Commission presses developer to reconfigure open space on 3-lot subdivision at 106 Glenville Road

The Planning and Zoning Commission on April 22 continued review of a final subdivision application for 106 Glenville Road after multiple commissioners and conservation staff said the proposed open-space strips appear to function primarily as a landscaped screening buffer rather than ecologically valuable conserved land.

Tom Hegney, attorney for Connecticut Land Holdings LLC, described the application as “an 8-plus acre parcel on Glenville Road” proposed to be divided into three lots while retaining the existing house and tennis court on one parcel. Hegney told the commission the applicant had negotiated with an adjacent neighbor and the wetlands agency, and recorded an agreement last year to address wetland concerns.

Neighbor counsel Mario Coppola said discussions with the applicant resolved his client’s concerns. “We worked together for probably six to nine months in trying to figure out how we could resolve my client’s concerns in a way that still allowed the applicant to move forward with the project as planned,” Coppola said, adding support for a berm and landscape modifications that both sides helped develop.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on why the long, narrow parcel labeled as open space was being treated as open space rather than included in adjacent lots. Commissioner MacRae said the plan looked like “a manufactured open space” intended for screening rather than a parcel left in a natural state, echoing comments from the Conservation Commission. Commissioner Jenkins flagged that the draft declaration of restrictions would permit regular maintenance, pruning and replacement of plantings, which she said is at odds with the intent that open space be left in a more natural condition.

Applicant counsel Leo D'Andrea and project team explained the configuration reflects frontage requirements, access way needs for two rear lots and an effort to preserve the streetscape and existing formal gardens and tennis court. D'Andrea said the western tree stand included many dead or distressed trees and that planting a berm would address screening, improve habitat with new plantings and serve part of the drainage design.

Commissioners said those rationales did not address the central concern: the proposed configuration gave low priority to the ecological function and conservation intent of open space. The commission also noted outstanding engineering comments from DPW drainage and the sewer department and asked the applicant to resubmit revised plans that: (1) reconsider the open-space layout and planting palette to deliver ecological value; (2) address DPW/engineering and sewer comments; and (3) provide clearer tree demarcation and arborist backup for proposed removals and replacements. The applicant agreed to return with revised plans.