who would potentially use it, he said.

P&Z member Robert Taylor said that although the town needs more housing designated for people over 55, the site for Walnut Tree Village is “very rough and rugged.” He suggested the applicants submit some modified development plan.

Similarly, Mr Fogliano said housing for the elderly is needed locally, but the specific plans submitted to expand Walnut Tree Village are not the way to provide such housing.  

Ms Winslow said the condo buildings proposed for the site are placed too close together. She asked that the developers modify the grading plan proposed for the property and improve the motorist sight lines from a proposed driveway off Walnut Tree Hill Road.

“I would like to see another application come back,” Mr Fogliano said. He suggested that the developers, Louis DeFilio and George Trudell, who do business as Walnut Tree Developers, have conferences with the town land use staff on what would make for an appropriate development of the site. “This one [application] is just not the right one for this piece of property,” Mr Fogliano said.

The Vote

In rejecting the expansion project, P&Z members voted on a detailed motion listing numerous objections to the development proposal.

Issues raised in the motion include the extent of regrading; the amount of fill which would be removed from the site during a five-year construction period; unacceptably steep slope cuts; and the closeness of buildings.

The P&Z suggested that extensive physical disturbance to the site could be reduced by a revised site design in which building sizes are reduced and housing densities are reduced to a point that would better maintain the natural features and contours of the land.

“It is apparent that the applicants’ goal was to maximize the development potential of the property, rather than design a project that would contribute to the neighborhood,” the P&Z states in its motion. The high construction density proposed for the expansion project could result in unforeseen development problems concerning excavation and filling, posing construction uncertainties which are unacceptable when an applicant is seeking a special exception to the zoning regulations for a project, it adds.

Asked November 22 what they plan to do in light of the P&Z’s rejection of the Walnut Tree Village expansion proposal, neither Mr DeFilio nor Mr Trudell would publicly comment. The developers have worked on expansion plans for Walnut Tree Village for the past two years.