Ridge Valley Estates—

Developer Appeals Wetlands Rejection Of Botsford Subdivision 

By Andrew Gorosko

A Bridgeport land development firm has filed a court appeal against the Conservation Commission, in seeking to overturn the commission’s recent rejection of wetlands-related construction plans for the developer’s proposed 16-lot residential subdivision on High Bridge Road in Botsford, known as Ridge Valley Estates.

 In the lawsuit filed May 20 in Danbury Superior Court, Hawley Enterprises, Inc, challenges the Conservation Commission’s April 28 rejection of its development plans for a 65-acre site at 15 High Bridge Road. In rejecting the proposal, the Conservation Commission acted in its capacity as the town’s inland wetlands and watercourses agency.

According to the court challenge, on June 30, 2003, the developer entered into an option contract to purchase from Charles Polatsek the tract on High Bridge Road. About one-quarter of the site is designated as wetlands.

The developer then formulated a proposal explaining how it would develop the property for home sites, in view of the extensive wetlands present on the property. Consequently, Hawley Enterprises then sought a permit last January to conduct regulated wetlands-related construction activities on the site.

Those activities would include the construction of a subdivision roadway, which crosses a wetland, the installation of a box culvert to serve as a stormwater drainage device, the construction of single-family houses, the installation of septic waste disposal systems required by those houses, plus the installation of stormwater drainage structures, some of which would lie within 100 feet of wetlands.

Following the Conservation Commission’s initial review and comment on the wetlands-related construction proposal, the developer then modified the development design and eliminated one building lot from the plans, reducing the number of lots proposed to 15.

The Conservation Commission held public hearings on Ridge Valley Estates on February 25, March 10, and April 14. It rejected the application on April 28, deciding that the development plans did not meet the requirements of the wetlands regulations.

Legal Appeal

In its court challenge, Hawley Enterprises charges that the Conservation Commission acted illegally, arbitrarily, and in abuse of its discretion in turning down the development plans. 

The developer maintains that the rejection was contrary to expert evidence that the proposed construction work would have no significant environmental adverse effects on wetlands on the site. The developer adds the commission based its decision on the application on the number of building lots that were being proposed.

Also, the developer contends that the commission based its decision, in part, on the fact that certain construction work was proposed for areas lying within 100 feet of wetlands, without considering whether such work would have a significant adverse effect on those wetlands.

Hawley Enterprises adds that the commission did not consider certain aspects of state law pertaining to wetlands in making its decision.

The developer is represented by attorney Kevin Gumper of Fairfield in the lawsuit.

The Conservation Commission has a June 29 court return date in the case.

If the developer were to gain Conservation Commission wetlands approval for its project, it also would need approval for the subdivision design from the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).

P&Z members held a public hearing on the subdivision application on March 4.

Unlike most residential subdivision proposals, the developer had simultaneously submitted applications to the Conservation Commission and to the P&Z.  

Typically, applications are initially submitted to the Conservation Commission, which rules on the wetlands aspects of the project, after which plans are submitted to the P&Z, which reviews issues including building lot creation, septic system design, water well placement, road construction, stormwater drainage control, and open space areas, among other matters.

At the March 4 P&Z public hearing, the developer submitted to the P&Z a schematic version of a subdivision map, which was based on design revisions that had been recommended for the project by conservation officials. But that schematic did not contain the level of detail that is required for P&Z review of a subdivision proposal.

At that session, P&Z Chairman William O’Neil stressed that subdivision applications typically are sequentially submitted to the Conservation Commission and then to the P&Z to avoid certain regulatory snarls. In the past, such simultaneous submissions have resulted in various regulatory complications, which, at times, caused applications to be rejected by the P&Z for procedural reasons.

After the Conservation Commission rejected the Ridge Valley Estates wetlands application, the developer then withdrew its pending subdivision proposal from P&Z consideration.

At the March P&Z session, nearby residents voiced concerns about the proposed development’s construction density, its potential environmental effects on a fish hatchery at Rowledge Pond, the traffic that would be generated by new development, and its effect on underground water supplies.