Developer Appeals Newbrook Subdivision Rejection

By Andrew Gorosko

A development firm has filed a court appeal in seeking to overturn the Inland Wetlands Commission’s (IWC) recent rejection of the Newbrook residential subdivision, which is proposed for an Obtuse Road site.

In an appeal filed August 14 in Danbury Superior Court, Newbrook, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company based in Greenwich, seeks to have a judge order the IWC to approve the project.

Both the IWC and Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) recently rejected the four-lot Newtown component of the proposed Newbrook project, which straddles the Newtown-Brookfield town line. Newbrook, LLC, proposes four lots for Newtown and three lots for Brookfield, in the project that has a Newtown street address of 7 Obtuse Road. A new road is proposed for the site.

The site is near the intersection of Obtuse Road, Currituck Road, and Hawleyville Road. The Newtown section of the development would contain more than 14.8 acres, of which about three acres would be open space land. The overall project would comprise 38.4 acres, of which more than 23.5 acres are located in Brookfield.

On July 25, the IWC rejected the Newbrook application without prejudice in a 4-to-2 vote. IWC members decided that the Newbrook application was incomplete.

The applicant provided modified plans for subdivision construction work on the day that the IWC public hearing on the application concluded, preventing adequate review of the plans by the public, the IWC decided. Also, such a late submission of modified plans provided the IWC with little time to study and pose questions on the design changes, according to the IWC.

The P&Z unanimously rejected the Newbrook application on August 2. It was not immediately clear whether Newbrook, LLC, would appeal the P&Z’s action.

P&Z members decided that the degree of land disturbance on the site would be too extensive. The development would require extensive earthen cutting and filling in order to meet the requirements of the town’s road ordinance, zoning regulations, and subdivision regulations, the P&Z decided.

P&Z members also noted that the applicant failed to receive a wetlands permit from the IWC on July 25.

Additionally, P&Z members found that the town engineer has raised a variety of technical issues about the proposed subdivision that the applicant has failed to resolve. Also, the town conservation official has raised unresolved issues concerning the control of erosion and sedimentation on the site, according to the P&Z.

Court Appeal

In its pending court appeal of the IWC’s rejection of Newbrook, the developer states that in August 2006, it filed an initial development application, after which it withdrew that application to make changes. Last February, the developer submitted a revised application. Six public hearings were conducted on the revised application. After the second of those hearings, the developer submitted revised plans to address issues raised by town officials.

At the fourth of the six hearings, the IWC told the developer that the IWC had hired a land use consultant to review the application, the lawsuit states. The developer adds that it agreed to make all the various design changes that were recommended by the consultant.

“The [IWC’s] denial of Newbrook’s application was unreasonable arbitrary, illegal, an abuse of discretion, and is not reasonably supported by the evidence in the record,” according to the court appeal.

Attorney James D’Alton Murphy of Gregory & Adams, PC, of Wilton, represents Newbrook in the legal action. The IWC has a September 18 court return date in the case.