4-to-1 Vote—

P&Z Approves Environmental

Protection Regulations

By Andrew Gorosko

Following discussion at a December 17 session, Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members approved a set of land use regulations intended to protect the environment in development proposals involving subdivisions, resubdivisions, site development plans, and special permits.

The rules, which were approved by P&Z members in a 4-to-1 vote, cover both the agency’s subdivision regulations, which it administers as the town’s planning agency, and also the group’s zoning regulations which it employs in its role as the town’s zoning agency.

Voting in favor of the environmental protection rules were P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean, Jane Brymer, Robert Mulholland, and Richard English.

P&Z member Dennis Bloom voted against enacting the environmental protection rules. Following the session, Mr Bloom said that such matters already are addressed by both the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) and by the Conservation Commission. Also, having such rules would increase the costs of development for applicants, he said.

Under the terms of the new regulations, applications for subdivisions, resubdivisions, site development plans, and special permits shall include an “environmental impact report” centering on issues involving the pollution of air, water, and other natural resources.

Such rules would come into force during the early, design phases of projects as a way to curb potential environmental harm.

The P&Z’s environmental review would include the topics of: ecosystem fragmentation; plant and animal habitats; wildlife corridors; the inter-watershed transfer of surface water; forest ecosystems; a natural resources inventory; species diversity; flora and fauna; threatened species, endangered species; food chain disruptions; diminished species populations; changes in predator-prey relationships; and broadly, environmental quality, public health, and public safety.

The environmental regulations approved by the P&Z on December 17 join a set of new rules approved by the agency last May which are intended to preserve the significant archaeological, historic, and cultural features of land which is proposed for subdivisions and resubdivisions.

P&Z members had been poised to act on the environmental rules earlier this month, but repeated objections to the proposal by local attorney Robert Hall, who challenged the agency’s jurisdiction to enact such regulations, had resulted in a delay.

Mr Hall had voiced concerns that having such rules in force would have the P&Z become a municipal environmental protection agency without having a legal basis for such authority.

P&Z members, however, countered that applicable state law allows them to address the various environmental issues posed by development proposals.  

In a December 17 memorandum from Town Attorney David Grogins to George Benson, the town director of planning and land use, Mr Grogins wrote, “I have reviewed the proposed (environmental protection) amendments…and find them acceptable from a legal perspective.”

Origin

The P&Z’s interest in having environmental protection regulations stems from a Danbury Superior Court judge’s having sent to the P&Z for environmental review a resubdivision proposal which the P&Z had rejected in the past.

In October 2005, the P&Z unanimously rejected the 14-lot Hunter Ridge resubdivision project that is proposed for an environmentally sensitive 30-acre sloped site at 41-47 Mt Pleasant Road. The land lies between Mt Pleasant Road and Taunton Lake. P&Z members rejected the application, citing various concerns about open space aspects of the project.

Developer Hunter Ridge, LLC, then appealed that rejection in Danbury Superior Court in seeking to have a judge approve the project. But in June 2006, resident Spencer Taylor of 15 Taunton Lake Road entered the court proceedings as an intervener, raising a variety of environmental issues, charging that the project would have adverse effects on the lake and nearby land.

A trial on the intervener’s claims occurred in late 2008, with Judge Barbara Sheedy then sending to the P&Z some revised plans for the resubdivision in which the developer addressed various environmental concerns that had been raised by Mr Taylor.

On December 17, the P&Z reached a consensus on the environmental aspects of the Hunter Ridge proposal, which it has forwarded to Judge Sheedy. The judge will retain the final jurisdiction in the case. (See related story)

Mr Benson told P&Z members that the agency clearly has the jurisdiction to seek environmental impact reports from applicants.

While the town acknowledges the development rights of landowners, it also seeks to minimize development’s adverse effects on the environment, he said.

The environmental rules would define the P&Z’s inherent powers in such cases, he said.

Mr Benson noted that Judge Sheedy had informed the P&Z that the agency had not considered the environmental issues posed by the Hunter Ridge proposal in reviewing that resubdivision application in 2005, Mr Benson said.

If the P&Z had such environmental rules in effect when initially reviewing the Hunter Ridge proposal, it would have translated into a better design for the project, he said.

Ms Dean noted that the 2004 Town Plan of Conservation and Development calls for the P&Z to have environmental oversight over proposed development.

The new rules create a mechanism for such land use regulation, she said.

“This forces the issue. They’re (developers) going to have to look at these things,” she said. Such environmental review would come early, during a project’s planning stages, before much money has been spent on a site’s design, she said. At such a point, developers would be more willing to modify their plans, she said.

“We want to see these environmental issues looked at,” Mr Benson said. Such oversight would make for better local development in the long run, he added.

Mr Benson stressed that he is “not anti-development,” but added that he wants to have development done correctly.

At the December 17 public hearing, attorney Joseph Hammer, who represents Mr Taylor, commented to the P&Z on Mr Taylor’s behalf.

Mr Hammer said Mr Taylor supports the P&Z’s environmental regulations. Such rules will become an essential part of the P&Z’s regulatory role in reviewing pertinent environmental aspects of development proposals, Mr Hammer said. The lawyer called such regulations “essential.”

Having additional information on development applications available for P&Z review is positive and serves the interest of the town at large, Mr Hammer said.

The P&Z’s environmental regulations take effect on December 28.