In Easton, Saddle Ridge back for third try
Potential Source water area of Proposed Easton Saddle Ridge development.
Potential Source water area of Proposed Easton Saddle Ridge development.
Photo: Contributed Photo / Contributed PhotoFinal look at potential proposed including buildings and apartments Easton Saddle Ridge Development.
Final look at potential proposed including buildings and apartments Easton Saddle Ridge Development.
Photo: Contributed Photo / Contributed PhotoPermitted Residential Density in the Aspectuck Easton Lake and Hemlocks Reservoir Waterbeds near Saddle Ridge Development.
Permitted Residential Density in the Aspectuck Easton Lake and Hemlocks Reservoir Waterbeds near Saddle Ridge Development.
Photo: Contributed Photo / Contributed PhotoEASTON — After a pair of failed attempts, a proposal for construction on 124.7 acres of watershed land is back in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Plans were denied in 2015 by the commission following concerns the affordable apartments were not the same size as the market-rate units that they were attached to.
After a lengthy court battle that upheld the commission’s decision concluded in July, developers Huntly “Bucky” Stone and Robert Carlson are making a third try with their Saddle Ridge plan.
But residents have remained steadfast in their opposition to the proposal, First Selectman Adam Dunsby said. Many claim the project is too dense for the watershed property.
“I think it’s safe to say public opinion is extremely negative to try and change the planning and zoning regulations for a high-density housing project,” he said.
The application is calling for several amendments to the zoning regulations, including creating a new zoning district, which has drawn backlash.
Stone and Carlson did not respond to requests for comment.
One version of the proposal called for a 105-unit development, while the other unsuccessfully sought approval for 99 units.
The current Saddle Ridge proposal would more than double affordable housing in Easton from 15 to 35 units by creating the 48-lot complex on just over 110 of the 124.7 acres of land.
Land that is unused for the development would remain in its current use as a farm house.
Addressing affordable housing
Town residents are not simply against affordable housing, said Bill Kupinse, a member of Citizen for Easton and former first selectman.
“I think the town has enough people that are liberal in their view toward affordable housing,” Kupinse said. “The people who have spoken at the hearings have not been in favor of this project.”
Easton has about 7,490 residents and a median household income of $132,000, according to the state’s Department of Economic and Community Development. To qualify for affordable housing, family income typically cannot exceed 50 percent of a municipality’s median income.
One sticking point in the proposal has been the two reservoirs that would surround the complex. East Lake Reservoir and Aspetuck Reservoir serve as the public drinking water supply for more than 400,000 Fairfield County residents.
“I think the town is right to have negative views with (the proposed development) affecting water supply,” Kupinse said.
Under the proposal put forth by Stone and Carlson, the town would not have to extend the public water line to the site of the development, because the homes would have wells.
But following the drought that swept through much of Connecticut in 2016, the proposed placement of the homes is sure to continue drawing opposition, Kupinse said.
“The courts said the need to protect the water supply is more important than the need for affordable housing,” he said.
Dealing with pushback
Developers went back to the drawing board and proposed 30 detached single-family homes and 18 duplex-style homes for Saddle Ridge.
The application was filed under state statute 8-30g, which was enacted to encourage the development of affordable housing.
Under the statute, if a town with less than 10 percent affordable housing — such as Easton — rejects an application for it, the burden of proof fall onto the town to show the plans would harm public health.
Without the statute, regulations in town would limit development in the property zone to one dwelling unit per 2 acres of buildable area, excluding wetlands.
Although the proposal was denied by planning and zoning in 2015, it was approved by Easton’s Conservation Commission that same year.
Some town residents have written letters and left messages with the commission voicing their displeasure with any kind of development. Kupinse said.
“I think the bulk of people come to Easton because it is Easton,” he said. “I think most people move to Easton because of the open space, and (the proposed development) does not fit the concept of what people think of in Easton.”
AJohnson@hearstmediact.com
Comments
Post a Comment