Split Rock Road At Issue—

Resident Appeals Oak Ridge III Subdivision Approval

By Andrew Gorosko

An Eden Hill Road woman has filed a court appeal against the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) over its recent approval of the 17-lot Oak Ridge III residential subdivision off Eden Hill Road and its allowing the nearby Split Rock Road to remain a dead-end street as part of that subdivision approval.

In the lawsuit filed April 9 in Danbury Superior Court, plaintiff Mary Liscinsky of 58 Eden Hill Road explains that she owns property that abuts the subdivision site and is thus aggrieved by the decision of the P&Z as a matter of law, and has the legal standing to file the appeal.

At a March 19 session, P&Z members unanimously voted to approve the 17-lot Oak Ridge III project on a 79.3-acre parcel of former farmland at 46 Eden Hill Road, near the Easton town line.

A key aspect of that subdivision approval involved whether the nearby dead-end residential Split Rock Road should remain a dead-end street or should be extended to become a through-road linked with new roads in the Oak Ridge III development. Split Rock Road extends westward from Eden Hill Road.

During public hearings on the subdivision application, groups of residents from Split Rock Road and from Eden Hill Road respectively urged that Split Rock Road remain a dead-end road, or instead be converted into a through-road linked to the new subdivision.

Split Rock Road residents argued that keeping that street as a dead-end road would prevent increased traffic flow there, would protect their safety, and would preserve their properties’ values.

However, Eden Hill Road area residents urged that Split Rock Road become a through-road and be connected to the proposed subdivision. Those residents said that doing so would lessen the potential traffic pressure and safety hazards on Eden Hill Road that would come with the added traffic generated by a new development.

Ms Liscinsky spearheaded the Eden Hill Road residents’ drive to have Split Rock Road be extended to become a through-road linked to the Oak Ridge III subdivision.

Attorney Robert Hall, who represents Ms Liscinsky in the court appeal, explained that his client’s intent in filing the appeal is to have the P&Z approve a revised version of Oak Ridge III in which Split Rock Road would be extended to the subdivision.

Initially, subdivision applicants Nick and Gino Vona and also WF Brothers, LLC, presented a subdivision design to the P&Z that extended Split Rock Road into Oak Ridge III. However, Split Rock Road residents’ opposition to that design resulted in the P&Z having the applicants revise their proposal to let Split Rock Road remain a dead-end street.

The applicants told the P&Z that they prefer allowing Split Rock Road to remain a dead-end road. They added, however, that they were willing to build Oak Ridge III with Split Rock Road remaining as a dead-end road, or alternately being extended as a through-road.

The subdivision applicants are named as co-defendants in the court appeal.

In the appeal, Ms Liscinsky maintains that when it was approved in 1989, Split Rock Road was designed as a temporary dead-end road that was intended to eventually be converted into a through-road and linked to other town roads. The town’s land use regulations require such a road extension, she claims.

In reviewing the many issues surrounding the Oak Ridge III subdivision proposal, P&Z members sought Town Attorney David Grogins’ legal opinion regarding Split Rock Road. Mr Grogins responded that the P&Z has the discretion to decide whether Split Rock Road should remain a dead-end road or be extended to become a through-road.

Ms Liscinsky, however, opposes Mr Grogins’ view that the P&Z has discretion in the matter.

The town has a June 2 court return date in the appeal. Attorney Robert Fuller represents the P&Z in litigation.