Opponents pummel plan to build ‘conservation development’ on Cranbury’s White Barn property

Corrected 1:14 p.m. June 30 to fix spelling of Robin Hogen and Bob Welsh.

NORWALK, Conn. – The development proposed for the White Barn property in Norwalk’s Cranbury section does not meet the standards of a conservation development because it includes a “double dip,” according to an attorney hired by opponents of the plan.

When proponents again pitch their case to the Conservation Commission, they’re going to have to rebut that idea and a whole lot else, given the well-organized assault on the development’s principals that was presented in a public hearing last week – more than 2½ hours’ worth of a 4-hour session, ending at 20 minutes past midnight. That included Environmental Attorney Keith Ainsworth of New Haven, a soil scientist, a civil engineer and a certified ecologist, as well as numerous neighbors and concerned citizens.

Robin Hogen, who lives on the other side of Norwalk from the project, in Wilson Point, spoke at the witching hour of oxymorons.

The phrase “conservation development” “is inherently contradictory,” Hogen said. “… How can you defoliate 5 acres of land adjacent to a conservation preserve and claim it to be under the rubric of conservation? I don’t get it.”

The plan developed for 78 Cranbury Road meets the definition of conservation development because half of the development will remain as conservation land once the 15 homes are built, in two clusters, shielded from view from the road by the existing trees, Attorney Elizabeth “Liz” Suchy said, representing the applicant, Special Properties II.

Oddly, fewer homes would be built if it weren’t a conservation development.

“The subdivision that we could create shows 10, maybe 11, given the fact where the wetlands exist, where the pond exists, where we have to cross wetlands, how you can access the property. So it’s a challenge to get more than maybe 11,” Suchy said, in response to a question from a commissioner.

She reminded the commission that the original proposal had been for 22 homes, and said 15 homes was the alternative that was “most beneficial for the site, for my client and for the neighborhood.”

This prompted Jim Fieber, the New Canaan principal of Special Properties, to address the commission.

The problem is balancing the rights of the property owner to make the “best profit” off a large investment with the need to create a responsible development, Fieber said, asserting that his family is concerned for the neighbors and has ties to and in Norwalk.

“With a conservation subdivision, even though there are more units in a conventional subdivision, the fact of the matter is that those units are cloistered away,” Fieber said. “They are not visible from either public road. The amount of open space that is created is almost 70 percent of this site.”

The contiguous landowners, all of whom have submitted letters supporting the development, have all cleared their land to their property lines, Fieber said. His company isn’t doing that, he said.

“That’s why we chose conservation subdivision, because we have maintained tremendous buffers which shield our development completely from the neighborhood. This development, post development, will look exactly like it does to people passing by today,” Fieber said.

Fieber would use the existing driveway, but widen it to make it safer, he said. Some of the wetlands would be filled in, but other wetlands restored, he said.

“The results would look very, very different; it’s called conservation subdivision for a reason,” Fieber said. “It’s the sort of development plan that favors a commission like yours. It conserves land in its natural state. That’s why we picked this.”

The onslaught began with Ainsworth, who took aim at Suchy’s assertion that 10 or 11 homes would go on the property if it were a conventional subdivision.

“You couldn’t fit it in there because they are making an assumption that they could get your wetlands permit, which they probably can’t on half-acre lots,” Ainsworth said. “You’ve got too many crossings, too many impacts, so they are being generous when they say 10 or 11 units. It’s probably somewhat less than that in a conventional subdivision. Ironically enough, it may well be that a conventional subdivision might actually have less impact because of the way it would have to be configured to provide zoning lots that are of the appropriate size.”

He moved on to the “double dip” concept.

“You have existing acreage of conservation easement that was paid for. It wasn’t donated. It was paid for:  $700,000 was transmitted to the owner at that time,” Ainsworth said. “So there’s been, I think, a couple of times where the applicant mentioned, ‘We’re creating 10 acres of conservation easement.’ Well, no, they are creating some, but there’s already some that can’t be touched, it’s not an option. It’s not even theirs anymore… they can’t do anything on that land other than walk on it. I may be overstating it, but yes, they can access it, they can’t build on it.”

The assumption that residents would stay in their 15- to 20-foot-deep backyards was naive, Ainsworth said.

“There’s going to be an enormous temptation, just human temptation, to ignore the markers,” Ainsworth said. “That’s going to be a constant conservation encroachment headache for the Norwalk Land Trust.”

Given that the Land Trust has a legal responsibility to enforce the boundaries of the preserve, it could lose its IRS certification under the circumstance, he said.

Citizen volunteers worked tirelessly to arrange the easement and its financing in 2007, former NLT President Marnie Smith said.

“To say that it constituted a herculean effort would not be an exaggeration,” Smith said. “We worked too hard to secure this conservation easement to give up protecting the critical function of the intermittent wetlands that dot this property in the face of today’s application for development. In a section of Norwalk that is fiercely protective of its wild element inappropriate development should be discouraged.”

“Conservation development does cluster homes and it generally is a good idea; in certain instances it’s actually not,” Ainsworth said. “… The concept is we’re giving you greater density than you’re allowed, in exchange for that you have to give us something. They have already been given that. They were given $700,000 for that. That’s a really important point. … What they are doing is taking a double dip.”

“It appears to me that they don’t maximize the conservation value of the site. The easement appears to be configured as an afterthought to fill the unused areas around the development,” Certified Soil and Wetlands Scientist Steven Danzer  said on behalf of the opponents.

“It seems to me what they are trying to do is maximize the building envelope and then everything else that can’t be built they’re going to throw into a conservation easement,” Danzer said. “That’s fine and everything, but that would not be the maximum way to configure this property. What that does is essentially, instead of protecting the natural resources, what it seems to do is actually protect the view off property from … I think the applicant pretty much admitted that.”

Bob Welsh showed a diagram that emphasized the loss of trees that is proposed. “The near total deforestation of the 5 acres shown in this plan would harm the delicate ecosystem of the White Barn Preserve. I am not an expert, but I do have common sense,” Welsh said.

Videos included shots taken by Ellis Cooper of a flood in the spring of 2007 on the south side of Cranbury Road, across the street from the entrance of the White Barn property.

Joe Pugliese said he had never had a flooding problem in 25 years at his Newtown Avenue home until a development went in nearby several years ago, and his backyard began to fill up with water when there was a heavy rain, and there was water in the basement.

“I have that situation with four houses, you can imagine what is going to happen with 15,” Pugliese said.

“Those wetlands are technically protected by your regulations anyway,” Danzer said. “What’s really needed in a subdivision is other protection of natural resources, such as uplands, which are actually threatened by the development.”