Rollingwood Couple Appeals

Ridge Valley Estates Approval

By Andrew Gorosko

A couple living near the site of the planned Ridge Valley Estates 15-lot residential subdivision, which recently gained Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) approval, has filed a court appeal against the P&Z in seeking to have a judge overturn that approval.

In a lawsuit filed November 22 in Danbury Superior Court, Edward J. Lovely and Regina E.C. Lovely, both of 34 Marlin Road in the Rollingwood subdivision, name as defendants the P&Z and subdivision applicant Hawley Enterprises, Inc, of Stratford. The court return date is January 10, 2006. Attorney Hugh Lavery represents the Lovelys. Attorney Robert Fuller represents the P&Z.

On November 3, the P&Z approved Ridge Valley Estates, a planned 15-lot residential subdivision on a 65-acre site at 15 High Bridge Road. The site lies on the north side of High Bridge Road, just east of its intersection with Botsford Hill Road.

Fourteen of the 15 building lots would be located on a proposed dead-end street extending from High Bridge Road, known as Ridge Valley Road. The site has extensive wetlands and varied terrain. The Ridge Valley Estates site abuts the expansive Rollingwood residential subdivision.

The site holds R-1 and R-2 zoning designations, which respectively require minimum building-lot sizes of one acre and two acres. The planned building lots range from 1.8 acres to 4.5 acres.

Besides a planned 17.4-acre open space area for passive forms of public recreation, the site would contain approximately 17 acres of conservation easements, where development would be prohibited. Consequently, more than half of the site would be restricted from development. Three water-quality control basins will be constructed on the property to control stormwater runoff.

High Bridge Road will be widened in the area where it intersects with the proposed Ridge Valley Road to facilitate vehicle movements in that area.

In their lawsuit, the Lovelys state that they own property that abuts the Ridge Valley Estates site and are therefore statutorily aggrieved by the subdivision approval.

 The Lovelys claim the P&Z acted illegally, arbitrarily, and in abuse of its discretion in approving the Ridge Valley Estates project. They charge that the application does not meet applicable land use regulations; the subdivision approval is not is harmony with the purposes and intent of the regulations; the approval is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and the approval is not supported by the evidence in the record of the application.

Through the appeal, the Lovelys seek to have a judge overturn the subdivision approval.

In April 2004, the Conservation Commission, acting as the town’s wetlands protection agency, had rejected a previous version of Ridge Valley Estates due to the proposed construction’s proximity to wetlands. The developer then filed a court appeal against the Conservation Commission, in seeking to overturn that rejection. Through an ensuing mediated settlement, the developer and the Conservation Commission resolved their differences, with the developer later gaining a wetlands permit for a 15-lot project. That wetlands approval preceded the P&Z’s subdivision approval.