Date: Fri 11-Apr-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Tamarack-Woods-suit

Full Text:

Another Lawsuit Filed Over Tamarack Woods

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

An Echo Valley Road couple is suing the Conservation Commission and M&E Land

Group over the commission's granting M&E a wetlands construction license for

the third version of Tamarack Woods, a controversial 10-lot residential

subdivision proposed for the 33 acres lying within the triangle formed by

Tamarack Road, Sanford Road, and Echo Valley Road.

Developing the isolated area has been a source of regulatory and legal

conflict for more than a year.

In the lawsuit filed April 2 in Danbury Superior Court, Mae and Robert

Schmidle of 53 Echo Valley Road ask a judge to restrain the Conservation

Commission from granting the construction license to M&E on its application to

allow a driveway to be built in wetland, and also to widen Sanford Road into a

wetland. The Schmidle property abuts the development site.

"The wetlands and the underground water will be irreparably harmed if the

commission permits the proceedings, and (if) no stay is granted during the

pendency of this appeal," the lawsuit states.

The Schmidles are represented by attorney Cordalie Benoit of 36 Sanford Road.

In March 1996, Ms Benoit was the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the

Conservation Commission and M&E over the commission's granting a January 1996

wetlands construction license to M&E for its first version of Tamarack Woods.

In her March 1996 lawsuit, Ms Benoit cited possible damage to wetlands and

underground water supplies as her reason for seeking to block the wetlands

construction license for the first version of Tamarack Woods. The Benoit

property abuts the development site.

The principals of M&E Land Group are Thomas Maguire of 3 Golden Pond Road, and

Larry Edwards of Easton.

According to the lawsuit, in a 7-to-0 vote at a March 12, 1997, Conservation

Commission session, commission members approved a wetlands construction

license for Tamarack Woods although members made no inquiry into the

alternatives to the work, or the suitability or unsuitability of the activity

for the area. The suit adds that commission members made no inquiry into

whether the work would unreasonably adversely affect the recharging and

purification of groundwater in the area.

The lawsuit charges, "The commission knew or should have known that its March

12, 1997, vote was unreasonable, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion because

it did not examine the proposed widening of Sanford Road. No evidence was

examined concerning the widening of Sanford Road into wetlands. An alternative

plan for subdivision of the land, which exists, would have no impact on

Sanford Road and adjacent wetlands. The action of the Wetlands Commission was

unreasonable, arbitrary, an abuse of power, and contrary to law."

M&E Land Group has a lawsuit pending against the Planning and Zoning

Commission (P&Z) over the P&Z's December rejection of the second version of

Tamarack Woods.

The third version of the project is similar to the first version of Tamarack

Woods which M&E Land Group withdrew from P&Z consideration last summer.

M&E withdrew the first version following strong opposition to the construction

plans from nearby residents. Also, Ms Benoit then had her lawsuit pending

against the Conservation Commission and M&E over the commission's issuing M&E

a wetlands construction license for first version of the project.

In its third version of Tamarack Woods, M&E proposes creating 10 building lots

which would be served by driveways leading from the three roads surrounding

the site. Five driveways would enter from Sanford Road; four driveways would

front on Tamarack Road; and one would enter the site from Echo Valley Road.

The plan involves building a driveway across a wetland, widening existing town

roads, and installing drainage structures along Sanford Road and Tamarack

Road.

M&E would need P&Z approval of its third version of Tamarack Woods to proceed

with the construction project.

The second version of Tamarack Woods was rejected by P&Z members in December.

P&Z members then said the project didn't meet their standards for open space

land donations. In the second version, a street leading from Tamarack Road

onto the 33 acres would serve nine of the 10 lots.

P&Z members then suggested the developers devise a plan in which access to the

homes is provided from Tamarack Road, Sanford Road, and Echo Valley Road, thus

spreading the traffic flow onto the three streets, instead of having almost

all traffic enter the site from Tamarack Road. The third version of the

project is similar to the first version of Tamarack Woods which M&E Land Group

had withdrawn.

Opponents have charged that development in the isolated area would damage its

rustic character, pose environmental hazards, create traffic problems,

jeopardize the adequacy of existing well water supplies, and potentially

damage archaeological artifacts. Tamarack Woods opponents contend the site is

so rugged and wet that it's essentially undevelopable. The land is near Upper

Paugussett State Forest and Lake Lillinonah.

In its pending lawsuit over the rejection of the second version of Tamarack

Woods, M&E states "The open space in the (second) Tamarack Woods subdivision

(proposal) was specifically designed to protect the scenic nature of the

existing Tamarack and Sanford dirt roads." The open space was designed to be a

buffer to the development in accordance with the plan of development, it

states. In denying the application, the P&Z acted illegally, arbitrarily and

in abuse of the discretion vested in it, according to the lawsuit. Through the

lawsuit, M&E seeks to have a judge force the P&Z to approve the second version

of Tamarack Woods.