Aug. 2011 Easton Planning & Zoning Resolution - Saddle Ridge

8/6/2019 Aug. 2011 Easton Planning & Zoning Resolution - Saddle Ridge

1/10

RESOLUTION ADOPTED AUGUST 8, 2011

APPLICANT: Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC

68 Soundview Drive

Easton, Connecticut 06612

Applicants Representatives:

Attorney: Matthew Ranelli, Esq.

c/o Shipman & Goodwin, LLP

One Constitution PlazaHartford, CT 06103-1919

Engineer: Milone & Mac Broom, Inc.99 Realty Drive

Cheshire, CT 06410

PROPERTY LOCATION: At Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road, andWestport Road in the Town of Easton, Connecticut

Assessors Maps: 3773B, 3774B, and

Assessors Blocks: 15, 7, 27

OWNERS OF RECORD: Silver Sport Associates, Marolyn Stone c/o Huntley J.Stone

1. The Original Applications

Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC, the applicant for the owners of a 124.704 acre

site at Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road and Westport Road,

made application to the Easton Planning and Zoning Commission in July 2010 for

construction of an affordable housing project, pursuant to Conn. General StatutesSec. 8-30g., as follows:

(1) Amend the Easton Town Plan of Conservation and Development to deleteor modify specific recommendations for residential densities not to

exceed one family per every two upland acres on public water supply

watershed land;

(2) Amend the Easton Zoning Regulations to establish a new overlay zone

titled Housing Opportunity Development (HOD) District, with related

regulations governing that district;

1


2/10


1. The Original Applications: (continued)

(3) Amend the Easton Zoning Map (Zon. Regs. Article 3 Districts) toprovide for HOD District;

(4) Rezone the applicants 124.7 acre site to a HOD District;

(5) Authorize a subdivision of 10 lots and site plans for 105 townhouses to be

located on said site;

(6) Amend Section X.11 of the Easton Subdivision Regulations to exempt a

setaside development from certain open space requirements.

The applications were denied by the Commission on February 14, 2011.

2. This Amended Application:

Pursuant to Section 8-30g(h) of the Connecticut General Statutes, the

applicant on March 4, 2011 filed proposed modifications to its original

application. This statutory section allows an applicant to submit to theCommission a proposed modification of its proposal responding to some or all

of the objections or restrictions articulated by the Commission. The statute

provides that these modifications shall be treated as an amendment to theoriginal proposal. The original application from the applicant is described in

the resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereafter Original

Resolution) dated February 14, 2011, attached hereto and incorporatedherein. The applicant failed to respond to many of the Commission concerns

affecting public health and safety, as expressed in the Original Resolution.

The application identified eight modifications to its original application asfollows:

(1) The overall density of the proposed Saddle Ridge development was

reduced from 105 dwellings, the original proposal, to 99 dwellings.

(2) The overall impervious cover of the site was reduced form 10.09 acres,

the original proposal, to 6.37 acres, resulting in a decrease in the volumeof stormwater runoff.

(3) Plans were modified to increase the paved travel width for all commondriveways to 24 feet.

(4) Four of the six dwellings deleted from the plans were removed from Lot

2, allowing shortening of the lengthy common driveway on Lot 2.

2


3/10


2. This Amended Application: (continued)

(5) The roadway crossing the wetland has been redesigned with a box culvert

instead of the reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) originally proposed.

(6) The amount of proposed earth disturbance in the upland review area,

adjacent to wetlands, has been reduced by 5,275 square feet of area.

(7) Additional landscape planting has been shown on the amended plans.

(8) The proposed Housing Opportunity Development District (HOD)

regulations and proposed Affordability Plan have been modified to reflect

changes in the proposed development plans.

3. Public hearings on this Amended Application were conducted by the Planningand Zoning Commission on May 9, 2011 and May 16, 2011. The Commission

has thoroughly reviewed the proposed amendments submitted by the

applicant, including modifications to the Saddle Ridge development plans,

HOD regulations, reports and Response Letters by the Applicantsconsultants.

4. The Town of Easton Conservation Commission and Inland Wetlands andWatercourses Agency (IWWC) considered Saddle Ridge Developers

amended plans for this project at four public hearings and concluded, from

expert testimony, that there is a high probability that the development wouldresult in significant adverse impacts on the sites wetlands and watercourses.

Consequently the Saddle Ridge applications for regulated activity licenses for

the project were unanimously denied by IWWC on July 12, 2011. See reportto the Planning and Zoning Commission, with attached 28-page resolution, by

the Conservation Commission IWWC, hereby incorporated by reference,

received July 15, 2011.

5. Findings of this Commission in respect to this Amended Application:

(1) The Commission finds that a reduction in the proposed numberof dwellings by six, from 105 (the original proposal) to 99, as

now proposed, is an insignificant modification which fails to

address the very substantial concerns about an excessivedensity of development on a public water supply watershed, as

expressed in our February 14, 2011 original resolution and

supported by extensive expert testimony and other evidence in

3


4/10

records of both the original application and this amended

application.


5. Findings of this Commission in respect to this Amended Application:(continued)

In its report of May 9, 2011 to the Planning and Zoning Commission theState of Connecticut Department of Public Health, Source Water

Protection Unit, Drinking Water Section, cited the State of Connecticut

Conservation and Development Policies Plan 2005-2010 and noted the

inconsistency of the amended Saddle Ridge plans with State policies forthe protection of public drinking water supplies. It stated:

Saddle Ridge Developers has proposed to reduce the number of units

from 105 to 99. This change has reduced the density of development ofthis project from 1.08 units per buildable acre to 1.03 units per buildable

acre. This density still exceeds the general density guidelines of the Planwhich is require minimum lot sizes of one dwelling unit per two acres of

buildable area (excludes wetlands). This guideline has been developed

to support the Plans policy to Protect public health by meeting or

exceeding state and federal drinking water standards for water supplies, by preventing the degradation of water supplies through the proactive

protection of drinking water sources. Furthermore the report stated:

Although the density of development of this project has been modifiedwith this resubmission, it remains inconsistent with state policy for the

protection of drinking water supply watersheds. The DWS believes that

development of this nature is best located outside of a public water supplywatershed area..

(Letter to Robert Maquat, Chairman, May 9, 2011, from Eric McPhee,

Supervising Environmental Analyst; Record Item #10)

A report on the amended Saddle Ridge application by Aquarion Water

Company stated:

Aquarion was in strong opposition to the previous Saddle Ridgedevelopment application because it proposed a housing unit density of

more than twice the maximum development density recommended

appropriate for the protection of water quality and aquatic ecology withinpublic drinking water supply watersheds. The current reapplication, with

its minor reduction from 105 to 99 housing units, still proposes to develop

this sensitive public drinking water supply area at twice the maximumrecommended development plan for this location. Aquarion further

stated:

Because the development density of this revised proposal still conflicts

with fundamental principles of watershed protection and remains,

4


5/10

consequently, contrary to the recommendations of the Connecticut

Department of Public Health, the Connecticut Department of



Environmental Protection, the Connecticut Office of Policy andManagement and the Regional Planning Agency Association of

Connecticut, the Aquarion Water Company Department of Watershed and

Environmental Management strongly urges the Town of Easton not to

approve this application.(letter to Robert E. Maquat, Chairman, March 24, 2011, from Brian T.

Roach, Supervisor, Environmental Protection; Record Item #7)

The report on the amended Saddle Ridge plans by GHD, consulting

engineer for the Town, dated May 9, 2011, made the point that theapplicants statement on the overall density of the project, now below one

home per acre, does not agree with State density protocols for publicwater supply watershed because it fails to subtract out wetland areas.

GHD stated that rather than using 104.459 acres, one should eliminate

19.279 acres, resulting in a site of 83.18 acres. With this adjustment the

proposed density is about 1.2 homes per acre. GHDs report furtherstates:

The density of this development significantly exceeds the State policies

for density in public drinking water watershed lands, a policy that is basedon an extensive literature search by a blue ribbon DEP panel, and adopted

by the State of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management to protect

the health and environment.

The reduction of 6 units while a positive direction in reduction in density

does not make a meaningful change in the overall density of the site,hence does not make a meaningful change in our conclusion that this

proposal exceeds State policies put in place to protect the health and the

environment.

(Report to Planning and Zoning Department, Attn. Mr. Robert Maquat,dated May 9, 2011, from GHD Inc., Gary A. Dufel, P.E., BCEE, LEED

AP, Project Director: Record Item #23)

In its May 16, 2011 letter to the Commission, regarding the Saddle

Ridge Proposal, the Connecticut Fund For The Environment (CFE) noted

that:The public interest in securing a safe and adequate supply of public

drinking water is well established. Section 25-37a of the Connecticut

General Statutes states that an adequate supply of pure water is and

always will be essential for the health and safety and economic well being

5


6/10

of the state. The State Plan of Conservation and Development supports

this goal by endorsing a maximum density of 1 unit per twobuildable



acres for residential development in drinking water watersheds. Finally,the general statutes require notice to both water companies and the

Department of Public Health when a local land use commission receives

an application for development within a drinking water watershed. See

Connecticut Statutes 8-3i and 22a-42f. CFE added: Finally, allowing high density development within the watershed

property would set an extremely harmful precedent for watershed

development throughout the state. Such an action would be directly

contrary to state policy and would completely undermine the state-localpartnership and cooperation that is critical to protecting drinking water

supplies.The consequences of the land use decisions that we make are not easy to

reverse, and poor planning can result in irrevocable consequences for the

well-being of our communities. Given the critical importance of a safe

and steady supply of drinking water, and the clear policy preference forcomprehensive watershed management, we cannot afford to compromise

our commitment to protect these essential resources.

(Charles J. Rothenberger, Staff Attorney, CFE: Record Item #5).

(2) A reduction in the overall impervious cover of the site, by 3.62

acres asrepresented in the amended Saddle Ridge plans, has been largely achieved

through the substitution of permeable pavers for typically paved areas

such as driveways and parking areas. In its May 9, 2011 report on thisamended application, GHD cautioned:

The Applicant now proposes to use over 225,000 square feet of

permeable interlocking concrete pavement and grass pavers for common

driveways and parking areas to reduce impervious pavement surfaces andprovide for groundwater recharge (they have not reduced the size of the

basins to account for this assumed runoff).

Their ICPI Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement detail onDrawing D-4, calls out a subgrade of zero slope to allow the water to store

within the stone subgrade and slowly infiltrate into the surrounding soils.

We caution that there is likely to be a fatal flaw to the permeablepavement design. Most of the roadways where this surface is proposed

are on a slope, some as great as 10%. It is our opinion that rather than

storing water in the stone layer, this stone will serve as a rapid underdrain

6


7/10

system, the water will not infiltrate into the soils in the manner represented

by the applicant but will flow downhill, discharging to the surface at

points which could cause blowouts forming deep ruts and damage to thedriving surface. In addition to this being a potential driving hazard, it will



(continued)

also become a maintenance nightmare which may then cause the groups of

homeowners to pave over the systems altogether, eliminating the proposed

benefit.(Report to Planning and Zoning by GHD, May 9, 2011; ibid, Record Item

#23)

In light of these facts, the Commission must conclude that the reduction inimpervious cover, as claimed in the amended application, will be

ineffective and possibly hazardous to public health and safety and to stormwater quality on the site.

(3) While widening of all proposed common driveway travelways

to 24 feet,as shown on the amended Saddle Ridge plans, would assist emergency

access to these densely grouped dwellings, the increase in paving area

would likely contribute to stormwater impacts in the detention basins.GHDs May 9, 2011 report to the Commission noted:

We also alert you that the paved road surface details contain an

underdrain pipe to take water from under the paved drives and direct it tothe stormwater collection system. There appears to be an inconsistency

here. If the engineer believes it is prudent to drain water from the

roadway subbase, it must be assumed there is a fear that the underlyingsoils will not absorb this water. However the engineer is relying on this

absorption in the permeable pavement locations. An engineering

discussion on the intent and expectations would be useful.

(GHD; ibid, Record Item #23)In light of these facts, the Commission must conclude that the widening of

proposed travelways, as shown in the amended application, may

exacerbate public health risks and stormwater and water quality concernsexpressed in the Commissions original resolution of February 14, 2011.

(4) Amendment of the Saddle Ridge development plans, as nowproposed, to

shorten the very lengthy common driveway on Lot 2, and to eliminate four

proposed dwellings on that lot, is a minimally beneficial change, but not

of sufficient consequence to alter the Commissions conclusions stated in

7


8/10

other points of this resolution or its original resolution of February 14,

2011.

(5) Substitution of a box culvert in the roadway crossing of the

wetland and

watercourse, as shown in the amended Saddle Ridge plans, is a minor



(continued)

change which does not address concerns expressed in the Commissions

original resolution of February 14, 2011.

(6) A small reduction in site disturbance (5,275 sq.ft.) has been

achieved inthe amended Saddle Ridge development plans by removing six residential

units, including all of Building 5 (Units 5A, 5B, 5C and 5D), Units 13A

and 13 B, and by marginally reducing the footprints of Buildings 25 and

26 (GHD, ibid). However, the Commission finds that this small reductionis insufficient to overcome the problem of overly intensive development of

the sites upland areas, in contravention to State policies on water supply

watershed densities (cited herein) and to the extensive site clearanceproposed in the amended plans. GHD states:

The clear cutting of just about all the developable upland areas that will

change and diminish the natural resources of the site that create theenvironmental aspects that help protect the watershed lands. GHD

continued:

The proposed changes do not materially change this finding.(GHD, ibid; Record Item #23)

(7) The Commission finds that the additional landscape planting

shown onthe Saddle Ridge amended development plans does not suffice to replace

the virtual clear cutting of all proposed development areas on the site nor

serve to address well documented Commission concerns about theintensity of development proposed for this site, as expressed above and in

the Commissions resolution of February 14, 2011. See, in particular, the

set of amended application maps and plans entitled Saddle Ridge Village,Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road, and Westport Road

(Route 136), dated March 4, 2011 ( encompassing 51 sheets).

(8) Modifications made in the proposed Housing Opportunity Development

8


9/10

District (HOD) regulations provide that if site plan approval is sought

concurrently with an application for zone change, the maximum density

shall be further limited to the density requested on the site plan. Thisprovision would allow the HOD applicant to determine the maximum

density for its project, within the ceiling limit of density specified by the

HOD regulations, irrespective of site conditions, available infrastructureand other legitimate concerns.



(continued)

This provision is contrary to sound planning and responsible zoning, and

is unacceptable. Moreover, the proposed HOD regulation retains a

specified density limit of 2.5 homes per gross acre of land, whichconstitutes an egregious violation of State standards for public water

supply watershed acceptable densities. Adoption of this proposed densitystandard for the Saddle Ridge property of 124 acres would create a basis

for an application for as many as 310 dwelling units (124 acres x 2.5), or

more than six times the number of units which a prudent and safe density

in accordance with State watershed policies could allow. TheCommission finds that, as revised, the HOD standards fail to protect the

overriding public interest in safe drinking water and protection of the

States natural environment.

6. The Commission hereby affirms the findings of its Original Resolution, that there

remain substantial public interests in health and safety, as set forth in theOriginal Resolution, as discussed further herein, supported by substantial

evidence in the record; the potential harm to health and safety presented by

this Application, including the modifications, clearly outweigh the need foraffordable housing; that the modifications made by the applicant do not satisfy

the concerns raised by the Commission in the Original Resolution, and are not

consistent with the standards and guidelines set forth in the State of

Connecticut Conservation and Policies Plan for Connecticut (2005-2010) andthe Town of Easton Plan of Conservation and Development, nor does it

adequately protect the public interest in the drinking water supply; that the

lower density modification suggested in the Original Resolution has not beenachieved by the minimal deletion of six units;and that in all other respects the

findings and conclusions in the Original Resolution are affirmed and

incorporated herein.

THE COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

9


10/10

For the reasons set forth above, the amended application does not adequately

address the substantial public interests which clearly outweigh the need for

affordable housing as set forth in the Original Resolution and as stated herein;it has not been modified adequately to reduce the density; and the modified

application is DENIED for the reasons set forth above and for the reasons set

forth in the Original Resolution; and the findings and resolutions in theOriginal Resolution are hereby affirmed.

_____________________ (signed)Robert Maquat, Chairman dated August 8, 2011

10

Documents

Aug. 2011 Easton Planning & Zoning Resolution - Saddle Ridge