Date: Fri 30-May-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-lawsuit-Watch-Hill

Full Text:

Developers Sue Over Watch Hill P&Z Rejection

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

The developers of Watch Hill, a proposed 15-lot residential subdivision on 32

acres in the Riverside section, have sued the Planning and Zoning Commission

(P&Z) over its May 8 rejection of the home construction project.

In a lawsuit filed May 21 in Danbury Superior Court, developers Robert

Mathison and Emory Palmer seek to have a judge force the P&Z to approve the

controversial development project.

The P&Z's rejection of Watch Hill hinged on Town Attorney David Grogins' legal

opinion that, as proposed, the development would result in more than 15 houses

on the town-owned, dead-end street, Alpine Drive. The town allows a maximum of

15 houses on its dead end streets.

The number of houses on dead ends is limited to keep down the number of

families who would be isolated from the town road network, and emergency

services, if access is blocked.

According to the developers' lawsuit, the site is "accessed" from an existing

town road named Alpine Drive. Alpine Drive was accepted as a town road by the

selectmen in 1994, the suit adds.

"The 15 proposed subdivision lots have frontage on two proposed streets...

each of the proposed streets is a dead-end street. The proposed streets

intersect with each other, and, one proposed street (Watch Hill Road)

intersects with Alpine Drive, providing access to the town road system," the

lawsuit states.

The legal papers state that in denying the development application, the P&Z

acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of the discretion vested in it, in

that: the P&Z improperly concluded the application doesn't comply with

applicable land use regulations; the P&Z interpreted its regulations

inconsistently with their plain meaning and intent; and the P&Z exceeded its

authority and jurisdiction by counting existing houses outside the proposed

subdivision in determining the maximum number of building lots to be served by

the streets proposed in the application.

The lawsuit requires the town to appear in court June 17 to answer the

allegations.

At a recent public hearing on Watch Hill, Attorney David Harting of

Middlebury, representing the developers, told P&Z members the 15-lot limit on

dead-end subdivision roads applies only to new lengths of roadway, and doesn't

apply to the specific development plan proposed by the developers.

"I think we have a unique situation with the Watch Hill subdivision," he then

said.

"The plans submitted meet the intent and conditions of the zoning regulations

and the subdivision regulations," engineer Larry Edwards said at that hearing.

Mr Edwards represents the developers.

But, in his review of the development plans, Town Engineer Ronald Bolmer found

that subdividing the land as proposed would create more than 15 lots on the

dead-end Alpine Drive.

At the recent hearing, people living near the site expressed fears that new

development would intensify existing drainage problems in the area, pose

pollution problems from new septic systems, endanger domestic water supplies,

and create an unacceptably high construction density in the area.

The proposal which P&Z members rejected is similar to an initial 16-lot

version of Watch Hill submitted by the developers in 1995.

In 1995, nearby residents had raised questions about the practicality of

building 16 houses on the site, noting that the area already has a high

population density. Many area residents then said they feared that building a

subdivision there would cause drainage problems on their properties.