Date: Fri 27-Mar-1998

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

Tamarack-Woods-lawsuit-Benoit

Full Text:

Tamarack Woods Is Once Again Target Of A Lawsuit

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has been sued yet again over its

approval of the controversial Tamarack Woods residential subdivision, marking

the fourth time the town has been the target of lawsuit regarding either the

approval or denial of various versions of the home-construction project.

Tamarack Woods is the most controversial small subdivision in recent memory.

The eight-lot, 33-acre site near Lake Lillinonah is situated within the

triangle formed by Tamarack Road, Sanford Road and Echo Valley Road.

In the lawsuit, Cordalie Benoit of 23 Sanford Road, who owns property adjacent

to the approved subdivision, alleges the subdivision of land creates one lot

that violates the town's driveway ordinance and also violates the town's

subdivision regulations.

In the suit, Ms Benoit states she is "interested in protecting the scenic

nature of Tamarack and Sanford dirt roads and the public health, safety and

welfare of those living in and using the neighborhood."

Through the legal action, Ms Benoit seeks to have a Danbury Superior Court

judge nullify the P&Z's March 5 approval of Tamarack Woods.

M&E Land Group, the parcel's developer, also is named as a defendant in the

lawsuit.

Ms Benoit is represented by attorney Stephen C. Gallagher. The town has an

April 14 court answer date in the case.

Tamarack Woods has been a source of controversy since early 1996.

Four versions of the project were submitted for town land-use approvals before

the P&Z finally endorsed the project March 5.

The parcel is rugged, rocky terrain interspersed with wetlands. Residents of

the Sanford Road area sought and gained scenic-road status for that road last

year, limiting how the roads can be physically changed when houses are built

there.

In the development project, four lots have frontage on Sanford Road, three

lots face Tamarack Road, and one lot faces Echo Valley Road.

In June 1997, P&Z members unanimously rejected the third version of Tamarack

Woods, which was then a ten-lot proposal. The P&Z rejected the second version

of Tamarack Woods in December 1996. M&E withdrew its first version of Tamarack

Woods from P&Z consideration in the summer of 1996, before the matter reached

the P&Z's public-hearing stage.

The developers have reconfigured the Tamarack Woods design plans as various

neighboring property owners have pressured them to present designs that would

have minimal effects on their individual properties.

At sessions on past versions of Tamarack Woods, nearby property owners

expressed concerns that building new homes in their area would threaten their

domestic well water supplies. Also, concerns have focused on: disturbing a

rustic area; potential environmental hazards; creating traffic problems; and

damaging archaeological artifacts and local plant life.

M&E Land Group says its fourth proposal will have less impact on the

neighborhood than the previous proposals, adding that road improvements to

Sanford Road and Tamarack Road will not be necessary.

The Tamarack Woods proposal has been the subject of three lawsuits.

The developers still have one of those lawsuits pending against the P&Z over

its rejection of a previous version of Tamarack Woods.

Two previous and now-defunct lawsuits were filed by Ms Benoit, and by Robert

and Mae Schmidle of Echo Valley Road.

Fire Reports | April 28-May 4, 2026

Just Over The Border: Southeast Kitchen And Bath’s New Showroom

Police Reports | April 27-May 3, 2026

Silent Auction To Coincide With Garden Club Standard Flower Show

BOE CFF Discusses Itemized Estimates, Summer CIP Projects

Well that is some spin. The Democrats have a super majority on the LC and passed the Education Budget without serious consideration of if the voters could afford the multi million dollar increase. "Was the request justified?" rather than "is this needed?" and "can the voters shoulder yet another large increase?" The voters rightly sent it back. Then for some reason all the discussion around reductions to the increase seemed to be coming from the classroom, rather than administration and overhead costs. Is this a coercive tactic to manipulate parents into supporting the budget like tacit threat of cutting freshman sports was two years ago? Who believes the Democrats did not caucus privately before the meeting and came in with a number already worked out? This is the Dems budget, they own it.

Education Cuts: Who Voted For What

I think it is important that we do not villainize every black box seen around a home, business, farm, or municipal property. A black exterior station does not always mean rat poison is being used. These stations can hold a number of different products, including monitoring blocks, snap traps, non-toxic bait, anti-tick bait stations, organic salt- or cornmeal-based control products, and newer fertility-control approaches intended to reduce rodent populations without traditional poisons. The better conversation, in my opinion, is not simply “black boxes are bad,” but rather: what is inside them, who is maintaining them, and whether the rodent issue is being managed responsibly. Exclusion, sanitation, trapping, habitat reduction, and careful monitoring should all be part of a responsible IPM strategy. To be fair, on my own property I do use rodenticides, including Bromethalin and Bromadiolone, in secured bait stations. But that is a choice I make for my property, based on my circumstances and the risk I am trying to manage. I also believe property owners should understand the tradeoffs and be encouraged to use the least harmful effective method whenever possible. I support protecting Newtown’s wildlife. I also support giving residents accurate information and not assuming that every black box represents reckless or unsafe pest control. The goal should be responsible rodent management, not fear of the box itself.

Discusses Policy Against Rodenticides

Debora, thank you! I accidentally doubled the project prices by adding the bond to the appropriation. Thank you so much for catching that and pointing it out. With the corrected numbers, the voters approved a combined $1.32 million for a salt shed ($600k) and library pavement ($720k), while rejecting the $1.12 million replacement turf. Regarding the 80s, I truly respect the hurdle of 14% mortgage rates. My point is simply that the math has shifted: in 1980, while the rates were higher, the price of a home relative to earnings was significantly lower. We are facing a different, but equally crushing, financial wall. Ultimately, it is disheartening that voters who recognized safe sidewalks and parking lots as essential, dismissed a playing field in the exact same condition. The turf has passed its life cycle and is just as much of a liability as the library’s pavement, the only difference is that this safety concern affects thousands of children who, coincidentally, cannot vote. These are apples-to-apples needs. I was hopeful our community would agree that all Newtown residents deserve safe conditions, regardless of which facility they utilize. Again, I would be remiss not to mention that when 82% of residents don’t show up, we have to deal with the interests of those who did. Hopefully, the next referendum will have a bigger turnout.

The ‘Me’ Generation

Thanks for the reply. I meant the numbers you presented in your letter. I found one place where other numbers were listed: https://www.newtownbee.com/04232026/get-out-and-vote-on-the-2026-27-proposed-municipal-and-school-budgets/?q=\\\%22advisory%20questions\\\%22. In that article, the numbers were cited as: Treadwell field: $1,125,000 Library: $720,000 Salt Storage: $600,000 As one who started out in the early 80's when inflation was double digits, my 1985 mortgage rate was 14%, and child care costs were comparable (in present value), I shared your grief but never considered the voters ironic or shameful. PS. I agree college tuition is ridiculous. Thankfully, universities are offering (or considering) waiving all or most tuition for middle class families (upwards of $200,000 incomes). Hopefully, they'll also reconsider their need for those funds in the first place.

Sure! Child care costs: https://www.ffyf.org/2022/10/13/data-child-care-prices-continue-to-rise-ahead-of-midterm-elections-outpacing-inflation/ (also from 2021-2025 we had 2 children in a local daycare in Newtown and it cost us $3200 a month, so that's a number I am very familiar with) Home price / median price vs income source: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios Tuition increase vs inflation: https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/noting-a-decline-in-middle-class-students-colleges-provide-more-aid/ Hope this helps :)

<< May 2026 >>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
26	27	28	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	3	4	5	6

Log In

Date: Fri 27-Mar-1998

Leave a Reply Cancel reply