Commission approves special permit for late orchard at 8 Timothy Road, imposes erosion, screening and neighbor‑replacement conditions

The Norwalk Planning & Zoning Commission approved an after‑the‑fact special permit on April 8 for a property at 8 Timothy Road where the owner, Bob Vance, previously cleared roughly two‑thirds of an acre and proposes to create an orchard of about 100 fruit trees and associated berries.

Vance told the commission he purchased the house late last year and began planting an orchard; he said he does not plan large‑scale mechanized irrigation or crop dusting and that most spraying will be limited, handheld applications. "I don't do any large‑scale spraying," Vance said, adding he waters seedlings by hand and sometimes with a garden hose. He also said he had a drainage report prepared by engineer John Mallozzi.

Numerous neighbors — including Kurt Schlegel, Kayla Hanukkah and others — argued the cutting removed mature privacy trees, increased runoff risk and introduced the possibility of pests, irrigation demand and commercial activity. Kayla Hanukkah showed photographs and a post‑clearing survey, saying some trees had been cut beyond the owner’s property line and that prior attempts to stop the work failed. "I feel like I'm totally losing in every way," she said.

Engineer John Mallozzi told the commission his runoff modeling used USDA curve numbers (CN) and compared the entire lot’s effective CN before and after the proposed replanting. He reported the modeled overall CN for the site after the proposed planting would be lower than the current, post‑cut condition — meaning, by his analysis, no net increase in peak runoff to neighbors — though he acknowledged localized differences where trees had been removed. "When I run the numbers...when we put it back with the planting, there will be no additional impact on the neighbors compared to what it is now," Mallozzi said.

Commissioners and staff focused on four categories of conditions: (1) a prohibition on commercial use of the orchard (the applicant must be owner‑occupant and the use limited to noncommercial production); (2) a required erosion control and landscaping bond to ensure plantings survive for a defined period and to cover remedial work; (3) an expedited schedule for ground‑cover and plantings and an erosion‑control plan (silt fencing/temporary stabilization) to be installed before the next heavy‑rain season; and (4) a requirement that the applicant work with abutting property owners on replacement screening and that the commission retain discretion to require a berm or additional screening to protect neighbors. Staff also included a requirement that the applicant notify abutters and work in good faith to resolve replacement‑planting preferences within a set timeframe.

The applicant agreed to many of the staff‑drafted conditions and said he would consider berms and screening and would locate the compost and woodchip piles within the 30‑foot rear strip he described. He also offered to transplant shrubs for neighbors where appropriate. The commission moved to approve the special permit with the staff resolution and conditions; the roll‑call vote was unanimous.

The commission instructed staff to draft specific language that defines the bond amount and the planting and monitoring schedule, and to work with the applicant and impacted neighbors to finalize berm and screening details without requiring a return hearing where feasible. The decision clarifies that enforcement and any disputes about property‑line removals remain subject to civil remedies outside the commission’s zoning permit authority.