Despite a neighborhood united against it, a developer has plans to put a 22-lot subdivision in Waterford.
Robert Nauta, a Waterford resident, submitted an application to the conservation commission this past week to put the subdivision at 15 Laurel Crest Drive. The development would feature 14 lots designated for affordable housing.
The application is split into two separate developments: one off of Miner Lane and another off of Laurel Crest Drive. Nauta plans to install two unconnected roadways off of those two roads to accommodate both developments.
Laurel Crest residents, meanwhile, are united against the move. The development would bring traffic down a street many people moved to because it had none, Anthony Jessuck said.
“We definitely do not want this down here,” Jessuck said, who lives at 17 Laurel Crest Drive. “The traffic alone will be a huge issue.”
At 15 Laurel Crest Drive, a 440-foot roadway called Dutch Drive would run due south. Eight building lots would go off of that road.
“(The road length) is nothing,” Jessuck said. “We are going to lose our privacy.”
Each proposed lot on the road except one is between 15,000 and 20,000 square feet (slightly less than ½ acre). The other is 8 acres.
“We moved here specifically because it was quiet,” Jessuck said, who has five small children. “I mean, you don’t have to develop every single square foot of Waterford; you have to leave some for conservation.”
On Miner Lane, a 502-foot road called Ryan’s Way would run west off of the existing cul-de-sac at the end of the street. Fourteen building lots, each between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet, would be accessible off of the road.
The lots on Ryan’s Way would be designated as affordable housing. By Connecticut law, affordable housing has to meet set sale limits that are based on of the median cost of area homes.
The 30-acre property, despite having two separate roadways, is all connected.
Surveyor William Kent is Nauta’s agent to the conservation commission. The application for the subdivision was submitted on Feb. 24, and the commission has 65 days to review the plans.
Town’s Reaction
“The commission will take our time with this one,” Waterford Environmental Planner Maureen Fitzgerald said. “There are several spots of interest there.”
Several vernal pools exist on the property with salamanders and toads, Fitzgerald said. The commission will have to determine that they will not be affected, she said.
After the conservation commission reviews the plans, the planning and zoning commission will have to approve it.
John “Bill” Sheehan, of 19 Laurel Crest Drive, was also concerned about the proposal. If the houses will be clearly visible from the backyard, it will be an issue, he said.
“I’m sure none of us are going to like it if we lose our backyards,” he said.
Jessuck agreed.
“Everybody on this street is against this,” he said. “We are very concerned about this getting put it in.”
Other developers tried to build on Laurel Crest Drive before, Sheehan and Jessuck said. All attempts were denied by the town, they said.
To avoid building at the end of the road, the homeowners all chipped in to purchase the end lot. Each homeowner owns 1/32 of the property, Jessuck said.
The 15 Laurel Crest Drive property is the only undeveloped property left on the road.
Nauta did not respond to a voicemail as of Tuesday night.
This is HIS land and as long as he is within the letter of the LAW, the rest of the people need to follow it as well. I am so tired of this "entitlement" mentality. If you live on a 1 acre (not likely on Laurel Crest) lot, then that is what you own....not all that you see beyond your borders. If you seek privacy, move to the woods and PURCHASE the land around you. Don't presume to tell those who OWN it what to do with it because it doesn't suit you.
I believe we all can relate to the privacy issue. However, if it is truely so important lets put our money where our Laptops are and get on with it. If one cannot afford the peace and tranquilityof a 5oo acre ranch in texas, one is not entitled to such. I regret to inform those involved that the same situation presents itself here, though not that grand a scale. I sincerely wish all the residents of this small neighborhood continued happiness. However, if Robert Nauta's plans for "HIS" property are hindered in any way, shape, or form, it is my opinion that a severe injustice has occurred and the Planning and Zoning Commission may need revise some of its' decision making policies. I look forward to and encourage any rebuttal or comments concerning my opinion.
If there were no waivers necessary, then the public opinion would really be moot, and Mr. Nauta would be able to build there. Since they are asking for waivers, public opinion does factor in. That said, according to Wagner, it isn't a very good argument to say "I don't want this because it will take away from privacy" or "it will ruin my view". A better argument would to see the environmental consequences of the decision, like water will run into the existing yards and flood the basements, or the ecosystem will be compromised, Wagner said. Either way, Patch will follow this and see if the subdivision is allowed.
I guess some concern lies in the fact that environmental regulations may be manipulated to suit the personal needs of some, while also becoming a thorn in the side of another.