Balancing Development And

Natural Resources

To the Editor:

As Planning and Zoning begins to assess the environmental impacts of the Hunter Ridge’s proposed 14-lot lakeside development, it’s important to understand why the Danbury Superior Court ordered the project back to square one.

The environmental intervention that I brought in Hunter Ridge’s court case was supported through the testimony of two experts, including the renowned natural resource expert Dr Michael Klemens. 

Dr Klemens has worked on hundreds of development projects for both developers and land use commissions throughout Connecticut and beyond. He has successfully achieved balanced development on sites involving sensitive natural resources similar to those involved with the Hunter Ridge property.

Unfortunately, Hunter Ridge did not involve a natural resource expert in the initial design of the proposed development presented to the commission in 2005.

The court heard extensive expert testimony regarding the significant adverse impacts of the proposed development on natural resources, testimony that the Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission never had the benefit of hearing during the original 2005 application process.

Instead of making a new application addressing these impacts, Hunter Ridge chose to refute and make light of these criticisms and suggestions and to go through a lengthy litigation and trial process.

Hunter Ridge LLC claimed that our experts would not be able to establish that unreasonable harm would occur if the development were built as proposed. It also argued that even if we did, any such deficiencies would be minor and could be addressed without having to return to the Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission to secure its approval.

Ultimately, the court found that our experts had established through their testimony that the development, as originally proposed in 2005, and as revised in 2007 during the litigation, was reasonably likely to cause unreasonable harm to natural resources. 

The court ordered Hunter Ridge to return to the commission for further proceedings and instructed the commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the proposed development, focusing on the environmental impacts identified by our experts, including consideration of the appropriateness of 14 separate lots for the Hunter Ridge property.  The original subdivision of the property in 1970s was for only four separate lots.

The court also retained jurisdiction of the case so that it may review the commission’s actions and determine whether the commission has given adequate consideration to the environmental impacts.

From the outset, my goal has been to ensure that any development of the Hunter Ridge property be appropriate given the natural resources of the property. It’s disappointing Hunter Ridge chose to ignore the environmental impacts its project would have on the surrounding land and Taunton Lake.

It would’ve been far more beneficial for all, including the town and its residents, if Hunter Ridge had spent their time and money trying to improve their plan instead of fighting the environmental experts and those concerned about the health of Taunton Lake.

Spencer Taylor

15 Taunton Lake Road, Newtown                             August 17, 2009

(Spencer Taylor is president of the Taunton Lake Association.)