Conservation Wetlands Approval Challenged In Court
Conservation Wetlands Approval Challenged In Court
By Andrew Gorosko
The Conservation Commissionâs recent wetlands approval for the construction of a single-family house on Brushy Hill Road has prompted a legal challenge from an adjacent property owner, who is seeking to have a judge overturn that approval.
In a lawsuit filed November 18 in Danbury Superior Court, plaintiff Dana Nuzzo of 4 Dug Hill Road sues the Conservation Commission and also development applicants Ronald and Doris Botsford of 208 Brushy Hill Road. The Conservation Commission serves as the townâs inland wetlands and watercourses agency.
According to the legal papers, on July 14, the Botsfords applied to the Conservation Commission for permission to do certain construction work at 210 Brushy Hill Road in areas near wetlands that are regulated by the commission. The Nuzzo property at 4 Dug Hill Road is adjacent to the Botsford property at 210 Brushy Hill Road.
The commission conducted public hearings on the application on September 8 and 22. After considering the application, commission members unanimously approved the application with various conditions on October 27.
During the public hearing, earth scientist Aleksandra Moch of Wet Soils, LLC, of Cos Cob, representing Ms Nuzzo, presented a report indicating that the proposed construction âwould have a significant impact on regulated areas, including the degradation of wildlife habitat, fragmentation of the wetland corridor and loss of adequate buffers, and would cause short- and long-term damage to the wetland/watercourse system.â
The commissionâs action in approving the wetlands permit was arbitrary, illegal, unfair, and contrary to evidence presented on behalf of the plaintiff, according to the lawsuit.
Through the lawsuit, the Ms Nuzzo seeks to have a judge overturn the Conservation Commission approval.
The plaintiff is represented by attorney Michael Jankovsky of Quatrella & Rizio, LLC, of Fairfield. The town has a December 14 court return date in the case.Â