Date: Fri 08-Nov-1996

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

wetlands-Eagle-Hill-McLaughlin

Full Text:

Eagle Hill Sues Over Conservation Decision On Vineyard

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

The Cornerstone of Eagle Hill, Inc, has sued the Conservation Commission over

the commission's recent approval of a wetlands construction license for a

vineyard that plans to build a driveway near Eagle Hill.

The lawsuit was detailed in legal papers received by the town November 1.

Eagle Hill is an alcohol and substance abuse treatment facility at 32 Alberts

Hill Road.

The seven-member Conservation Commission serves as the town's inland wetlands

and watercourses commission. It is empowered to enact and administer

regulations for the environmental protection, preservation, maintenance and

use of inland wetlands and watercourses.

In September, Morgen McLaughlin of McLaughlin Vineyards, Inc, filed an

application with the commission for a license to conduct regulated activities,

including the construction of a driveway and culvert in an area with wetland

soils.

In October, an Eagle Hill representative told the commission's staff that

Eagle Hill is concerned that the construction planned by McLaughlin would

occur in the same wetland location as three drilled water wells, which serve

Eagle Hill.

During an October 9 Conservation Commission meeting at which the commission

considered the application, the Eagle Hill representative explained how the

environmental impact of driveway construction on Eagle Hill's wells could be

minimized, according to the lawsuit.

The commission later granted McLaughlin a conditional construction license.

"The defendant commission did not at any time conduct a public hearing on the

McLaughlin application," the suit states.

According to the plaintiff, in approving the McLaughlin application, the

Conservation Commission acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of the

discretion vested in it because it: failed to compel McLaughlin to comply with

the wetland regulations; failed to hold a public hearing; didn't evaluate the

criteria for its decisions as explained in the wetland regulations and state

law; didn't state on the record any specific reasons or evidence to support

its decision; didn't impose the conditions suggested by Eagle Hill to minimize

potential for damage to the wetland and Eagle Hill's property; all members of

the commission didn't visit the site, and commission members improperly

delegated their authority by relying on the decision of one commission member.

Eagle Hill also alleges there is no evidence that the driveway project would

have no effect on the wetlands, as allegedly claimed by one commission member,

among other complaints.

In the lawsuit, Eagle Hill seeks to have a Danbury Superior Court judge

reverse the commission's ruling and declare the McLaughlin construction

license null and void.

The lawsuit also seeks to have the Conservation Commission conduct a public

hearing on the McLaughlin application, as well as provide any other relief the

court deems fit.

Named as codefendants in the lawsuit are: the commissioner of the state

Department of Environmental Protection; the Town of Newtown; and the state's

attorney general.

The plaintiff's attorney is Richard L. Street of the law firm Carmody and

Torrance of Waterbury. The town is scheduled to appear in Danbury Superior

Court December 3 to answer the allegations made in the lawsuit.

The town and McLaughlin Vineyards have had a long-running dispute over the

various public events at the vineyard property in violation of local zoning

regulations.

The vineyard's application for a wetlands construction license was a first

step in improving vehicular access and safety at the sprawling property.

In the future, the vineyard may seek a special exception to the zoning

regulations from the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) to conduct certain

limited activities on the grounds.

Recently, the town has been pursuing a court injunction against the vineyard

to prevent it from conducting events that are not allowed by the zoning

regulations, such as jazz concerts.

COA Welcomes New Alternate, Discusses Senior Alliance

BOE Recognizes 2026 Profiles In Professionalism Honorees

C.H. Booth Library Hosted Another Successful Volunteer Fair

Fire Reports | April 28-May 4, 2026

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 08-Nov-1996

Leave a Reply Cancel reply