Full Text:

Conservation Panel Sued Over Wetlands Action

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

A residential developer, whose application for a wetlands construction permit

was denied by the Conservation Commission, is suing the commission in a move

to get an approval for the wetlands construction work.

In a lawsuit filed May 1 in Danbury Superior Court, Daniels Hill Development

LLC, of 62 Saxony Drive, Trumbull, sues the Conservation Commission.

The development firm needs both Conservation Commission and Planning and

Zoning Commission (P&Z) approvals to build Daniels Hill Estates, 15-lot

development on 42 acres, off Parmalee Hill Road, adjacent to the Housatonic

Railroad tracks.

The Conservation Commission, serves as the town's inland wetlands and

watercourses commission, when reviewing developers' requests for wetlands

construction permits.

In December 1997, Daniels applied to the commission to conduct regulated

activities in wetland and watercourse areas. The commission conducted a public

hearing on the application on February 25 and March 11. In April, the

commission denied the developer's application, providing reasons for the

denial.

In rejecting the developer's application for a wetlands permit, Conservation

Commission members stated:

The stormwater runoff from the site flows into a wetlands system and an

existing pond which has no drainage outlet. Thus, the added water which the

pond and the wetlands would receive due to increased development will affect

the wetlands system, as well as a home site now being developed. The proposed

drainage design also may affect the proposed Lots 11, 13 and 14 in Daniels

Hill Estates, and such drainage problems must be resolved, according to the

commission.

The commission's recommended elimination of Lot 12 hasn't been adequately

addressed in the developer's revised plans. Reconfiguring Lot 11 and Lot 12

into a new Lot 11 would place a house and septic system fairly close to a

wetland. The commission recommended repositioning a home site.

Also, commission members expressed concerns about the presence of a proposed

new road and the effect that a fire protection system would have on wetlands.

Response

According to the developer's lawsuit, the commission's denial of the

application was based on considerations which weren't part of the public

hearing record, exceeded the commission's powers, and was speculative and

vague in nature.

The developer alleges the Conservation Commission acted illegally,

arbitrarily, and in abuse of the discretion vested in it by law in that: it

considered factors that weren't part of the public hearing record in deciding

that the pond has no drainage outlet; it exceeded its statutory authority in

concerning itself with septic systems and "minimum squares" not located within

areas that it regulates; it gave as a reason for denial a general concern

regarding a new road and fire protection system without any specific finding

of an adverse impact; and it denied the applicant a reasonable use of its

property.

Attorney Sutherland W.G. Denlinger represents the applicant in the lawsuit.

The town has a June 9 appearance date in Danbury Superior Court to address the

charges raised in the civil suit.