Date: Fri 14-Aug-1998

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Abbey-Ridge-Memoli

Full Text:

Abbey Ridge Development Plan Rejected By P&Z

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

For a second time, Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members have rejected

the construction of Abbey Ridge Estates, a proposed 8-lot residential

subdivision on 20 acres off South Main Street.

The action marks a test of P&Z's earth moving regulations for subdivisions

which strictly limit how much earth material can be removed from a site to

prepare it for construction.

Developer Angelo Memoli wants to build on a steep, rugged site east of South

Main Street and south of Botsford Hill Road, near the Monroe town line.

P&Z members unanimously rejected the development proposal at an August 6

session, citing several reasons for their action.

According to P&Z, seven of the proposed eight lots would have more than 200

cubic yards of earth materials removed from them, in violation of the P&Z's

maximum allowable earth removal for a building lot; grading on the site would

be too extensive under the terms of the land use regulations, involving the

removal of 22,088 cubic yards of material; and few trees would remain in the

front sections of the building lots, among other objections.

Voting to reject the application were P&Z members: James Boylan, Lilla Dean,

Daniel Fogliano, Robert Taylor and Herbert Hoover, Jr.

Before the action, P&Z member Heidi Winslow stated she wasn't voting on the

proposal, but offered the voting members some advice.

The P&Z's regulation on maximum earth removal from a building lot is clear in

stating that 200 cubic yards is the maximum amount allowed, she said. "I don't

think our regulation is ambiguous," she said.

Before the vote, lawyers for Mr Memoli had requested that the P&Z postpone

action on the development application for up to 45 days so P&Z members could

discuss the proposal and revise the earthmoving regulation to eliminate

ambiguity in it. The lawyers stressed Mr Memoli's application meets the town's

land use rules.

Mr Taylor urged P&Z members to act on the application August 6, saying members

have had plenty of discussion about the proposal already.

Ms Dean said she didn't know what would be gained by delaying action on the

matter.

Mr Hoover said "Our regulations are regulations. We can't go around deviating

(from them) every other time."

Mr Boylan agreed.

Mr Taylor then proposed the motion to reject the project and the other members

concurred.

Rule Change

In March 1997, P&Z members revised their regulations, strictly limiting the

amount of earth material which can be removed from house lots when

subdivisions are built. Those regulatory changes stemmed from the extensive

amount of earth material which was removed by developers of the Whispering

Pines subdivision in Sandy Hook which radically recontoured the landscape.

One reason the rules were changed was to have developers work with the

contours of the land, not work against the landscape, P&Z members have

explained.

The P&Z's rejection of the Abbey Ridge Estates application is significant

because it is the first time P&Z has applied its revised earthmoving rules in

deciding on a residential subdivision application.

The intent of the revised regulations is not to create larger building lots,

but to prevent the extensive regrading of a site, which can result in erosion

problems.

At a July P&Z session, P&Z Chairman Stephen Koch, who was not present August

6, said he supports the intent of the revised regulations to limit regrading,

but added he expects that if the Abbey Ridge Estates project were rejected for

a second time by P&Z, the applicant would rebel and possibly file a lawsuit.

Based on comments made by P&Z's attorney, Mr Koch has pointed out that the

wording of the revised regulations poses interpretive problems for P&Z

members.

Last December, P&Z unanimously rejected the initial eight-lot version of Abbey

Ridge Estates.

At a public hearing last November, residents living near the site being eyed

for development voiced fears that blasting needed to build there would damage

their properties. They also said the project would worsen traffic safety in an

already hazardous area.

In turning down the initial version of the project, P&Z members said the site

did not contain sufficient open space land.

The 20-acre parcel has been discussed for years as a housing site. In the

past, developer Harvey Gerber suggested it as a site for affordable housing.