Boggs Hill Area Subdivision Proposal Raises Concerns

By Andrew Gorosko

A proposal for a five-lot residential subdivision, near the intersection of Boggs Hill Road and Head of Meadow Road, has drawn criticism from some Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members, who question the procedural and open space aspects of the application.

Also, the application also has raised concerns from some nearby residents, who say they fear that the project would alter the neighborhood’s character for the worse.

Applicant Donald Ferris proposes creating five building lots on 21 acres at the envisioned Head of Meadow Estates. The site is on the west side of Boggs Hill Road, lying south of the intersection of Boggs Hill Road and Head of Meadow Road.

A house that was recently built on Boggs Hills Road immediately south of that intersection is the “first cut” from the land parcel, and thus is not considered part of the five-lot subdivision application.

The applicant is seeking permission to create four building lots on Boggs Hill Road, one of which would be a rear lot, plus one building lot on Head of Meadow Road.

Engineer Michael Mazzucco, representing the applicant, described the development proposal to P&Z members at a March 20 public hearing. The site lies in R-2 and R-3 Residential zones, which require minimum two-acre and three-acre building lots, respectively. The proposed five lots average more than four acres in size. One of the five proposed houses, on west side of Boggs Hill Road, would be built in a wooded area. The other four houses would be built in cleared areas, which have been pastureland.

The developer proposes providing the town with a fee in lieu of open space, instead of donating open space land on the site for passive forms of recreation. A 20,000-gallon underground water storage tank would be buried off Boggs Hill Road as a water source for firefighting in the area.

Approximately five acres of the site are wetlands. The subdivision proposal had not yet received a wetlands permit from the Conservation Commission, which serves as the town’s wetlands agency. The site holds extensive wetlands.

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil told Mr Mazzucco that town land use officials had advised him to first obtain wetlands approval for the project from the Conservation Commission before seeking P&Z subdivision approval.

Instead, the applicant sought to simultaneously pursue approvals from both agencies, Mr O’Neil noted. In pursuing simultaneous approvals, an applicant creates a difficult situation for himself, Mr O’Neil said.

“You’ve created all sorts of problems by trying to proceed [directly] to us,” the P&Z chairman said. Such simultaneous applications complicate the P&Z’s review of development proposals because, at the P&Z’s public hearing stage of the application, P&Z members do not know the terms of a potential wetlands approval for the project, Mr O’Neil said.

Also, during the course of the March 20 public hearing, P&Z members expressed frustrations about a mix-up involving mapping depicting differing versions of the proposed subdivision.

Public Comment

A number of residents who live near the development site raised concerns about the subdivision proposal.

Robbie Dubroff of 3 Shepard Hill Road told P&Z members that she owns 15 adjacent acres, 11 acres of which are under a conservation easement to the Humane Society. Ms Dubroff said she would like to have the developer designate an open space area for passive recreation on his 21-acre site, instead of donating a fee in lieu of open space to the town.

Louis Palmer of 23 Head of Meadow Road asked what effect the proposed construction would have on the area’s underground water supply.

Mr O’Neil said the state government considers building lots of at least two acres to have sufficient area for a well-based domestic water supply. The proposed lots would average approximately four acres, he noted.

Mr O’Neil also pointed out that the applicant meets the P&Z’s recently revised development rules, which more strictly define building lots, by excluding wetlands and steep slopes from the calculation of lot sizes.

Jeffrey Speirs of 39 Boggs Hill Road asked whether a subdivision’s effect on a neighborhood’s “character” is a matter that P&Z members consider when reviewing such applications.

Mr O’Neil responded that factors such as “neighborhood character” are only under consideration when the P&Z reviews applications for “special exceptions” to the zoning regulations, not subdivision applications.

The P&Z’s consideration of “neighborhood character” recently played a prime role in its rejection of the Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc’s, request for a special exception to build a 7,600-square-foot Buddhist temple/meeting hall at 145 Boggs Hill Road, which is about two miles south of the Head Of Meadow Estates site. The Buddhist society has appealed that rejection in Danbury Superior Court.

Anthony Riskalla of 21 Head of Meadow Road said the area proposed for development largely has served as a hayfield. Mr Riskalla, a former West Haven resident, said he was attracted to Head of Meadow Road about 23 years ago by its agrarian aspect. The rural aspect of the area is very important to him and his wife, Mr Riskalla said.

Adam Waller of 15 Shepard Hill Road pointed out that if the developer were required to provide an approximately two-acre open space area to the town, instead of providing a fee in lieu of open space, it might mean that there would be one less building lot in the proposed subdivision.

P&Z member Robert Poulin said, however, that if the open space offered by the developer to the town holds no recreational value, such as a swamp, it makes more sense for the town to receive a fee in lieu of open space. The town would use such money to acquire open space elsewhere.

Kathy Lent of 7 Blanche’s Walk asked P&Z members to show her precisely where her property sits in relation to the proposed development. Concerned residents of the area want to preserve the character of the neighborhood, she stressed.

“We all thought we were going to be protected when we bought our homes in this area,” she said, adding that the neighborhood is a “beautiful area.”

P&Z members then concluded the public hearing on Head of Meadow Estates, which had lasted about one hour.

P&Z member Daniel Fogliano, however, then urged P&Z members to add an item to that night’s meeting agenda for the P&Z’s discussion of the development proposal, which members agreed to do.

Mr Fogliano then objected that the developer has not proposed providing any open space on the 21-acre site.

“I think that this application went through the wrong process. I think the applicant jumped the gun,” Mr Fogliano said.

Mr Fogliano strongly objected to the developer offering a fee in lieu of open space, instead of offering open space on the property. The application has many problems, the P&Z member said. “I think this application needs the open space,” Mr Fogliano said.

In subdivision applications, developers typically donate at least 10 percent of a parcel’s land area as open space for passive forms of recreation, such as hiking and nature study. Such open space is donated either to the town or to a land trust.

P&Z members are expected to act on Head of Meadow estates at an upcoming session.