KENT, Conn.—The Planning and Zoning Commission will ask the town’s engineer to confer with George Johannesen of Allied Engineering about the feasibility of developing a four-acre parcel of land high on a hillside above 49 Beardsley Road.
The lot would be divided from a 45.47-acre tract owned by Mary Avery Larned. It would be a second division of the property and thus constitutes a subdivision. The second cut would be located within the horizon line and therein lies the problem.
In Kent, the Horizon-line Conservation Overlay District (HCOD) safeguards critical ridgeline views and rural vistas, protecting hill summits and ridges visible from public roads. Changes within the district, including new construction, expansions, lighting, tree removal and the like, require formal approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The property in question has been in the Larned family since 1899, passing to the late Joan Nichols Larned in 1984 from her grandparents. Larned, an urban dweller, soon was seduced by her Kent Hollow farm and became a local leader in land conservation. She put portions of the farm under conservation easements but reserved the right to build another house on a four-acre parcel.
The conservation easement was put in place before the implementation of the HCOD, but the juxtaposition of the conserved land and the HCOD make it difficult to locate a new structure.
Mary Avery Larned has a potential buyer interested in a parcel high on the hillside within the overlay district. She has applied for a subdivision that would create a long, narrow, four-acre parcel, theorizing that by limiting the width of the lot any tree removal would be less visible from below.
The proposed purchaser has indicated that the lot would have a driveway, inground pool, pool house, and 5,000-square-foot two-story house. Even if the subdivision is approved, the property owner would have to return to the PZC with detailed architectural elevations and site plans to gauge potential visual impact against the horizon. There could also be strict limitations on tree removal, sensitive grading controls and exterior lighting to prevent sky glow.
During last week’s PZC meeting, Matthew Winter urged the commission to exercise caution in considering the subdivision. He said a significant development had been approved in 2024 that is now visible from Kent-Cornwall and Cobble roads. “It should not have been approved,” he said. “Tree cutting has now visibly scarred the ridgeline.”
Thursday, Aug. 13, was the second time Larned appeared before the commission, which had closely questioned her and Johannesen in July about why the proposed sale site could not be moved lower on the hillside. Topographic maps appear to show a hollow area in the slope that would allow construction without a two-story house being visible from below. It was explained that the soil-based zoning in that area requires five acres, while the conservation easement dictates only a four-acre lot.
At the earlier meeting, Larned agreed to float balloons at the 35-foot height of the proposed building. When she did, the balloons were well below the canopy of surrounding trees, invisible from below.
But PZC alternate Chris Harrington noted that the original horizon line overlay district did not take trees into account. “Trees can be cut,” he said. “They can decline from disease or be destroyed by storms. When we produced the map to guide us, it only considered topography, a structure of 35 feet would project above that.”
PZC member Donna Hayes said she had driven area roads and around Lake Waramaug looking for the balloons. “There was no way you were going to see the balloons with all those trees. No matter where we were, you weren’t going to see them. But what will it look like in winter when there are no leaves, or when trees are cut down?”
Johannesen said that while in the HCOD, the proposed development would be about 40 feet below the ridge line. The land behind the lot is owned by another person and is unlikely to be developed while the forest in front of it is under conservation. Larned, who has a maple sugar farming operation argued that moving the plot farther down the hill would actually make it more visible and would affect her farming operation.
Chairman Karen Casey said she did not know the answer. “This is very tough,” she said. “I think we have to applaud the family for putting the farm in conservation. I feel we could be scarring the property and neighborhood and agree with Matt Winters that it our responsibility to preserve, enhance and keep these views.”
She agreed, however, that the conservation of farmland and protection of ridge lines are in conflict in this case.
Gary Hock, who surveyed the land for Larned, was consulted about a pocket of land indicated on Housatonic Valley Authority maps that could be flat enough for development. Hock said the maps are more accurate than they used to be but professed confusion about why the pocket appears. “It is the same contour and slope,” he said.
He speculated that only 70 feet of the lot would be visible from Beardsley Road. “If the lot were wider, I would be more concerned. I think the location she found is a natural plateau; the area in front is all conservation and can’t be cut. And you’re never going to get a view of Lake Waramaug from that site.”
He conceded that in winter the house might be seen.
Larned said, “What I am sitting with is, preserving farmland and protecting the ridgeline are diametrically opposed. I can’t move the lot downward because of my sugaring process. It’s a really difficult situation to be denied putting it up there because it would be very limiting to have to give up part of our income with the idea that it might be visible in winter.”
Both Johannesen and Larned pointed out that the house has yet to be designed and would have to be approved by the commission, as would clearing trees.
Harrington worried that a future owner might “cut more trees than he should.”
“If they took down trees to get a view, the house would be seen. The chances are someone buying a lot near a ridge line will max it out,” he concluded.
The commission considered taking a site walk to the parcel, which is difficult to access. Member Darrell Cherniske said he did not believe that would resolve the issue, however. “If we want to feel good about this, we need our engineer and the applicant’s engineer to agree.”
