It was a showdown with Saddle Ridge

proposed Easton Crosssing subdivision on Sport Hill Road." width="800" height="518" />

An artist’s rending of the proposed Easton Crosssing subdivision on Sport Hill Road.

Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC brought its attorney, architect, builders, engineers and an environmental scientist and sat opposite a team of town commissioners who fired off questions, while about 65 Easton residents watched, listened, and were eager to shoot off their opinions, albeit at a later hearing.

The Planning and Zoning Commission and Conservation Commission held a special meeting at Helen Keller Middle School cafeteria Sept. 16 so a team of professionals could answer questions regarding the third revised development plan and application for the Saddle Ridge project, Easton Crossing.

The proposed Easton Crossing would consist of 48 new houses built on one- to two-acre lots with 20 of the new houses containing a one-bedroom attached affordable apartment.

In 2011, the P&Z denied applications by the developer to build 105 units on the horse farm situated among Cedar Road, Silver Hill Road, Sport Hill Road, and Westport Road and then denied the developer’s second attempt to revise the plan to build 99 units on the property.

Matthew Ranelli of Shipman & Goodwin of Hartford, attorney for Saddle Ridge, LLC, said the remediation ordered by a Hartford judge was an opportunity for both parties in the suit to hear each others side.

The revised plan is an attempt by Saddle Ridge to compromise with the town of Easton after an appeal was filed by the developer, Huntley “Bucky” Stone under Connecticut General Statute 8-30, the state’s affordable housing appeal law.

“The remediation allowed us a chance to satisfy these concerns and to achieve the town’s goals and to find a mechanism to supply affordable housing.” Mr. Ranelli said. He emphasized the quality of services and efforts made to improve the development plan.

“A lot of work went into this; I hope you will see a thoughtful, high quality product,” Mr. Ranelli said.

The houses are proposed to be built on a 124.7-acre farm. The developer would build on 110 acres of the farm, leaving the remaining 14 acres as a horse farm.

Three of the model houses for the property were discussed during the meeting and are described in the application. They include a Greek Revival-style home, a Georgian-style home, and a Federal-style home. Some of the homes would be on one acre, others on 2.5 acres. Because the homes would be on lots smaller than the required three acres under Easton’s Regulation 3.15, the developer is seeking to modify the town’s regulation.

Also, despite the controversy of the proposed lot size, the 20 apartments are designed to appear to be just a part of the main house. Mr. Ranelli said the style of homes and the attached apartments would blend into the existing Easton community.

“If you were driving through the neighborhood, you would not know these were affordable accessory apartments.” Mr. Ranelli said

John Hayes, Easton’s land use director and consultant, asked if the houses without affordable apartments have similar designs. Mr. Hayes was told that some of the designs and specific lots can accommodate the affordable apartments because they have septic systems for five bedrooms.

The Georgian-style and Greek-style houses have five bedrooms, and the lots designated for this design would be dispersed throughout the community. The specific 32 lots that can accommodate the five-bedroom design are listed on page 7 of the Affordable Plan for Easton Crossing submitted with the application by Saddle Ridge.

The new landowners of the 20 houses with attached affordable apartments would charge rents based on renters’ income.

According to state statute definition, an affordable unit is priced so that it would be affordable to a family that earns 80% of the median income or less and would pay no more than 30% of that income toward the housing, said Michael Santoro, community development specialist with the Connecticut Department of Housing. Half of the affordable units must be accessible to someone making 80% of the area median income. The second half must be accessible to someone making 60% of the median income, in either casechoosing the lesser of the two during the year the lease is signed. The maximum incomes for 2014 for Easton Crossing would be $37,655 and $50,220, and the maximum rents would be $762 and $955, respectively.

The developer is also seeking to create a new zoning district for affordable housing titled “Planned accessory affordable apartment community overlay district, District C.” In order to create the district the town would have to amend Article 3 and amend the town zoning map to designate the developers property as a planned accessory district.

The P&Z Commission and Conservation Commission did not address the development of the planned accessory district or changing zoning district at the meeting, but members of both commissions addressed the biggest concern of the community: The watersheds.

Easton Crossing would be near two reservoirs. The commission had rejected the previous plans in 2011 for a 105-unit because of the P&Z’s concern for the watershed. Mr. Stone revised his plan that included building 99 units, but the commission again rejected the application, citing watershed concerns again.

Team Saddle Ridge presented updated information about changes to Easton Crossing that would address the watershed concerns. The houses would each have individual wells, averaging 200 feet deep. Each house would have an individual septic system approved by the public health code eliminating the need to extend the public water line to the site.

The team of speakers also addressed questions by the wetland commission concerning effects on wetlands, storm draining, blasting and other issues to the community.

Jennifer Beno from Soil Science and Environmental Services LLC answered questions by both commissions regarding wetland issues. Ms. Beno said there are eight wetlands on the 124.7-acre site and determined the effect Easton Crossing would have on the wetlands at the site.

“There will not be a significant impact on wetland function,” Ms. Beno said.

Ms. Beno deferred to Edward Hart, engineer for Milone and McBroom, to answer multiple questions regarding blasting at the sites, especially near the wetlands. Mr. Hart said there would be no blasting near wetlands.

“They may be able to rip rocks with large machines, but there are no wetlands in that area,” Mr. Hart said.

Mr. Hart also said there may be deep cutting, but overall there may a little blasting and it may be limited to putting in storm drains.

The Easton Crossing team attempted to address concerns of both commissions. Ira Bloom of Berchem and Moses, attorney for the town, said that appeals have been filed with Hartford Superior Court and scheduled for a trial. Robert Maquat, P&Z chairman, asked Mr. Ranelli if the developer would withdraw the appeals if the current application were approved.

“Yes, if the intent of the plan is approved, and they are allowed to build, then we see no reason to pursue appeals,” Mr. Ranelli said.

However, Mr. Ranelli said early in the meeting that he did expect there would be critics of the plan.

After the meeting, several residents commented on the proposal. Bill, a 21-year Easton resident, who asked not to have his last name published , said he was not impressed with the presentation

The Easton Courier interviewed residents for impressions of Easton Crossing.

“It was an interesting advertisement, but doesn’t address the big change that would have to occur, which is zoning changes that would have a big impact on the town.” he said

Another resident of 21 years, Ellie, who also didn’t want her last name published, gave her impression of the presentation.

“I don’t think the builder addressed the issue of the fact that they are breaking the three-acre zoning.” Ellie said

Jeff Becker, of Citizens for Responsible Government, who diligently attends all zoning meetings, said, “I’m not impressed by a slickly presented package designed to sell to the town that isn’t in the town’s best interest, nor is it in the best interest of anyone whose water supply comes from Easton’s reservoirs.”

The full application is viewable here:  Easton Crossing Zoning (8-7-14)