feb. 2011 easton planning & zoning resolution - saddle ridge

8/6/2019 Feb. 2011 Easton Planning & Zoning Resolution - Saddle Ridge

1/29

EASTON PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION

225 CENTER ROADEASTON, CT, 06612

__________

TELEPHONE (203) 268-6291FAX (203) 268-4928

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED FEBRUARY 14, 2011

APPLICANT: Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC68 Soundview DriveEaston, Connecticut 06612

Applicants Representatives:Attorney: Matthew Ranelli, Esq.

c/o Shipman & Goodwin, LLPOne Constitution PlazaHartford, CT 06103-1919

Engineer: Milone & Mac Broom, Inc.99 Realty DriveCheshire, CT 06410

PROPERTY LOCATION: At Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road, and Westport Roadin the Town of Easton, ConnecticutAssessors Maps: 3773B, 3774B Assessors Blocks: 15, 7, 27

OWNERS OF RECORD: Silver Sport Associates, Marilyn Stone c/o Huntley Stone

I. The Applications

Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC, the applicant for the owners of 124.704 acres at Sport HillRoad, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road and Westport Road, propose applications toauthorize the construction of an affordable housing project, pursuant to Conn. GeneralStatutes Sec. 8-30g.:

1. Amend the Easton Town Plan of Conservation and Development to delete or modifyspecific recommendations for residential densities not to exceed one family per every twoupland acres on public water supply watershed land;

2. Amend the Easton Zoning Regulations to establish a new overlay zone titled Housing

Opportunity Development (HOD) District, with related regulations governing thatdistrict;

3. Amend the Easton Zoning Map (Zon. Regs. Article 3 Districts) to provide for HODDistrict;

1


2/29

4. Rezone the applicants 124.7 acre site to a HOD District;

5. Authorize a subdivision of 10 lots and site plans for 105 townhouses to be located onsaid site;

6. Amend Section X.11 of the Easton Subdivision Regulations to exempt a setasidedevelopment from certain open space requirements.

The purpose of the applications is to create a mixed-income housing community of 105townhouses on the above-referenced property, pursuant to the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat.8-30g, the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act.

With the consent of the applicant the six (6) applications were considered concurrently in apublic hearing commenced September 13, 2010, continued on September 27, October 18,October 25, November 8, November 22, and concluded on December 13, 2010.

II. Description of Site, Environs, and Prior Application

A. The property which is the subject of these applications (the Site) is a 124.704 acre tractin north central Easton, bounded by Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Roadand Westport Road. Silver Hill and Cedar Hill Roads are Town-designated, ScenicRoads pursuant to Town Ordinance under General Statutes 7-149a.

The terrain of the Site consists of irregular topography divided by a major belt ofwetlands which extends from its northwest corner to its southeast corner. There areseveral smaller wetlands. A 1,000-ft.-long pond, of about six acres, is in the southeastextremity of the Site, and there are several nearby rocky outcrops. A mosaic of overtwenty different soil types have been identified on the site. Although once activelyfarmed in open meadows and two orchards (1934 aerial photos; Commission Record,

November 8, 2010, Items 9 & 10), the Site is now predominantly second-growthwoodland, adjacent to which is an open area of about 14 acres containing buildings and paddocks of the owners horse farm. (Application maps, Sheet EX-1; CommissionRecord, 09/27/10, Item #4.)

The entire acreage of the Site lies on watersheds of two nearby public water supplyreservoirs owned by the Aquarion Water Company. The easterly portion of the Sitedrains via Patterson Brook to the Easton Lake Reservoir about 1.4 miles to the east andthe remainder of the Site drains via Ballwall Brook to the Aspetuck Reservoir which isabout two miles to the west. (Easton Ct Public Drinking Water Source ProtectionAreas, map by CT Dept. of Public Health; Commission Record, 12/13/10, Item #5)

B. The Site lies within a rural suburban area of widely-space single-family dwellings, and islocated approximately six miles from the nearest urban centers in Fairfield, Bridgeportand Trumbull. The nearest major highways are Route 25, about four miles to the east,and the Merritt Parkway, about four and a half miles to the south.

2


3/29

There is no public transit service (other than Town school bus service) anywhere in thevicinity. The nearest public water service (an end-of-line special main to the Town Hall,Police Department and Public Library) is 1.4 miles away. There are no public sanitarysewers in any portion of Easton, nor within five miles in any direction of the Site.Because Easton lacks a commercial center and nonresidential zones, there are nosignificant centers for services or employment within six miles of the Site.

On its four sides the Site is surrounded by approximately 24 single-family dwellings,virtually all on three-acre or larger lots. The entire northern section of Easton, includingthe applicants property, is zoned for single-family residential use at a minimum lot sizeof three acres per dwelling in order to protect the public water supply watershed. (EastonZoning Regulations: Article 1. Purposes, Section 9; Article 3. Districts, Sections 3.1and 3.2)

The established low-density three-acre residential zoning is consistent with the EastonTown Plan of Conservation and Development which was officially adopted in 2007 afterreview by the State Office of Policy and Management and a unanimous endorsement voteat a duly warned Town Meeting. The Town Plan, despite applicants contention to thecontrary, strongly endorses the principle of protecting the public water supply watershedlands at a density no greater than one dwelling unit for every three acres of site area andone family per every two upland acres. See Town Plan report, pages 3, 21, 34 and 101,and Town Plan Map. (Application legal notice; also citations in the GHD report ofOctober 28, 2010, Appendix B, Commission Record, 11/08/10, Item #1)

The low-density residential zoning of the Site, moreover, is wholly consistent with thewatershed density and land use recommendations of the Conservation and DevelopmentPolicies Plan for Connecticut 2005-2010, adopted by the State General Assembly in2005. (GHD Report to Commission, October 28, 2010; Commission Record 11/08/10,Item #1)

C. The prior application for development of this property, made by the same applicants in 2008, was for asubdivision of 21 lots for 21 single-family dwellings, each lot comprising three or more acres, plus a 14-acre parcel reserved for the existing horse farm (Application #08-04). This plan was modified andapproved by the Commission in March 2009. The developer appealed several of the approval conditionsand this appeal was resolved by mutually accepted Stipulation for Settlement on March 3, 2010. Theprescribed period for recording of the approved subdivision map, per Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-25, afterextension, expired August 30, 2010. The developers failed to record the approved plan within theallowed time limit and failed to seek a further extension of the filing period.

III. Commission findings regarding substantial public interests in health and safety regardingpublic water supply:

A. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTERESTS INHEALTH AND SAFETY EXIST WITH REGARD TO THIS APPLICATION WHICHTHE COMMISSION MUST PROTECT. SPECIFICALLY, THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY, WHICH ISTHREATENED BY THIS APPLICATION, AND THIS SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC

3


4/29

INTEREST IN HEALTH AND SAFETY IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIALEVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF THIS PROCEEDING.

1. The Commission finds that virtually the entire area, including the populations ofBridgeport, Fairfield, Stratford, Trumbull and Westport, are served by AquarionWater Company. In addition, Aquarion Water Co. serves by regionalinterconnection the majority of the population during drought periods of Norwalk,Darien, New Canaan and Stamford. Aquarion Water Co. water mains also serveportions of Easton, Monroe, Redding, Ridgefield, Weston, Wilton and Shelton.

2. The Commission finds that substantial public interests in health and safety,

especially in regard to protection of the public drinking water supply for over400,000 water consumers, in the communities stated above, exist with thisaffordable housing application which the Commission must protect, and that theseinterests are supported by substantial evidence in the record of this proceeding,summarized and highlighted herein, but more fully found in the full record of thisproceeding.

3. The Commission finds, notwithstanding the recognized need for affordable housingas noted in the State Policies Plan of Conservation and Development (GrowthManagement Principle #2, pp. 38-40), that the plans embodied in these applicationswould contravene other more significant principles of the adopted State Plan . Thesepolicies specifically advocate the protection of public water supply watersheds(Growth Management Principle #5, pp. 82 & 83), discouragement of water mainextension into rural lands except where required to mitigate an existing pollution problem (Introduction and Overview, p. 7), encouragement of appropriate urbaninfill housing located for proximity to employment and transportation (GrowthManagement Principle #2, pp. 38 & 39), and discouragement of intensivedevelopment in rural areas not already supported by local infrastructure (GrowthManagement Principle #1, p. 21). (GHD Report of October 28, 2010, Appendix C,

report to Commission by John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, datedNovember 8, 2010; Commission Record: November 8, 2010, Items #1 and #3)

4. The proposed Housing Opportunity Development District (HOD) and proposeddevelopment project (The Development) greatly exceed well established anddocumented State of Connecticut standards for maximum allowable developmentdensity on public water supply watershed lands. The reports submitted in the recordshow that such standards are necessary to assure a safe drinking water supply forhundreds of thousands of water consumers. This public health and safety concern isof such fundamental importance to the whole population of nearby areas that itclearly outweighs the recognized need for affordable housing in such areas.

Accordingly, the Commission cannot approve this application as presented with thisproposed density.

5. The State of Connecticut Conservation and Development Policies Plan for

Connecticut 2005-2010 (State Plan) was adopted by the General Assembly in2005 and therefore constitutes an official statement of the public interest in

4


5/29

conservation and development matters. The State Plan states that sources ofdrinking water must be continuously protected from intensive development becausethe cumulative impacts of continuing development on both existing and futurewater supply watersheds can result in deterioration of water quality, andspecifically recommends as a density guideline that water supply watershedsrequire minimum lot sizes of one dwelling unit per two acres of buildable area(excludes wetlands). (State Plan, Growth Management Principle #5; GHD report toPlanning and Zoning Commission, October 28, 2010, Commission Record 11/08/10,Item #1) The proposed application far exceeds this guideline.

6. The State Plan, moreover, addresses the question of appropriate location for densehousing in these words: Support efforts to develop appropriate urban infill housingto make better use of limited urban land, and reduce pressure for outward suburbanboundary housing development. (State Plan, Growth Management Principle #2;John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, memoranda to Planning and ZoningCommission (3) dated December 1, 2010, Commission Record 12/13/10, Items #1,#3 & #4)

7. A letter from the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH), DrinkingWater Section (DWS), dated September 13, 2010, by Eric McPhee, SupervisingEnvironmental Analyst, addressed to the Chairman of the Planning and ZoningCommission in respect to DPHs Source Water Protection Review for Saddle RidgeVillage, Easton, confirmed the state density guideline for public water supplywatersheds of not more than one dwelling unit per two buildable acres and adds thatThe DWS believes, consistent with state policy for the protection of drinking watersupply watersheds, that development of this nature is best located outside of a publicwater supply watershed area. (Commission Record, 9/27/10, Item #14)Documentation for the watershed protection maxim of restricting residentialdevelopment density to no more than one dwelling unit per two acres of buildablearea is set forth in the May 1989 Report for the Blue Ribbon Commission on

Housing, on the Land Required to Support Residential Development in Connecticut(copy, in part, sent to this Commission by the Connecticut Dept. of EnvironmentalProtection, Commission Record, 10/18/10, Item #2; GHD report to Commission,October 28, 2010, Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #1)

8. As required by the General Statutes, the applications were referred to the GreaterBridgeport Regional Planning Agency (GBRPA) for comment. GBRPAs responseletter, dated August 27, 2010, states the Agency would not support the Saddle RidgeVillage project due to potential impacts to the regional water supply.(Commission Record 9/27/10, Item #12)

9. The Saddle Ridge Village applications were also referred to the Aquarion WaterCompany, owner of the Easton Lake and Aspetuck Reservoirs, for their comment.Two response letters were received. In a letter to the Chairman of this Commission,dated July 29, 2010, Brian T. Roach, Supervisor, Environmental Protection, stated:

5


6/29

Because the development density of this proposal conflicts with fundamental principles of water shed protection and is, consequently, contrary to therecommendations of the Connecticut Department of Health, the ConnecticutDepartment of Environmental Protection, the Connecticut Office of Policy andManagement and the Regional Planning Agency Association of Connecticut, theAquarion Water Company Department of Watershed and EnvironmentalManagement strongly urges the Town of Easton not to approve this application.(Commission Record, 9/27/10, Item 8)

10. A letter from Leendert T. DeJong, Aquarion Water Company, Manager, Watershedand Environmental Management, dated November 18, 2010 and addressed toThomas Herrmann, First Selectman, stated the following (references to Eurekarefer to the recent case of Eureka V, LLC v. Ridgefield Planning and ZoningCommission, 2010 WL 4609391, October 20, 2010, Cohn, J.):

. . . it is also reasonable to conclude that pollutants that might emanate fromthe Saddle Ridge project site, which is located less than one and one-half miles fromour Easton Reservoir and less than two miles from our Aspetuck Reservoir, mighthave more immediate and significant adverse effects to reservoir water qualitythan those posed by the Eureka project. Distance from a pollution source to theintakes of a terminal, or distribution, drinking water reservoir is a factor inassessing the risk posed to both the reservoirs ecology and the public drinking watersupply.

In our strong opposition to both the Eureka and Saddle Ridge high-densitydevelopment proposals, Aquarion did not focus on the relative proximity orremoteness of the project locations to our reservoirs, however, because thewatershed management studies and principles upon which our oppositions wereformulated dealt most significantly on the cu[l]mulative impact of suchdevelopments within public water supply watersheds. These studies conclude that,

regardless of their separating distance from a reservoir, high-density developmentsare inappropriate within public drinking water supply watershed areas because oftheir known, cu[l]mulative adverse effects on water quality. (Commission Record,11/22/10, Item #2)

11. Numerous defects in the design plans for Saddle Ridge Village have been identifiedby the Commissions consulting engineer. (Report to Town of Easton, ConnecticutTechnical Review and Presentation of Findings, October 28, 2010, by GHD Inc.,Gary A. Dufel, PE, BCEE, LEED AP, FASCE; 23 pages plus Appendices;Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #1) These defects pose an extraordinary risk tothe natural environment and water quality of the drinking water watersheds on which

the Saddle Ridge Village site is located. The Commission finds there are criticalflaws in the applicants plans which potentially jeopardize the health and safety ofthe general public which depends on the quality of the public water supply. Insummary these defects are:

6


7/29

Cumulative impact of non-point pollution, insufficiently remediated, fromoverly intensive residential development would have a long-term impacton the environment (GHD report, pp. 2-5, p. 10);

Environmental impacts will be from the site as a whole and cannot bemanaged effectively by individual lots (GHD report, p. 6);

A much greater impact on the land and natural resources of the site, thanfrom the previously approved single-family-lot subdivision, as a result ofproposed clear cutting, extensive earthwork, use of lawn products, andgreater impervious area, will significantly lower the environmental qualityof the site and adversely affect the integrity of the watersheds (GHDreport, pp. 6 & 7);

Low Impact Development design has supplanted Best ManagementPractices as a more effective means of environmental protection,advocated for water supply watersheds by CT Department ofEnvironmental Protection and not employed effectively in applicants

plans (GHD report, pp. 8 & 9);

Population of the site, with consequent direct impact on natural resourcesand water quality, would be dramatically greater from the Saddle RidgeVillage plans, 180 to 260 persons, as compared to the previously approvedsingle-family-homes subdivision, 85 to 100 persons (GHD report, p. 9);

Inadequate testing was performed for the stormwater basins (GHD report,p. 12);

Design of the hybrid stormwater detention and infiltration basins does not

meet low-impact design standards nor comply with the CT DEPStormwater Quality Manual, with the result that 20 per cent or more ofpollutants in stormwater (depending on storm frequency) will be releaseddirectly to on-site wetlands with a consequent impact on the quality ofwater leaving the site. (GHD report, pp. 14 16)

2. The Commission takes note of these clear words from its consultant:

The consequences of failure on the watershed lands and reservoirs would haveenvironmental and health consequences that could be staggering in their scope andremedies. The Lower Density development already approved is the better method of

developing this property while protecting the environmental resources on site.(Report to Town of Easton, Connecticut, Saddle Ridge Development, by GHD,October 28, 2010, page 23; Commission Record 11/08/10, Item #1)

13. Responses by the applicants engineer, Milone & Mac Broom Inc., rely primarily on best management practices. (Commission Record 11/22/10 Item #11) Best

7


8/29

management practices have been discounted for effectiveness by the GHD report ofOctober 28, 2010. (Commission Record 11/08/10, Item #1) That report states:

. . . it should be recognized that the Best Management Practices manage at theend of a pipe, not at the source as Low Impact Development encourages. LowImpact Design ideas look to put stormwater back into the ground near where it isgenerated to mimic pre-existing conditions. Pollutants would not be carried tolocations just feet from the wetlands. For the most part, this project relies oncollection of stormwater, concentrating it and piping it in constructed basins verynear wetlands.

Pushing the development envelope in critical areas (drinking watershed inthis case) has an added risk an extraordinary risk, and the applicant should beexpected to provide extra ordinary methods of risk avoidance and protection in thiscase providing a density that conforms to state Policy and Management. Further, theApplicant has stated their project conforms to the State Guidance using BestManagement Practices for stormwater control and treatment but rather than pushthe envelope for higher density development and rely on Best Management Practicesthat are beneficial but do not go far enough, the practices espoused by Low ImpactDevelopment are now accepted across the country as a superior method ofdevelopment and is being practiced by engineers and planners. We believe a LowImpact Development would be much more in keeping with development withindrinking water watersheds it would be less disruptive on the natural environment,and would be less risk to the important drinking watershed lands, and moreconsistent with the States Policies for development within a drinking waterwatershed.

14. The Commission cannot find that the applicants engineers responses meet the

legitimate objections raised in the GHD report of October 28, 2010, and theintervenors experts. In particular the applications failure to establish a sound

management structure for its nine separate homeowner associations casts doubt onthe Projects long-term viability for critical watershed protection. (GHD report ofOctober 28, 2010, Findings p. 23; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #1)

15. Because of the planned density of dwellings and septic systems on the developmentportion of the Saddle Ridge Village site, a 1.4 -mile public water line extension isproposed to reach the site. However this extension is contrary to the public interestas expressed in the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut2005-2010, page 7, point 4) which states in part: . . . The states policy in public drinking water supply watersheds is to discourage the introduction ofinfrastructure for the purpose of accommodating new development. Exceptions may

be allowed in certain instances where development has already occurred and addedpollution controls are required to protect potable waters. (GHD report appendix,October 28, 2010; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #1)

The Commission finds that proposing a dense development in a rural area whichrequires a major water line extension is in direct opposition to this important policy,

8


9/29

and the noted exception does not apply to this undeveloped property. TheCommission further finds that the proposed water line extension would createincentives for more intensive development along its route resulting inevitably inadditional development impacts on the water supply watershed.

The applicant has stated that a water pumping station would be necessary tomaintain adequate water pressure for fire fighting at the Development, but hasshown neither plans nor location for the station. The applicant was informed by theCommission that its proposed water line route would impact two designated TownScenic Roads (Cedar Hill and Bibbins Roads) and a third proposed Town ScenicRoad (Orchard Lane, Town Plan of Conservation and Development, 2006, planmap), requiring a separate application, but no additional application has been madeand the applications are therefore incomplete. (Public Hearing 10/18/10 meetingrecord. Also, report to Planning and Zoning Commission by John Hayes, Consultantand Land Use Director, dated December 8, 2010; Commission Record 12/13/10,Item #1)

The Commission concludes that the proposed water line extension is contrary to the public interest as expressed in the State and Town Plans of Conservation andDevelopment, which interest serves a much larger population than the small numberof beneficiaries of the proposed affordable housing development.

16. The applications propose amendments to the Easton Zoning Regulations and ZoningMap to establish a new Housing Opportunity Development (HOD) District.(applicants Petition For Text Amendment, Map Text Amendment booklet, byShipman & Goodwin LLP, July 9, 2010, Tab 7, pp. 1-4) (Commission Record9/27/2010, Item #7)

The proposed HOD regulations provide as follows (in part): E. Lot Density. NoHOD District shall have more than two and one-half (2.5) homes per gross acre of

land. The proposed HOD District is the applicants property (as hereinbeforedescribed which contains 124.7 gross acres (including wetlands). It is clear that theproposed amendments would create a potential build-out, or development capacitysubject to site plan review, of 310 dwelling units (124 x 2.5 = 310). 310 dwellingunits is 5.0 times the safe residential density for water supply watersheds asrecommended by the State of Connecticut (Department of Health and other citationsabove). The Commission notes that the applicant is using gross acres, which fails toexclude wetlands and is inconsistent with the State and Town Plans of Conservationand Development.

The proposed HOD regulations provide for a zoning site plan review but do not

otherwise restrict the potential density of development as required to protect the public water supply watershed. (see Section N. of cited proposed regulations)(Report to Commission by John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director,November 8, 2010; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #3)

9


10/29

The Commission finds the proposed HOD Regulations and Zoning Map to be inconflict with State standards for safe development density in a public water supplywatershed (cited previously), as well as contrary to the adopted Town Plan ofConservation and Development. (Chapter 11; Residential Development andHousing) The proposed regulations and map, while aiming to increase the supplyof affordable housing, are seriously detrimental to the greater public interest inpreservation of the natural environment and safe drinking water.

17. Because of the density of the proposed Saddle Ridge Village development, and thecomplexity of its proposed infrastructure, a comprehensive management structure isessential to protect its watershed environment. Infrastructure would include 105individual septic systems, extensive water and utility lines, common roadways and parking lots, stormwater drainage and detention facilities throughout the site,pumping station and other common facilities, all requiring diligent maintenance,monitoring and coordination. The application, however, proposes to divide thiscontinuing responsibility among nine lots and nine individual homeownerassociations. No provision has been made for essential monitoring, coordination andenforcement of these obligations among the respective lot owners, in any of thedocuments accompanying this application, including the Affordability Plan,Submission Draft, and Deed Restrictions, Schedule D. (Petition For TextAmendment . . . Site Plan Approval, by Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, July 9, 2010,Tab 7; Commission Record 9/27/10, Item #7)

The failure of the application to provide a comprehensive and long-termmanagement plan for the Development creates a high risk of accidentalcontamination of drinking water streams and reservoirs. (GHD Report to Planningand Zoning Commission, October 28, 2010, pp. 17 & 18; Commission Record,10/18/10, Item #1)The Commission finds that the proposed creation of nine separate homeowner

associations to respectively manage the water, sewage treatment, roads, drainage andother interconnected infrastructure on nine lots further jeopardizes public health andsafety through lack of coordinated fiscal and managerial oversight.

18. On a more specific level, the architectural plans which accompanied the SaddleRidge Village application depict the two dwelling models proposed for constructionin the Development. (Commission Record 9/27/10, Item #5)

Despite the proposed deed restriction prohibiting more than two bedrooms perdwelling (previously cited reference), the architectural plans clearly show for eachhouse model a second-story room-size extra space easily usable for or adaptable to a

third bedroom. Without strict enforcement measures in place, noted above, arational judgment must conclude that the planned dwellings are at variance with thestated deed restriction and therefore the potential population of the Development issignificantly higher than the density which would occur with 210 bedrooms.(Memorandumto Planning and Zoning Commission by John Hayes, Consultant andLand Use Director, December 1, 2010; Commission Record 12/13/10, Item #3)

10


11/29

The Commission finds that this discrepancy in the applicants plans, in light of thelack of management oversight established above, is a serious flaw in the plans with avery high probability of disastrous consequences for protection of the regions publicwater supply, as noted by GHD in their report dated October 28, 2010.(CommissionRecord, 11/08/10, Item #1)

B. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE POTENTIAL HARM PRESENTED BY THIS

APPLICATION CLEARLY OUTWEIGHS THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLEHOUSING IN EASTON.

1. The Commission has balanced the need for 32 units of affordable housing in Eastonversus the risks presented by this application to the over 400,000 users of the watersupply. In weighing those competing goals, it is clear that the risk of potential harmclearly outweighs the need for affordable housing for the below reasons.

2. The proposed Development, as presented in the Saddle Ridge Village application,plans, and response documents, all made part of the record, would pose a veryserious and direct threat to the health and safety of more than 400,000 personsresiding in nearby towns who require a safe public water supply, significantlysupplied by the reservoirs and their supporting watershed areas, all of which are inthe Town of Easton.

3. The entire 124.7 acre site of proposed Saddle Ridge Village lies within watershedsof Aquarion Water Companys Easton Lake Reservoir and Aspetuck Reservoir, eachless than two miles distant; see map Easton, CT Public Drinking Water SourceProtection Areas, published September 2006 by the State of ConnecticutDepartment of Public Health, Drinking Water Section (Commission Record12/13/10, Item #5), and Saddle Ridge Village Drinking Water Quality ManagementPlan, report by Milone & Mac Broom Inc., November 2010, Figure 2-1.

(Commission Record 11/22/10, Item #11)

4. The Commission finds that the applicants engineers responses do not meet thelegitimate objections raised in GHD report of October 28, 2010 by reason ofapplications failure to establish a sound management structure for nine separatehomeowner associations, and for the other reasons stated herein. (GHD Report ofOctober 28, 2010, Findings p. 23; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #1)

5. Easton is a rural town with no sanitary sewers, and 89% of Eastons land arearecharges into public water supply reservoirs and wells. Most of its terrain is notcapable of sustaining intensive development. Yet, as evidenced herein, Easton is

making concerted efforts in the affordable housing area, and the town recognizes theneed to provide affordable housing. This application presents a clear and obviousdanger to the drinking water supply, which is an immediate and clearly moresignificant danger than Eastons challenge to provide more affordable housing.Quite simply, if the water supply is compromised as a result of this high-density

11


12/29

development, affordable housing challenges and other housing issues will becomeirrelevant.

6. In fact, Easton has addressed and continues to address the affordable housing issue.Despite the fact that approximately 89% of Eastons land area recharges publicwater supply reservoir and wells, and most of its terrain is not capable of sustainingintensive development, the Town encourages affordable housing within the naturalconstraints imposed by its land and lack of infrastructure. These are some basicchallenges Easton faces in providing affordable housing, such as the lack of publicsewers and the large percentage of the town on the public watershed.

7. In September 1989, the Easton Town Meeting ratified the Regional AffordableHousing Compact for the Greater Bridgeport Region, establishing goals for suchhousing based on population. In February 1995, the Town Planning and ZoningCommission adopted regulations to authorize Affordable Accessory Apartments.(Zoning Regulations, Sec. 7.8.5) On July 1, 2007 the Planning and Zoning Com-mission adopted a comprehensive Town Plan of Conservation and Developmentwhich states the following policy (at page 96):

In conformity with statutory mandate, and as limited by soil types, terrain,infrastructure capacity and water-supply watershed protection imperatives, exploremeans of increasing the availability of housing choice and economic diversity inhousing such as public or private non-profit dwellings and setaside units insubdivisions. (Chapter 4)

8. Additionally, the adopted Town Plan recommends that a limited duration accessoryapartment be allowed as a matter of right to any resident homeowner, subject to safewater supply and sewage disposal, and discontinuance if vacated. It is anticipatedthat this plan will contribute to meeting Eastons needs for more diverse andaffordable housing and bring its total housing stock closer to the States 10%

affordability goal. (See Town Plan of Conservation and Development, ResidentialDevelopment and Housing, Chapter 11)

9. In the meantime, the Commission has concluded that the dangers inherent in thisaffordable housing application are very significant, substantial and clearly supportedby the record of this proceeding, and we cannot in good conscience - even whilenoting the importance of affordable housing - support the project given theoverwhelming evidence in the record.

C. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS CAN BEMADE TO THIS APPLICATION WHICH COULD PROTECT THESE PUBLIC

INTERESTS.

Since this Commission has previously approved a subdivision for this property, it is clearthat some housing development would be acceptable. However, this proposal for 105units, based upon the evidence in the record, is unacceptable and presents a health andsafety problem due to risk to the drinking water supply, as discussed above. The

12


13/29

Commission would be receptive to a revised housing application with a lower density,which could protect these important public interests. The revised application should beconsistent with the standards and guidelines set forth in the State of ConnecticutConservation and Policies Plan for Connecticut (2005-2010) and the Town of EastonPlan of Conservation and Development. The revised application should also besupported by substantial evidence in the form of expert opinion confirming protection ofthe public interest in the drinking water supply.

IV. Commission Findings regarding substantial public interests in health and safety for firesafety:

A. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTERESTS INHEALTH AND SAFETY EXIST WITH REGARD TO THIS APPLICATION WHICHTHE COMMISSION MUST PROTECT. SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICATIONPRESENTS FIRE SAFETY ISSUES WHICH THE COMMISSION NEEDS TOPROTECT, AND THIS SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST IN HEALTH ANDSAFETY IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OFTHIS PROCEEDING.

1. The proposed Site Plans for the Development (Sheets # L-1 through L-8 inclusive)show substantial numbers of residential dwellings on privately-owned commondriveways, typically only eighteen-feet-wide in travel width (although flanked by a24-inch graded shoulder on each side); this contrasts with standard Town roadrequirements of 24 feet of travelway width plus graded shoulders. Applicants havecited Section 5.15.1 K. of the Zoning Regulations which allows for a commondriveway of 16ft. width plus graded shoulders limited, however, to a maximum offour lots without public street frontage. Lot 2 of the Site Plans proposes 15dwellings served by an 18-ft. common driveway. Lots 3 and 4 share a commondriveway serving 17 dwellings. Lot 5 has 10 dwellings served by an 18-ft. commondriveway. On Lot 6 there are 12 dwellings served by an 18-ft. common driveway.

14 dwellings on Lot 8 require access by an 18-ft. common driveway.

2. Most of the individual parking spaces, two for each residential unit, directly abut thatlots 18-ft. common driveway, thereby requiring every parked vehicle (typically 16to 20 feet in length) to back out in such manner as to simultaneously obstruct bothlanes of the common driveway. Because of the lack of individual driveway spacethe 18-ft. common driveways must also provide at-curb parking for deliveries andvisitors in excess of the two spaces per unit.

3. There is a significant probability that traffic congestion will occur periodically andwill interfere at times with emergency access by fire and rescue vehicles. (see letters

to Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission, September 13, 2010 from SchuylerSherwood, Deputy Fire Marshal and November 3, 2010 from Peter Neary, FireMarshal; Commission Record, 09/27/10 and 11/08/10)

4. The Commission finds that the potential traffic congestion resulting from excessivenumbers of dwellings on narrow private roads (or common driveways) poses a

13


14/29

substantial risk to health and safety due to the probability of obstruction of access foremergency vehicles.

B. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE POTENTIAL HARM PRESENTED BYTHIS APPLICATION CLEARLY OUTWEIGHS THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLEHOUSING IN EASTON.

1. The Commission has balanced the need for affordable housing in Easton versus therisks presented with the existing fire safety problems. In weighing those competinggoals, it is clear that the risk of potential harm clearly outweighs the need foraffordable housing for the reasons stated herein.

2. The common driveway issues and traffic congestion issues discussed above, allsupported by substantial evidence in the record, would pose a very serious and directthreat to the health and safety of the residents of this development. It is clear fromthe record that if emergency vehicles do not have unhindered access, a serious risk tolife is presented.

C. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS CAN BEMADE TO THIS APPLICATION WHICH COULD PROTECT THIS PUBLICINTEREST IN FIRE SAFETY.

This proposal for 105 units, based upon the evidence in the record, is unacceptable andpresents a health and safety problem and risk to the residents due to limited access byemergency vehicles. The Commission would be receptive to a revised housingapplication with a lower density, which could protect this important public interest. Therevised application should be consistent with State and Easton building, fire and safetystandards, and must be satisfactory to the Easton Fire Marshal.

V. Commission Findings regarding Easton Plan of Conservation and Development

The Plan of Conservation and Development, Easton, CT, 2006 (Town Plan) was adopted,after public hearings and unanimous endorsement by a Town Meeting, on July 1, 2007.

This application seeks to Amend the Easton Town Plan of Conservation and Developmentto delete or modify specific recommendations for residential densities not to exceed onefamily per every two upland acres on public watersupply watershed land (legal notice andapplication documents; Commission Record September 27, 2010, Item #7).

Preservation of the quality of public drinking water supplies, as an obligation to the health

and safety of the entire population of the region, is a cardinal principle which underlies theentire text and map of the Town Plan. This principle finds expression in many areas of thePlan text, notably at:

Page 3 (The Plan, In Summary), 2. Protect the environmental quality and low-density character of the watershed lands consistent with the density standards of the

14


15/29

State Conservation and Development Policies Plan i.e., no more than one dwellingunit or six bedrooms for every two acres of upland soil and three acres of site area.

Page 21 (Conservation Policies: Key To The Future), 2. Protection of the watersupply watersheds which encompass nine-tenths of Eastons land and water resourcesis essential to the public health of more than a dozen populous communities.

Page 34 (Policy Proposals), 1. Protection of the public water supply watershed in allsections of the town, as recommended in the State Plan of Conservation andDevelopment and the Greater Bridgeport Regional Plan, is essential to the health,safety and property values of Easton and the most fundamental element of the TownPlan. Residential densities in public water supply watershed areas should not exceedone family per every two contiguous acres of upland soil on a site, or two to two anda half bedrooms per upland acre. All uses should be held to strict standards to protectthe quality of surface and groundwaters.

Page 101 (Land on Water-supply watersheds), Protect the environmental quality andlow-density character of all water-supply watershed lands, as recommended by the

State Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut, especially tomaintain residential dwelling densities no greater than one 4 to 5 bedroom dwellingunit, or equivalent occupancy for every two acres of contiguous upland site area.

Page 101 (Residential Development and Housing), Maintain the residential ruraldensity of established three-acre residential neighborhoods and all water-supplywatershed areas.

The Commission finds that the application proposal to amend the Town Plan, as stated in theapplication materials and legal notice, is diametrically opposed to a fundamental principle ofthe Town Plan, specifically, the maintenance of residential development density on public

water supply watershed lands of not greater then one dwelling unit for every two acres ofupland (non-wetland) land as recommended in State and Regional Plans. The Commissionfurther finds that the requested amendment to the Town Plan is unsupported bydocumentation to justify an intensification of development on water supply watershed landsat considerable risk to public health for the limited benefit of additional affordable housingunits.

Zoning regulations and districts are required to be made in accordance with a comprehensiveplan and to protect the public health and safety. (Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-2)

Because these applications are inconsistent with basic principles of the Town Plan, andfound by this Commission, on balance, to be contrary to the overwhelming public interest inprotecting the public water supply, the requested text changes to the Town Plan, to the TownZoning Regulations, and to the Town Zoning Map cannot be approved.

VI. Commission findings regarding significant differences between earlier twenty-one lotsubdivision and this application:

15


16/29

A. The Commission finds that there are significant differences between the prior twenty-onelot subdivision and this application.

1. The Commission finds that there are significant differences between the prior 21-lotsingle-family-dwelling subdivision and the plans embodied in these applications, tosuch a degree of difference that the wetland license granted to the 21-lot subdivisionis not applicable to the plans proposed in these applications.

2. The GHD Report to the Commission dated October 28, 2010 (Commission Record11/08/10, Item #1) described significant differences between the approved 21-lotsubdivision and the present 10-lot subdivision with 105 townhouses proposal, asfollows (excerpts from Part II of GHD Report):

In order to accommodate the greater density associated with the increased numberof residential units and their need for additional area to accommodate driveways,parking, and site amenities, much more land is being disturbed and altered to fitdevelopment within the available site area. By the applicants calculations, 30%more land is impacted. The development is impacted. The development is showinga clear cut removal of all growth and habitat within the limits of the disturbed areas.This contrasts strongly with the potential to retain habitat within the developmentenvelope with the approved application for single family residential use.

The development plans for the proposed 105 condominium units with theirnecessary removal of existing features do not have flexibility for the protection and preservation of the sites natural features within the area of development.Essentially the land will be cleared of all growth and graded to fit the new residentialunits. The difference in overall environmental impact to natural habitat and the fullrange of ecosystems between the two development proposals is dramatic; hence theimpacts within the watershed lands are significant.

The 21 homes would generate a usage based upon 21 families. In Easton, an overallaverage family is just under 3 people per home, thus in round numbers using anaverage this is about 60 people. If one accepts an argument that these homeswould generate more people, and one uses 4 to 4.5 people on average there would be85 to perhaps 100 people occupying the site based upon the approved applicationand this roughly falls in line with the Applicants responses on school age children populations. The new proposal of 105 units could be expected to generatesomewhere between 1.75 to 2.5 people per unit: 180 260 people, considerablymore people and activity on the site. This difference in the numbers of people likelyto be in residence and supported on this site impacts many factors including traffic,water use and septic discharges, and the general use and impacts on the land once

development is constructed.

(T)he applicant has stated in his Engineering presentation that the total imperviousarea is 8.1% of the property (buildings and roads). 8.1% of 124.7 acres is 10.1 acres.However a summary in the Drainage Report June 25, 2010 shows the area of

16


17/29

impervious surfaces to be 12.35 acres. This discrepancy is almost 98,000 square feetof area and impacts the credibility of the conclusions given.

3. The Commission rejects any claim by the applicant that the previously-approvedsubdivision consisting of twenty-one (21) lots allows ten bedrooms for each newhome. In fact, in that prior application the Commission made no such determinationas to numbers of bedrooms, nor does the Commission have any authority to regulatethe number of bedrooms in a home as part of a subdivision application. The priorapproval was only for twenty-one lots and other conditions standard to a subdivisionapproval.

VII. Commission findings regarding failure to receive a report from the Easton ConservationCommission:

A. The Commission finds that the applicant has failed to provide a report from the EastonConservation Commission as required in Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-26(e). This statute providesthat the Commission shall not render a decision until the inland wetlands agency hassubmitted a report with its final decision to the commission. No such report with a finaldecision on this subject application has been received by this Commission. This failurealone should be sufficient to deny the subdivision application submitted by the applicant,since it is a requirement pursuant to this statute that the Commission receives such areport. However, since the applicant has contended that a report has been submitted,since there are multiple applications to be considered, and since these applications weresubmitted pursuant to a Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-30g filing, the Commission has chosen toalso render a decision on the merits, without waiving its claim that the applicant hasfailed to comply with this statutory provision.

The Conservation Commission letter addressed to Silver Sport Associates LimitedPartnership c/o Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC, Re: Inland Wetland ApplicationPermit #10-397, for a 10-lot subdivision of 105 townhouses, submitted by Saddle

Ridge Developers, dated September 30, 2010, stating that the permit application wasdenied without prejudice, does not satisfy this statutory requirement for a report tothe Planning and Zoning Commission. The reasons for denial by the ConservationCommission were the applicants failure to provide the required application fee aswell as the required fee for a consultant to advise the Conservation Commission.

VIII. Commission findings regarding Intervention Petition:

The Commission hereby makes the following findings with regard to the Petition toIntervene pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 22a-19, filed on October 18, 2010 by The CoalitionTo Save Easton, a division of Citizens for Easton Inc., a non-profit corporation, which has as

its mailing address CFE: The Coalition to Save Easton, PO Box 151, Easton, CT 06612.

A. The Commission finds that a verified petition has been properly submitted, and theintervenors specific claims as set forth in their verified pleading are within the scope ofthe Commissions statutory jurisdiction.

17


18/29

B. After reviewing the intervenors claims, the Commission finds that the proposed conductin the application does, or is reasonably likely to, cause the pollution, impairment ordestruction of the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state,including but not limited to watercourses, wetlands, aquifers, groundwater andreservoirs, in violation of the State and Town Plans of Conservation and Development.(Commission Record: October 18, 2010, Item 5). More specifically, it is reasonablylikely that impairment of the public water supply will occur with this application, asdiscussed above in Section III. The additional evidence submitted by the intervenorsshows that impairment will occur. Reports prepared by experts for the intervenors haveexamined projected concentrations of pollutants in stormwater runoff from theDevelopment (Report by Steven D. Trinkaus, PE, dated November 4, 2010; CommissionRecord, 11/8/10, Item #6), and water quality impacts of the Development. (Report byMichael S. Klein, soil scientist and wetland scientist, dated November 3, 2010;Commission Record, 11/8/10, Item #5) Each of these experts concurs with theconclusions on potential surface and groundwater quality impacts from the SaddleRidge Village proposal as reported in the GHD report of October 28, 2010.

C. The Commission further concludes that there is a feasible and prudent alternativeconsistent with the reasonable requirements to protect the public health, safety andwelfare. Such alternative consists of a revised application with a reduction in thenumber of units consistent with the principles set forth herein in Section IIIC. Suchoption should be considered by the applicant.

IX. COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS

A. RESOLVED that this application for an Amendment to the Easton Plan ofConservation and Development as last adopted 2007 to delete or modifyspecific recommendations for residential densities not to exceed one familyper every two upland acres on public watersupply watershed land, is hereby DENIED forthe following reasons:

1. The findings stated herein, which are supported by documentation and reportscontained in the record of this proceeding; most specifically, the Commissionsfinding that the high density nature of this application and its threat to the publicdrinking water supply is inconsistent with the existing Easton Plan of Conservationand Development. These inconsistencies include:

a. Protection of the public water supply watershed is strongly recommended in theState Policies Plan of Conservation and Development through maintenance of adevelopment density of no greater than one dwelling unit per each two uplandacres, with which the application is inconsistent.

b. Substantial evidence has been presented that there is a high risk of adverse impacton the public water supply through inadequate measures to control the combineddevelopment impacts.

18


19/29

c. Potential contamination of the public water supply serving over 400,000persons in nearby urban areas is a risk which overwhelms in importance the needfor a minor addition to the affordable housing supply.

2. The proposed amendment does not adequately consider the following directives ofConn. Gen. Stat. '8-23(c) in respect to the preparation of the municipal plan of

conservation and development:

(3) the need for protection of existing and potential public surface andground drinking water supplies;(5) the state plan of conservation and development adopted pursuant toChapter 297; and(6) the regional plan of development adopted pursuant to Section 8-35a, nordoes it agree with the directives of General Statutes Section 8-23(d) that themunicipal plan shall recommend the most desirable density of population inthe several parts of the municipality.

3. The proposed amendment to the Town Plan is not in conformity with the land use policies of the State Policies Plan of Conservation and Development whichrecommend low density development within the areas of the Locational DevelopmentGuide map for Conservation Area, which encompasses the site area and vicinity ofwatershed land;

4. Substantial harm to public health, safety and welfare as stated herein.

B. RESOLVED that this application for an Amendment to the Easton ZoningRegulations to establish a new overlay zone titled Housing Opportunity Development (HOD) District,with related regulations governing that District is hereby DENIED for the following reasons:

1. The findings stated herein, which are supported by documentation and reports

contained in the record of this proceeding; specifically, the creation of such anoverlay zone presents substantial risks to the public drinking water supply, along withfire and safety risks, due to the high density nature of the application; the applicationis inconsistent with the police powers which this Commission must protect pursuantto Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-2. Specifically, the Commission notes the following findingfrom above (Section IIIA17):

The applications propose amendments to the Easton Zoning Regulations and ZoningMap to establish a new Housing Opportunity Development (HOD) District(applicants Petition For Text Amendment, Map Text Amendment . . . booklet,by Shipman & Goodwin LLP, July 9, 2010, Tab 7, pp. 1-4). (Commission Record

9/27/2010, Item #7)

The proposed HOD regulations provide as follows (in part): E. Lot Density. NoHOD District shall have more than two and one-half (2.5) homes per gross acre ofland. The proposed HOD District is the applicants property (as hereinbeforedescribed which contains 124.7 gross acres, including wetlands). It is clear that the

19


20/29

proposed amendments would create a potential build-out, or development capacitysubject to site plan review, of 310 dwelling units (124 x 2.5 = 310). 310 dwellingunits is more than 5.0 times the safe residential density for water supply watershedsas recommended by the State of Connecticut (Department of Public Health and othercitations above).

The proposed HOD regulations provide for a zoning site plan review but do nototherwise restrict the potential density of development as required to protect thepublic water supply watershed (see Section N. of cited proposed regulations).(Report to Commission by John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, November8, 2010; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #3)

The Commission finds the proposed HOD Regulations and Zoning Map to be inconflict with State standards for safe development density in a public water supplywatershed (cited previously), as well as contrary to the adopted Town Plan ofConservation and Development (Chapter 11; Residential Development andHousing). The proposed regulations and map, while aiming to increase the supplyof affordable housing, are seriously detrimental to the greater public interest inpreservation of the natural environment and safe drinking water for all persons of thestate;

2. Inconsistencies with the current Easton Plan of Conservation and Development,which does not provide for such a high density development in the watershed area,and does not allow for such risks in the watershed area, specifically pages 3, 21, 34and 101;

3. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with a basic policy of the zoning regulationsas stated in Article I, Section 9: To prevent the pollution of ponds and streams,safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and sound management ofnatural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and

beauty of the community and the value of the land and to preserve and protect thewater supply for the entire region;

4. Inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan in Easton;

5. Substantial harm to public health, safety and public welfare as stated herein;specifically, significant harm presented to the public water supply.

C. RESOLVED that this application to amend the Easton Zoning Map (Zoning RegulationArticle 3 Districts) to provide for HOD District is hereby DENIED for the followingreasons:

1. The findings stated herein, which are supported by documentation and reportscontained in the record of this proceeding; specifically, the creation of such anoverlay zone presents substantial risks to the public drinking water supply, along withfire and safety risks, due to the high density nature of the application; the application

20


21/29

is inconsistent with the police powers which this Commission must protect pursuantto Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-2;

2. Inconsistencies with the current Easton Plan of Conservation and Development,which does not provide for such a high density development in the watershed area,and does not allow for such risks in the watershed area, specifically pages 3, 21, 34and 101;

3. The proposed map amendment for a Housing Opportunity District (HOD) does notfulfill the mandate of Conn. Gen. Stat. '8-2 that zoning districts be designed to secure

safety from fire and other dangers, to prevent the overcrowding of land and to avoidthe undue concentration of population;

4. Inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan in Easton;

5. Substantial harm to public health, safety and public welfare as stated herein,specifically, significant harm presented to the public water supply.

D. RESOLVED that this application to rezone the applicants 124.7 acre site, located at Sport Hill Road,Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road and Westport Road, to a Housing Opportunity Development Districtis hereby DENIED for the following reasons:

1. Since this Commission has denied the above amendment to the Plan of Conservationand Development; the above amendment to the Regulations to create the new overlayzone, and the above amendment to the Zoning Map, the application to rezone to theHOD District must also be denied. Specifically, the Commission notes thefollowing finding from above (Section IIIA17):

The applications propose amendments to the Easton Zoning Regulations and ZoningMap to establish a new Housing Opportunity Development (HOD) District

(applicants Petition For Text Amendment, Map Text Amendment . . . booklet, byShipman & Goodwin LLP, July 9, 2010, Tab 7, pp. 1-4). (Commission Record9/27/2010, Item #7)

The proposed HOD regulations provide as follows (in part): E. Lot Density. NoHOD District shall have more than two and one-half (2.5) homes per gross acre ofland. The proposed HOD District is the applicants property (as hereinbeforedescribed which contains 124.7 gross acres, including wetlands). It is clear that theproposed amendments would create a potential build-out, or development capacitysubject to site plan review, of 310 dwelling units (124 x 2.5 = 310). 310 dwellingunits is more than 5.0 times the safe residential density for water supply watersheds

as recommended by the State of Connecticut (Department of Public Health and othercitations above).

The proposed HOD regulations provide for a zoning site plan review but do nototherwise restrict the potential density of development as required to protect thepublic water supply watershed (see Section N. of cited proposed regulations).

21


22/29

(Report to Commission by John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, November8, 2010; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #3)

The Commission finds the proposed HOD Regulations and Zoning Map to be inconflict with State standards for safe development density in a public water supplywatershed (cited previously), as well as contrary to the adopted Town Plan ofConservation and Development (Chapter 11; Residential Development andHousing). The proposed regulations and map, while aiming to increase the supplyof affordable housing, are seriously detrimental to the greater public interest inpreservation of the natural environment and safe drinking water for all persons of thestate.

2. In addition, the application to rezone must be denied with reference to the publichealth and safety issues stated herein, which are supported by documentation andreports contained in the record of this proceeding, specifically, rezoning of this parcelcreates substantial risks to the public drinking water supply, along with fire and safetyrisks, due to the high density nature of the application.

3. Inconsistencies with the current Easton Plan of Conservation and Development,specifically, pages 3, 21, 34 and 101;

4. Inconsistencies with the existing zoning regulations;

5. Inconsistencies with the police powers which this Commission must protect pursuantto Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-2;


E. RESOLVED that this application for Subdivision approval by Saddle RidgeDevelopers, LLC requesting a subdivision of 10 lots and site plan approval for

105 townhouses to be located on above said site is hereby DENIED for thefollowing reasons:

1. The findings stated herein, which are supported by documentation and reportscontained in the record of this proceeding; specifically, the creation of such asubdivision presents substantial risks to the public drinking water supply, along withfire and safety risks, due to the high density nature of the application;

2. Inconsistencies with the current Easton Plan of Conservation and Development;specifically, pages 3, 21, 34 and 101;

3. Inconsistencies with the existing subdivision and zoning regulations; specifically,Zoning Regulations Section 4.1.1 which limits the Permitted Use to one single familydwelling per lot, and Subdivision Regulations Section III d. which requirescompliance of a subdivision plan with the Easton Zoning Regulations and the adoptedTown Plan;

22


23/29

4. Substantial harm to public health, safety and welfare as stated herein;

5. Failure to provide a report from the wetlands agency, the Easton ConservationCommission, as required in Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-26(e).

F. RESOLVED that this application by Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC to amendSection X.11 of the Easton Subdivision Regulations to exempt a setasidedevelopment from certain open space requirements is hereby DENIED for the followingreasons:

1. The findings stated herein, which are supported by documentation and reportscontained in the record of this proceeding, specifically, passage of such an exemptionpresents substantial risks to the public drinking water supply, along with fire andsafety risks, due to the high density nature of the application.

2. Inconsistencies with the current Easton Plan of Conservation and Development,specifically, pages 3, 21, 34 and 101;

3. The proposed amendment is unnecessary because existing Section X.11 b) of thecurrent Subdivision Regulations exempts an affordable housing development fromopen space requirements;


________________________ (signed)Robert Maquat, Chairman, dated February 14, 2011

23


24/29

EXHIBIT ACOMPENDIUM OF MATERIALS COMPRISING THE RECORD FOR

APPLICATIONS BY SADDLE RIDGE DEVELOPERS, LLC

September 27, 2010 Public Hearing:1. Two page excerpt from 2004 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual/2. Engineering Report, Saddle Ridge Village, Sport Hill road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road,

and Westport Road, Easton, Connecticut, dated June 25, 2010 prepared for Saddle RidgeDevelopers, 68 Soundview Dr, Easton, CT 06612, prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc., 99Realty Dr, Cheshire, CT 06470 (270 pages including tabs, maps and title page);

3. Letter dated September 27, 2010 (four pages) to Mr. Robert Maquat, Chair, and CommissionMembers, from Matthew Ranelli, Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, with three tabs of information(11 additional pages including the 3 tab pages);

4. A bound set et of blueprint size package of maps and plans entitled Saddle Ridge Village,Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road & Westport Road, Easton, Connecticut,June 25, 2010, prepared by Milone & MacBroom (51 pages including the title page);

5. A series of 5 renderings of proposed townhouses prepared by Carlson Construction, LLC, 470Beechwood Avenue, Bridgeport, CT 06604, dated 3/12/10;

6. Condensed version of packet of maps and plans dated June 25, 2010 (See Item #4);

7. Booklet of application materials, prepared by Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, dated July 9, 2010,entitled Petition For Text Amendment, Map Text Amendment, Subdivision Approval, andSite Plan Approval of Saddle Ridge Developers For Property Located At Sport Hill Road,Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road and Westport Road (Route 136), July 9, 2010,(comprising 12 tabbed sections, maps and 105 pages of text and tables);

8. Letter dated July 29, 2010 to Mr. Robert E. Maquat Chairman of the Easton Planning andZoning Commission from Brian T. Roach, Supervisor, Environmental Protection, AquarionWater Company (3 pages). (This letter was read in its entirety by the Chairman.);

9. Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission from Polly Edwards, R.S., Easton Health Officer,dated September 27, 2010 (one page). (This letter was read in its entirety by the Chairman.);

10.Letter to Planning & Zoning- Robert Maquat, Chairman, from Gary J. Csanadi, Easton PoliceDepartment dated 9/27/10 (one page). (This letter was read in its entirety by the Chairman.);

11.Letter to Mr. Robert Maquat, Planning and Zoning Commission, from Schuyler Sherwood,Deputy Fire Marshal, dated September 13, 2010 (two pages);

12.Letter to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission, dated August 27,2010 from Brian Bidolli, Acting Executive Director, Greater Bridgeport Regional PlanningAgency (one page). (This letter was read in its entirety by the Chairman.);

13. Letter to Mr. Robert Maquat, Planning and Zoning Commission from E. William Martin, Jr.,Easton Building Official, dated September 24, 2010 (one page). (This letter was read in itsentirety by the Chairman.);

14. Letter to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission, dated September 13,2010 from Eric McPhee, Supervising Environmental Analyst, source Water Protection Unit,Drinking Water Section (3 pages), with attached one page letter to Polly Edwards, R.S.Easton Health Officer, dated march 11, 2010 from Lori Mathieu, Public Health ServicesManager, Drinking Water Section, and with attached two page memorandum to LoriMathieu, Public Health Services Manager, Eric McPhee, Supervising Environmental Analyst,dated March 11, 2010 from Patricia Bisacky, Environmental Analyst 2, State of Connecticut,Department of Public Health;

24


25/29

September 27, 2010 Public Hearing:Additional items for the record (continued):15.Letter to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Easton Planning and Zoning Commission, dated

September 26, 2010, from Margaret Miner, Executive Director of Rivers Alliance ofConnecticut.

16.Letter to Margaret Anania, Planning & Zoning Department from Ira W. Bloom, Esq.,Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.D. dated September 14, 2010 (two pages).

17.Letter to Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman and Goodwin, LLP, dated September 13, 2010 from

Ira W. Bloom, Berchem, Moses & Develin, P.C.(two pages).The chairman noted that this letter acknowledged a total fee of $24,000 and that an additionalcheck had been submitted to cover the fee; however, in the memo portion of the check therewas written the words PAID UNDER PROTEST.

18.Letter from Matthew Ranelli, Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, Counselors At Law, datedSeptember 13, 2010 to Robert Maquat, Chair, and Commission Members, Planning andZoning Commission (one page), consenting to a 14 day extension .

19.Letter to John Hayes, Land Use Director dated July 23, 2010 from Lori Mathieu, PublicHealth Services Manager, Drinking Water Section, State of Connecticut, Department ofPublic Health.

October 18, 2010 Public Hearing:

1. Letter dated August 4, 2010 to Mr. Thomas J. Daly, PE, Milone & MacBroom, Inc., Re:Request for Water Service, Saddle Ridge Subdivision, Easton, CT, from ShokoofehRezazadeh, Planning Engineer, for Aquarion Water Company (1 page).

2. Letter dated October 18, 2010 to Mr. Matt Ranelli, Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, Re: SaddleRidge Village, Easton, CT, from Milone & MacBroom, Inc., Ted Crawford, P.E., LEED AP,Project Manager, Associate (1 page).

3. A one-page memo from Stuart B. Popper to Matthew Ranelli dated October 18, 2010 Re:Estimates of School Age Children for 21 Lot Subdivision and 105 Unit Development with athree page attachment entitled Fannie Mae Foundation Residential Demographic Multipliers,Projections of the Occupants of New Housing, (Residents, School-Age Children, PublicSchool-Age Children) by State, Housing Type, Housing Size and Housing Price, preparedfor: Patrick Simmons, Director, Department of Housing Demography, Fannie MaeFoundation, Washington, D.C., prepared by Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D., David Listokin, Ph.D.William Dolphin, M.A., Center for Urban Policy Research, Edward J. Bloustein School ofPlanning and Public Policy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick,New Jersey, June 2006.

4. Four page memo dated October 8, 2010 to Ira Bloom from Denise G. Halstead, DonaldFerlow, Gary Dufel Re: Saddle Ridge Development (consisting of 23 questions on theproject).

5. NOTICE OF INTERVENTION to Easton Planning and Zoning Commission fromINTERVENER, The Coalition to Save Easton, a division of Citizens for Easton, Inc., signedby Leslie Minasi and Christopher Miles.

6. Report dated October 14, 2010 to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Planning and ZoningCommission from Chief John F. Solomon, Chief of Police, Re: Saddle Ridge- Review ofapplication, Petition for Text, Map Text Amendment, Subdivision Approval and Site PlanApproval, with attached report from Police Officer Gary J. Csanadi dated 10/14/2010.

7. Submission from Marshall Hoover of the State of CT Department of EnvironmentalProtection entitled Report For The Blue Ribbon Commission On Housing, On The LandRequired To Support Residential Development in Connecticut, prepared by the Departmentof Environmental Protection, Water Compliance Unit, May 1989.

25


26/29

October 18, 2010 Public Hearing:Additional items for the record (continued):

8. Letter dated September 30, 2010 to Silver Sport Associates Limited Partnership c/o SaddleRidge Developers, LLC, Re: Inland Wetland Application Permit #10-397, submitted bySaddle Ridge Developers, LLC, from Roy Gosse, Chairman, Conservation Commission of theTown of Easton, acting as the Inland Wetlands Agency for the Town of Easton.

9. Memo to Thomas A. Herrmann, First Selectman, Subject: Scheduling and Notice For Public

Hearings, dated September 14, 2010, from John Hayes, Consultant & Land Use Director (5pages in all).10. Four page letter dated September 6, 2010 from Giuliano and Leslie Minasi, 34 Cedar Hill

Road11. Three page document submitted by Chris Miles at public hearing entitled Statement to the

Easton Planning and Zoning Commission12. E-mail dated September 27, 2010 from Constance A. Benson, 34 Pond Road, Easton, CT13. Letter from Andre M. and Lynda A. Willauer, 880 Sport Hill Road, Easton, CT, 06612 dated

September 9, 2010 to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission.14. Letter dated September 18, 2010 to Easton Planning and Zoning Commission from Grant and

Peggy Monsarrat of 370 North Park Avenue15. E-mail dated 9/27/2010 to Thomas Herrmann (Elected Officials of CT) from Regina Frate 10

Silver Hill Road, Easton, CT16. E-mail dated September 1, to Thomas Herrmann, Scott Centrella and Robert Lesslor fromKaren Weinsess, 81 Tranquility Drive, Easton, CT

17. Memo to All P & Z Commissions dated September 28, 2010 from Will Tressler, 146 BibbinsRoad with attached e-mail sent to Gov. Rell, Attorney General Blumenthal, Sen. JohnMcKinney, and Rep. John Stripp and attached letter dated September 1, 2010

October 25, 2010 Public Hearing:1. Letter of written response to GHDs memorandum of October 8, 2010, dated October 20,

2010 to Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, from Ted Hart, P.E., VicePresident of Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (11 pages) with several attachments (22 pages intotal).

2. 1 page E-mail from Patricia Bisacky, Environmental Analyst 2, Source Water Protection Unit,Drinking Water Section, Department of Public Health dated Tuesday, October 19, 2010,Subject: Carrying Capacity of Public Water Supply WatershedsAttachment: Carrying Capacity of PWS Watersheds Summary, pdf (13 pages)

3. Receipt for checks received from Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC in amount of $20,440 and$3,560 (previously referred to but not officially noted).

4. Letter dated August 17, 2010 to Matthew Ranelli, Esquire, Shipman and Goodwin LLP,returning original fee submitted, a check in the amount of $3,560, from John Hayes, Land UseDirector requesting the required fee be received so that legal notice may be posted (proposedlegal notice attached).

5. Letter dated August 26, 2010 to Mr. Robert Maquat, Chair, and Commission Members, andPlanning and Zoning Commission, from Attorney Matthew Ranelli, Esquire, Shipman andGoodwin, LLP, resubmitting the check submitted previously for the applications, in theamount of $3,560, stating they will pay the difference once they agree.

6. Two page letter dated October 22, 2010 to the Coalition to Save Easton c/o Chris Miles fromSteven D. Trinkaus, P.E., CPESC, CPSWQ.

7. One page letter dated October 25, 2010 To the members of the Easton Planning & ZoningCommission from Attorney Janet P. Brooks.

26


27/29

October 25, 2010 Public Hearing:Additional items for the record (continued):

8. One page letter dated October 25, 2010 to Mr. Robert Maquat, Chair, and CommissionMembers from Matthew Ranelli, Esquire, Shipman & Goodwin LLP (granting a 23 dayextension until November 22, 2010 in which to complete the public hearing).

November 8, 2010 Public Hearing:1. Gary A. Dufels letter dated October 28, 2010 to the Easton Planning & Zoning Commission,Attn: Mr. Rob Maquat, Re: Easton Saddle Ridge, GHD Project No. 8614543 (one page) withGary A. Dufels Report dated October 28, 2010 with document entitled Town of Easton,Connecticut, Saddle Ridge Development P&Z Application, Technical Review andPresentation of Findings, October 28, 2010 (23 page document on top with AppendicesA through E attached)2. Six page letter dated November 8, 2010 submitted by the Town Engineer, Edward Nagy, P.E.to the Planning & Zoning Commission and stated that Ed Nagy would speak next.Ed Nagy highlighted his letter dated November 8, 2010 specifically noting that some of theproposed septic systems were not located within the mandated setbacks of the StateConnecticut Public Health Code i.e. Lots 5, 7 and 9. (Ed Nagy highlighted his letter for the

record).3. Seven page memo from John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, dated November 8, 2010 toPlanning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Easton regarding the Saddle Ridge Village Applications(Mr. Hayes read the document into the record).

4. Two page letter from Fire Marshal Peter Neary dated November 3, 2010 to Mr. Robert Maquat, Planning andZoning Commission regarding the preliminary plans for Saddle Ridge Village. Mr. Neary was present in theaudience but had no further comments then his letter. The chairman read his letter into the record.

5. Six page report from Wetland Scientist Michael S. Klein, Principal, Soil Scientist, Professional WetlandScientist, Environmental Planning Services dated November 3, 2010 with three pages of credentials attached.

6. Two page report from Steven D. Trinkaus, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, Trinkaus Engineering, LLC, datedNovember 4, 2010 with 13 pages of credentials and experience attached.

7. Four page report Mark A. Gottlieb, LEP, President, Catalyst Environmental Consulting, Inc. dated November

8, 2010 with four aerial photographs attached, four page list of credentials and experience attached andtwenty pages from Conn. Gen. Stat. Chapter 446d*, Solid Waste Management (Bound version also submittedand signed by Chairman).

8. Large 1934 aerial photo showing the Saddle Ridge property.9. Small 1934 aerial photo showing the Saddle Ridge property with and outline of the proposed development as

an overlay with areas of interest with areas of interest in red.10. Small 1934 aerial photo showing the Saddle Ridge property with the proposed development plan as an

overlay with areas of interest in red.11. Disc entitled Petition for Text Amendment, Map text Amendment, Subdivision Approval,

and site Plan Approval at Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill road and WestportRoad (Route 136).

12. Letter dated November 8, 2010 to Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, fromTed Hart, P.E., Vice President, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (two page letter with attachment)

13. Letter dated October 20, 2010 to Matthew Ranelli, Esq. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, fromTed Hart, P.E., Vice President, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (11 pages) with three tabbedareas.

14. Letter dated November 2, 2010 from Will Tressler to All Members of the Easton Planningand Zoning Commission.

27


28/29

November 22, 2010 Public Hearing:1. Letter dated November 22, 2010 to Robert Maquat, Chair and Commission Members,

Planning and Zoning Commission from Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin LLPAgreeing to Commissions request of time until December 13, 2010.

2. Letter dated November 18, 2010 to Thomas Herrmann, First Selectman, from Leendert T. DeJong, Manager,Watershed and Environmental Management, Aquarion Water Company with cc: to Brian Roach, Supervisor,Environmental Protection, Aquarion Water Company, comparing Saddle Ridge Development with theEureka V LLC Development in Ridgefield.

3. Letter dated November 22, 2010 to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Easton,from Charles J. Rotherberger, Staff Attorney, Connecticut Fund for the Environment andSave the Sound.

4. E-mail from Leslie to Margret with Trinkaus Supplemental letter attached, Letter datedNovember 9, 2010 to the Coalition to Save Easton from Steven D. Trinkaus, P.E., CPESC,CPSWQ supplying the pollutant concertrations for the land uses which were utilize anddiscussed in his letter of October 22, 2010.

5. Four page letter from Chris Miles to the Members of the Planning & Zoning Commissionread into the record November 8, 2010.

6. One page memo dated November 18, 2010 to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Planning & ZoningCommission, from Chief John F. Solomon with accompanying one page report dated11/18/10 from Police Officer Gary J. Csanadi.

7. Two page letter with one page attachment dated November 8, 2010 to Matthew Ranelli, Esq.,Shipman & Goodwin, LLP from Ted Hart, P.E., Vice President, Milone & MacBroom.8. Two page letter dated November 7, 2010 from James Riling to Easton Planning & Zoning

Commission read into record November 8, 2010.9. Two page document entitled Town of Easton, Connecticut, Saddle Ridge Development

P & Z Application, November 22, 2010 with accompanying map from Gary A. Dufel, P.E.,BCEE, LEED AP, F. ASCE, of GHD Inc.

10. Booklet entitled Protecting Connecticuts Water Supply Watersheds: A Guide For LocalOfficials, Edited by: James M. Doenges, Chropher P. Allan, RlS. James Benson, Robert J. Jontos, Jr., R.S.,January 1993

11. Booklet entitled Saddle Ridge Village Drinking Water Quality Management Plan November 2010 Preparedfor: Saddle Ridge Developers, 68 Soundview Drive, Easton, Connecticut 06612 prepared by Milone &MacBroom, Inc., 99 Realty Drive, Chesire, Connecticut 06410 (approximately 90 pages in total includingappendices).

12. Booklet entitled Saddle Ridge Village 1.) Response to GHDs October 28, 2010 letter, 2.)Response to the Town Planners November 2, 2010 memorandum and 3.) Traffic CountMemorandum, dated November 22, 2010, Prepared for Saddle ridge Developers, 68Soundview Drive, Easton, Connecticut, Prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc, 99 RealtyDrive, Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (approximately 25 pages in total).

13. Booklet, a little over an inch thick, with 10 tabs and with a seven page letter addressed to Mr.Robert Maquat, Chair, and Commission Members Re: Supplemental Materials from MatthewRanelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin LLP.

14. Two page letter dated November 22, 2010 from Richard Paukner of 349 Silver Hill Road,Easton, CT with attached court case totaling 18 pages, Eureka V LLC v. RidgefieldPlanning and Zoning Commission.

28


29/29

December 13, 2010 Public Hearing:1. Two page Memorandum dated December 8, 2010 (*revised for small typo, noted by

Chairman) to the Planning and Zoning Commission from John Hayes, Consultant Re: SaddleRidge Village Subdivision.

2. Memorandum dated December 3, 2010 to Tom Herrmann, Scott Centrella, Robert Lessler,Robert Maquat, John Hayes and Ira Bloom from Wilfred W. Tressler for The Coalition toSave Easton with enclosed letter and attachments about inconsistencies involving ConnecticutGeneral Statutes 8-30g., for a total of four pages.

3. Two page Memorandum dated December 1, 2010 (*corrected for omitted text, noted byChairman) to Planning and Zoning Commission from John Hayes, Consultant Re: TheDensity Issue, in Respect to the Proposed Saddle Ridge Village Development.

4. Three page Memorandum dated December 1, 2010, revised December 3, 2010, withcorrections in bold, to Planning and Zoning Commission from John Hayes, Consultant, Re:Response to Comments by Milone & MacBroom on November 8, 2010 Report to Planningand Zoning Commission by John Hayes, Town Planning Consultant.

5. Large colored map submitted by John Hayes entitled Easton, CT, Public Drinking WaterSource Protection Areas, prepared by the State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health,Drinking Water Section, 410 Capitol Avenue, MS#51 WAT, P.O. Box 340308, Hartford, CT06134, printed by DWS, Source Water Protection Unit, September, 2006, Street data (c) 2006TeleAtlas North America.

6. Three page memo dated December 3, 2010 to Planning & Zoning Commission Re: SaddleRidge Village from Edward L. Nagy, P.E., Director of Public Works, Town Engineer.7. Two page letter dated December 3, 2010 to Coalition to Save Easton c/o Mr. Chris Miles from

Trinkaus Engineering, LLC, Steven D. Trinkaus, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, Re: Saddle RidgeProject.

8. Signed 20 page letter dated December 1, 2010 (e-mailed by Leslie Minasi to P&Z), addressedto Chris Miles and Leslie Minasi, Coalition to Save Easton, Re: Saddle Ridge Developers,Sport Hill, Silver Hill, Cedar Hill and Westport Roads, Easton, CT from Michael S. Klein,Principal, Soil Scientist, Professional Wetland Scientist, of Environmental PlanningServices.

9. Report to Town of Easton, Connecticut, Closing Comments, November 30, 2010 by GHD(Gary A. Dufel, P.E., BCEE, LEED AP, FASCE); 7 pages.

10. 3 page letter to Members, Easton Planning & Zoning Commission dated November 30, 2010Re: Application of Saddle Ridge Developers LLC from Ira W. Bloom, Esq., of Berchem,Moses & Develin, P.C.

11. Statement from Easton Democratic Town Committee from a Special Meeting heldDecember 1, 2010.

12. Two page letter received by Planning & Zoning Commission dated December 13, 2010 Re:Proposed Saddle Ridge Village Subdivision from the Coalition to Save Easton.

13. Two page letter to Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, dated December 10,2010 Re: Saddle Ridge Village, Easton, Connecticut, MMI #2683-01-17 from Stuart B.Popper, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner, Milone & MacBroom, Inc.

14. Bound Booklet with 10 tabs and a three page cover letter to Robert Maquat, Chair, andCommission Members, Planning and Zoning Commission, dated December 13, 2010 Re:Supplemental Materials from Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin, LLP.

feb. 2011 easton planning & zoning resolution - saddle ridge

Documents