Hattertown Road-Developer Appeals Wetlands Rejection For Subdivision

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Jul 25, 2008 12:00 am

Hattertown Roadâ

Developer Appeals Wetlands Rejection For Subdivision

By Andrew Gorosko

The developer of a four-lot residential subdivision proposed for Hattertown Road, known as Hattertown Place, which was rejected by the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) in June, has appealed that rejection in court in seeking to have a judge order the wetlands panel to approve the wetlands protection design for the project.

In a lawsuit filed July 17 in Danbury Superior Court, developer Hattertown, LLC, of New Milford, sues the IWC, and by extension the commissioner of the stateâs Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The town has an August 5 court return date in the case.

The IWC rejected the wetlands protection aspects of the proposed subdivision on June 25. Following that rejection, the developer withdrew from consideration on June 30 its parallel residential subdivision application, which was then pending before the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).

The subdivision proposal drew various concerns from nearby property owners at a February 21 P&Z public hearing. Issues then raised included traffic safety regarding motorist sight lines and school bus travel, as well as stormwater drainage control, water quality preservation, and open space access.

The 11.4-acre site proposed for four house lots is at 22 Hattertown Road. The site, which has a significant amount of wetlands, is on the west side of Hattertown Road, about 700 feet north of Hattertown Roadâs intersection with Poverty Hollow Road. The site has F&R-1 zoning, within which the minimum lot size is one acre.

According to the developerâs legal complaint, in late 2007 it filed a wetlands application seeking a permit for minimal clearing of an upland review area, which would involve altering 3,640 square feet of that area, and no alteration to any wetlands on the site.

On March 12, the IWC conducted a public hearing, which was then continued during several ensuing meetings.

The developer submitted suitable evidence stating that the proposed subdivision design would properly protect the wetlands on the site, according to the court papers.

Also, during the course of the several hearings, the developer revised its wetlands protection design plans several times to incorporate additional protection features requested by IWC members, according to the court appeal.

However, on June 25, IWC members unanimously rejected the wetlands protections plans for the proposed subdivision.

Rejection

In its rejection, the IWC listed many reasons for turning down the project.

Among them was that the application was incomplete. The applicant provided revised plans on the day which the public hearing closed, denying the public and the IWC suitable time for review and posing questions about the plan revisions, according to the IWC.

Additionally, the IWC raised questions about the plansâ suitability in terms of the environmental effects on wetlands and watercourses due to nitrogen discharges from proposed septic systems; the presence ofÂ a proposed stormwater âplunge poolâ for drainage control; the prospect of erosion on steep slopes; incomplete groundwater monitoring; and the diversion of groundwater.

In its legal appeal, the developer charges that the IWC acted illegally, arbitrarily, and in abuse of its discretion in rejecting the wetlands application.

The developer charges that the IWC erred in many technical regards in determining that the development plans should be rejected.

The applicant maintains that it provided all information requested by the IWC, and thus did not present an âincomplete application.â

Also, the IWC exceeded its legal powers by regulating activities which are unlikely to adversely affect wetlands on the site, according to the lawsuit.

Hattertown LLC thus seeks to have a judge order the IWC to approve the wetlands application that was amended during the public hearing process.

St Rose Parish Welcomes New Parochial Vicar

Youth Cheerleaders And Basketball Players Get Pointers From High School Athletes

Andersen Tale To Continue Richter Summer Season

Future Nighthawks And Current Varsity Players Alike Benefit From Summer Soccer Camp

When Life Gives You A Lemonade Stand ... Play Basketball

It’s important to clarify the tone and context of Derek Pisani’s remarks, particularly the satirical line about suing Newtown for "Gross Stupidity." This was clearly a tongue-in-cheek jab at the exhausting culture of legal threats that’s become a staple on the local Facebook Group forums. It was a reflection of frustration over endless regulatory hurdles and obstructionism, and the desire to avoid common sense solutions not an insult aimed at residents. Satire, is meant to provoke thought and highlight the absurdities. If we are unable to distinguish between satire and literal threats, perhaps the comment hit closer to the truth than we’d like to admit. Rather than focusing on Pisanis style, we should be discussing the substance of what he’s pointing out: that Newtown’s progress is being routinely blocked by a small but vocal contingent who seem intent on saying “no” at every turn. They are saying no to any development, no to common sense solutions to crowd control, etc. Newtown deserves leaders who are willing to call things as they see them, even if their language ruffles feathers. That doesn’t mean they lack respect for constituents—it means they care enough to challenge the Mob and push for solutions. Isn't that what we elect people to do? I applaud Pisani's dedication, he certainly has earned my vote. Regardless, let’s not reduce conversation to tone-policing and outrage. Let’s focus on the issues that matter.

Who is Calling Newtowners Stupid?

Thank you for pointing out the trail access provisions included in the BOS motion—it’s an important clarification that deserves more attention in this conversation. If the development is, in fact, required to provide permanent free public access and commit to ongoing maintenance of this section of the Rochambeau Trail, that is a remarkably beneficial outcome for the town. oIt’s not every day that a private project shoulders the long-term burden of preserving and caring for a public historical corridor at no taxpayer cost—especially one that previously had no formal access, upkeep, or visibility. Let’s be honest: the idea that the only way to protect history is by preventing any development nearby is a rigid and unworkable standard. What’s being proposed here appears to strike a rare balance—historic preservation, public access, and smart development all rolled into one. That’s not a loss its a win. So rather than allowing a handful of voices to derail progress under the banner of “historic purity,” maybe it’s time to acknowledge the reality: this trail is better off with structured stewardship and visibility than remaining an overgrown ghost on old maps. Let’s move forward. Bring in the easement, bring in the public access—and yes, bring in the bulldozers!!! Progress and preservation can coexist. Let’s not let the NIMBY use fear or nostalgia keep us stuck in the past.

Discusses Rochambeau Trail And 6 Commerce Road

I've heard that several people are under the impression that the public might be banned from the Rochambeau Trail. Points 2 and 3 from the BOS motion (included in full below) make it clear that public access to the trail is part of the requirements for the developer. From what I understand, it requires free public access to the trail in perpetuity. Technically, this could be argued to be a "payment-in-kind," that attempts to balance public good with overall town growth. We can argue about weather that balance is acceptable and how the trail may be affected, but with the understanding that the trail is expected to be maintained as a publicly accessible trail regardless. July 15, 2024 Board of Selectmen approved motion: Discontinuance of Reservoir Road: Selectman Cruson moved the resolution: Resolved, that the Newtown Board of Selectmen, in accordance with Section 2-115(d)(8) of the Town Charter and Conn. Gen. Stat. §13a-49, and subject to the conditions set forth below, hereby discontinues an unimproved portion of Reservoir Road described as “Portion of Reservoir Road to be Discontinued “on that certain survey map which will be recorded on the Newtown Land Records titled “Map Showing Portion of Reservoir Road to be Discontinued” dated August, 2023 and revised September 15, 2023, and certified substantially correct by Gregory Szyszowski of SLR (the “Survey Map”), said discontinuance contingent and effective only upon the completion of the following: 1. The approval of an application for the development of land in the manner described in a letter from Attorney Thomas W. Beecher to First Selectman A. Jeffrey Capeci and Members of the Board of Selectmen dated May 30, 2024, pursuant to the “Residential Open Space Development” regulations of the Borough of Newtown by the Borough of Newtown Zoning Commission, and construction of that approval project within the timeframes required for special exception approval; 2. The inclusion of the discontinued portion of the road as part of the final Declaration of Conservation Restriction; 3. The conveyance of a mutually agreeable public easement to the Town of Newtown for pedestrian, bicycling, equestrian, and all other passive recreational uses (to exclude the use of motorized vehicles except as may be necessary by the Town or its designee to effectuate the purpose of the easement), and for municipal utility purposes; Be it further resolved, that Castle Hill Real Estate Holdings, LLC., its successors and assigns, shall not use any portion of the discontinued road as a vehicular road or access way to and from any developed portions of the property. Be it further finally resolved, that should any of the foregoing contingencies not occur, then the discontinuance contemplated herein shall not become effective and this resolution will become null and void. From: https://www.newtown-ct.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif12216/f/minutes/bos_7-15-24_min-_att_final.pdf

Is this paper road (roads that only exist on paper map but not in reality) even owned by the Town? Many roads that predate the Town's road standards are privately owned and were never accepted by the Town, such as many of the nonconforming roads around the lake communities where the property owners own right to the center line. That is something we had to deal with when working on the Roads Ordinance a few years back. We also had to deal with a private road to run the utilities to the new SHS.

For anyone who wants to know, I cant post a link here, but Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority has an entire website. Look up "HRRA whats in whats out"

I Get It!

<< Jul 2025 >>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
29	30	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31	1	2

Log In

Hattertown Road-Developer Appeals Wetlands Rejection For Subdivision

Leave a Reply Cancel reply