Chaplin Building Lots with Less than 2 Acres

[Chris Komuves]

I noticed that there are 5 approved building lots of land for sale on Rt 198, all of which are less than 2 acres.  I thought the only way to build a new dwelling on less than 2 acres in Chaplin was in the case of a housing development where there is still an average of more than 2 acres per dwelling, but where the developer sets aside a central piece of land as open space.  This is the first I've seen of selling approved building lots with less than 2 acres.  This always seems like a bad idea to me (squeezing too many houses into too little space), but It seems like an especially bad idea here, given that it says that these abut the Nauchaug River.  I can't even imagine how they can honor the new 100 foot Nauchaug River Overlay zone (not disturbing anything with 100 feet of the river), and still build a house, along with a septic system and well, all on a 1.47 acre lot.

Does anyone know the story behind these?  

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Chaplin_CT/06235/phoenixville-rd#/listingType-condo-townhome-row-home-co-op;mfd-mobile-home;land/pg-1

Chris

====================================

Christopher S. Komuves  <c...@kom.com>

     http://chris.komuves.org

====================================

[Scott Matthies]

This subdivision was the first one under the new conservation subdivision regs.  The house lots are smaller as they gave several acres adjacent to the river for a depth of over 200’ for open space and Joshua’s Trust.  Without the conservation aspect, the house lots would be at least 2 acres and would extend down to the river with development much closer. 

 

Scott

[Robert Dubos]

This is an approved cluster development, where the developer deeded 8 acres to the town along the Natchaug River.  The town in turn had Joshua's Trust act as the easement holder.

Bob Dubos

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Chaplin Town Forum" group. Please help spread the word--tell other folks in Chaplin about this forum and encourage them to join.
 
To post to this group, send email to chapli...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/chaplin-forum?hl=en_US?hl=en

[khi...@charter.net]

no--but I would check Planning an zoning records --and see if this is illegal--and what recourse the town has--since we would not want to set a precedence.

[Barry Howard]

Chris

 

Please do your homework before criticizing our regulations.

 

Research how much property was deeded to Joshua’s Tract and what the depth of that property is along the Natchaug.

 

Barry Howard

 

From: chapli...@googlegroups.com [mailto:chapli...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Komuves

Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 2:04 PM
To: chapli...@googlegroups.com; Scott Matthies; kevin mcdonald; Juan Sanchez; catherine...@live.com

--

[Chris Komuves]

Thank you everyone for the responses.  I figured it was probably a use of those new regs (as I mentioned), but I didn't know the details, and claims of the listings seemed mathematically inconsistent with honoring the overlay zone.  I'm happy to know that the preserved space is the space closest to the river.  And of course, that means that 3 of these listings for these properties are making a false statement--they say that the lots "abut" the Nauchaug River as well as open space.  That was the statement that didn't add up mathematically was the reason why I inquired about the backstory to this.  It's sort of shocking for the property listings to be making such a blatantly false claim (unless I am ignorant of some new or specified repurposing of the word "abut").

Those are some mighty cheap lots of property.

I understand the argument for a single, larger contiguous piece of open space being more desirable than lots of small bits of undeveloped land, and next to the river, I'd agree it's a stronger argument and even more desirable when it preserves the land closest to the river.

In other more general cases, though, overall population density still seems to me like it plays a larger overall role in the quality of the environment--the natural world and pollution, as well as aesthetics.  So, it is true that while this looks like a good use of the regs, that I am less certain of the universally positive impact of such regs.  I can see both sides of that coin, and it probably has more to do with the details of how much land is actually required to be preserved (and I don't know the the details of that regulation in that respect).

I think this is a fair critique of our regs, though my purpose here was to figure out how those property listings could be true, and I now have my answer--they are NOT.  I wish there were some way of holding them accountable for making false statements like that, but I'm not aware of any, and it's not an issue I would want to spend more time on.

Thank you again for the responses.

Chris

On Jul 10, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Scott Matthies wrote:

This subdivision was the first one under the new conservation subdivision regs.  The house lots are smaller as they gave several acres adjacent to the river for a depth of over 200’ for open space and Joshua’s Trust.  Without the conservation aspect, the house lots would be at least 2 acres and would extend down to the river with development much closer. 

 

Scott

On Jul 10, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Robert Dubos wrote:

This is an approved cluster development, where the developer deeded 8 acres to the town along the Natchaug River.  The town in turn had Joshua's Trust act as the easement holder.

Bob Dubos

On Jul 10, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Barry Howard wrote:

Chris

 

Please do your homework before criticizing our regulations.

 

Research how much property was deeded to Joshua’s Tract and what the depth of that property is along the Natchaug.

 

Barry Howard

[patrick pothier]

there could be recourse through the "false advertising" laws. there is an 8 acre, 200 feet deep plot separating the actual housing lots from the river.  seems pretty clear they do not "abut" the river.  if "abut's the natchaug" is the description in the listing, then that is false advertising. but don't take my word for it, check it out officially! http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/false-advertising/   http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/deceptive-trade-practices/connecticut/   patrick --- On Mon, 7/11/11, Chris Komuves <c...@kom.com> wrote:

[Alycia Sanders]

Barry,

Where's the part where he criticized the regulations?  I must have missed that.  All I see is a request for more information, which it sounds like you possess.  I would have appreciated you elaborating on your answer and am glad others chimed in to provide helpful and interesting background information.

A. Sanders

On Jul 10, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Barry Howard wrote:

[Laume Steven]

The add said adjacent which means, near to, the Natchaug River.  The other one said bordering open space.  These were both truthful if not slightly miss leading.  Anyone looking at real estate would soon become aware of such wording and would certainly not be guying before they were clear on the wording of the add. This would not be false advertising, Steve. --- On Mon, 7/11/11, patrick pothier <aqu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[patrick pothier]

there you go chris, problem solved! unless you've seen a different add that specifically stated "abuts nathcaug river"   patrick   just a side bar:  i noticed one response said this buffer was part of the "joshua trust"? does that mean there is a right of way for river access and hiking? --- On Mon, 7/11/11, Laume Steven <sla...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Chris Komuves]

Well, actually...

The text of one of the  property listings says, "Gorgeous wooded lot abutting open space and the trophy belt area of the natchaug River", and the other says, "abuts open space & Natchaug River".  I think that's clearly a false statement, way beyond just misleading (sorry Steve).

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1-Phoenixville-Rd_Chaplin_CT_06235_M31219-39152

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/3-Phoenixville-Rd_Chaplin_CT_06235_M31489-19694

Chris

[khi...@charter.net]

perhaps someone should contact the realtor ? if the ad is
misleading....

[Sarah Bullard]

Whether or not the property descriptions are technically legal does not appear to be an issue that the town needs to be all that concerned about.  Chris, if you feel strongly, then perhaps as an act of good citizenship you can contact the realtor and point out the issue so that any potential buyers are aware.

In one of the previous posts a comment was made about the new zoning regs contributing to over-population.  At first glance it must seem as though more houses can be built if we allow smaller house lots.  However, let's say we have 10 acres.  If we have 2-acre building lots, then we can build 5 houses.  With the new regs, if we have those same 10 acres, we can still only build 5 houses, but the individual lots can be less to allow for conservation land to be set aside.  On a grander scheme, cluster development allows for shared resources and more preserved land.  It's a win-win as far as the environment goes.  I certainly share anyone's concern about Chaplin becoming over-developed; however, the new regs were well thought out and conceived over time and with great consideration for taxpayer input.

Always good to generate discussion and clarify issues for those not aware.  Perhaps now we can move on to others topics of interest.

Hope everyone is enjoying this nice stretch without rain or snow.....

Sarah Bullard

---

Subject: Re: [Chaplin Town Forum] Re: Chaplin Building Lots with Less than 2 Acres

From: csko...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:36:14 -0400
To: chapli...@googlegroups.com

[khi...@charter.net]

"technical legalities" are where the problems begin ---again -these issues can set precedence for other "technical legalities"and I understand cluster development well---I was on the PZC in another town. and it is good to have discussion-but .."like golden apples in a silver setting--are word spoken at the proper time." Perhaps more interest or attendance at PZC meetings?--just a thought.......

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Sarah Bullard wrote:

 Whether or not the property descriptions are technically legal does not appear to be an issue that the town needs to be all that concerned about.  Chris, if you feel strongly, then perhaps as an act of good citizenship you can contact the realtor and point out the issue so that any potential buyers are aware.

In one of the previous posts a comment was made about the new zoning regs contributing to over-population.  At first glance it must seem as though more houses can be built if we allow smaller house lots.  However, let's say we have 10 acres.  If we have 2-acre building lots, then we can build 5 houses.  With the new regs, if we have those same 10 acres, we can still only build 5 houses, but the individual lots can be less to allow for conservation land to be set aside.  On a grander scheme, cluster development allows for shared resources and more preserved land.  It's a win-win as far as the environment goes.  I certainly share anyone's concern about Chaplin becoming over-developed; however, the new regs were well thought out and conceived over time and with great consideration for taxpayer input.

Always good to generate discussion and clarify issues for those not aware.  Perhaps now we can move on to others topics of interest.

Hope everyone is enjoying this nice stretch without rain or snow.....

Sarah Bullard

___________________________________

Thank you everyone for the responses.  I figured it was probably a use of those new regs (as I mentioned), but I didn't know the details, and claims of the listings seemed mathematically inconsistent with honoring the overlay zone.  I'm happy to know that the preserved space is the space closest to the river.   And of course, that means that 3 of these listings for these properties are making a false statement--they say that the lots "abut" the Nauchaug River as well as open space .  That was the statement that didn't add up mathematically was the reason why I inquired about the backstory to this.  It's sort of shocking for the property listings to be making such a blatantly false claim (unless I am ignorant of some new or specified repurposing of the word "abut").

[Laume Steven]

This is a great regulation if it is proper;y implemented.  Just because a developer comes to the zoning commission with a plan for a cluster development that allows for five houses on a ten acre lot does not mean it should be approved.  This regulation could save a developer a great deal of money in the actual development of a parcel.  It should always be presented with, realistic, conventional, comparable, plans.  If done properly this regulation should allow for fewer houses in any given development and the preservation of much greater quantities of high quality open space.  If this regulation allows a developer to cluster all development near the frontage and avoid creating an approved road system while giving up the difficult areas of a parcel while still allowing for the same number of housing lots, it becomes a total failure. This particular development seems like a good application of the regulation, Steve.    --- On Mon, 7/11/11, Sarah Bullard <sarita...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[DianeCox]

I would say the present economic climate is taking care of any possible danger of over-population in Chaplin. Those lots have been for sale a long time without any takers.

[patrick pothier]

sarah and 'khismet', well said.  i was thinking along the same lines. was it just curiosity chris, or thinking of building a new home?   pat:) --- On Tue, 7/12/11, khi...@charter.net <khi...@charter.net> wrote:

[Chris Komuves]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 2:39 PM, patrick pothier wrote:

sarah and 'khismet', well said.  i was thinking along the same lines. was it just curiosity chris, or thinking of building a new home?   pat:)

No, I was just checking to see what land and housing prices were like in the area.  It'd be hard to think of moving from 80 acres down to 1.5 acres.  :)

Chris

[patrick pothier]

oh that's right, you've got sean & willene's old place... how's the dear hunting?! i love wildlife -- it's delicious!   pat:) --- On Tue, 7/12/11, Chris Komuves <csko...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Chris Komuves <csko...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Chaplin Town Forum] Re: Chaplin Building Lots with Less than 2 Acres To: chapli...@googlegroups.com