Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC v. Easton Planning & Zoning Comm'n

Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC et al. v. Easton Planning and Zoning Commission et al

No. LNDCV116038947S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford, Land Use Litigation Docket

January 25, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Marshall K. Berger, J.

This matter consists of two appeals: one affordable housing appeal; Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC v. Easton Planning & Zoning Commission, Superior Court, land use litigation docket at Hartford, Docket No. LND CV-11-6038947-S, and the related inland wetlands appeal Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC v. Easton Conservation Commission, Superior Court, land use litigation docket at Hartford, Docket No. LND CV-11-6038949-S. On July 12 2010, the plaintiffs, Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC; Silver Sport Associates LP (Silver Sport); and Marolyn Stone (collectively, Saddle Ridge) filed an affordable housing application^[1] to construct 105 townhouses on an approximately 124.7-acre parcel of land in Easton. (Return of Record [ROR], Item 35.) The northeast portion of the site is currently used as a horse farm with forty-one horses. (ROR Item 35, tab 2; Item 121, appendix [appx.] A, p. 1.) According to Saddle Ridge, about 64 percent of the parcel would be undisturbed or set aside as open space under its proposed development. The parcel is bounded by Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road, and Westport Road and is currently zoned for single-family homes on three-acre minimum lots. (ROR, Item 7; Item 35, tab 4.)

Eight wetland pockets constitute a total of 28.2 acres on the property running from the northwest to the southeast where a six-acre pond falls within the 100-year flood hazard area as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (ROR, Item Inland Wetland [IW]^[2] 4, tab 5, pp. 33-34; Item IW 57, p. 3; Item IW 115, p. 3.) Horse trails and farm roads cross the wetlands, but Saddle Ridge argues that the wetlands would be undisturbed by its proposed development with the exception of an approximately 5000 square foot road crossing in " Wetland 1B." (ROR, Item IW 4, tab 5, pp. 34-47.) Run off discharges into the wetlands and then drains about 1.4 miles to the east to Easton Lake Reservoir and about two miles to the west to the Aspetuck Reservoir. (ROR, Item IW 4, tab 11, pp. 151-55; Item IW 115, p. 3.) The entire property lies within the watershed areas for both which are the " main supply sources for the Aquarion Water Company system on which over 400, 000 water consumers depend daily for potable, safe drinking water." (ROR, Item IW 4, tab 11, pp. 151-55; Item 8; Item 93, p. 2.)

The affordable housing application, filed pursuant to General Statutes § 8-30g, sets aside 30 percent of the townhouses as affordable.^[3] (ROR, Item 35, tab 2.) This original affordable housing application proposed 105 two-bedroom townhouses in thirty-two buildings containing two to four townhouses and used the stormwater management system approved in 2009 for development of twenty-one mansions. (ROR, Item 35, tab 2, pp. 2-3; Item 141, tab 2, p. 1.) Some of the proposed buildings would be located in part of the footprint of the previously approved mansions. (ROR, Item 179.)

The public hearing was opened on September 13, 2010, but was immediately continued to and held on September 27, 2010, October 18, 2010, October 25, 2010, November 8, 2010, November 22, 2010, and December 13, 2010. (ROR, Item 19; Item 50; Item 74; Item 106; Item 125; Item 144.) On October 18, 2010, the Coalition to Save Easton (coalition) filed a notice of intervention under General Statutes § 22a-19(a)(1)^[4] with the commission; (ROR, Item 58); and submitted evidence concerning environmental impairment. The defendant, the Easton planning and zoning commission (commission), denied the application on February 14, 2011. (ROR, Item 162.)

Pursuant to General Statutes § 8-30g(h), ^[5] Saddle Ridge filed a revised application on March 4, 2011, reducing the number of units from 105 to ninety-nine and making other modifications. (ROR, Item 177.) The commission conducted the public hearing on May 9, 2011, and May 16, 2011; (ROR, Item 228; Item 242); voted to deny the application on August 8, 2011; (ROR, Item 248); and published notice on August 11, 2011 in the Easton Courier . (ROR, Item 250.)

Saddle Ridge commenced this affordable housing appeal on August 25, 2011. In its appeal, it alleges that the denials of the affordable housing applications on February 14, 2011, and on August 8, 2011, were not supported by sufficient evidence in the record; not necessary to protect a substantial public interest; did not clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing; and could have been addressed by reasonable changes. On December 2, 2011, the coalition filed a motion to intervene in this action which was granted by the court, Levine, J.T.R., on December 12, 2011. The commission filed an answer on June 1, 2012, and the return of record in paper format on June 4, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the commission and the coalition filed their briefs and Saddle Ridge filed its brief on June 13, 2013. A brief in reply was filed by the commission on July 30, 2013. The court heard the appeals on September 8, 2015, and Saddle Ridge filed a supplemental brief on September 18, 2015.

In addition to the affordable housing application, Saddle Ridge applied on March 4, 2011, to the defendant in the inland wetlands appeal, the Easton conservation commission (agency), for either " a determination of no new regulated activities" or, in the alternative, a request to amend the previously approved January 13, 2009 permit for twenty-one mansions to the proposed affordable housing project. (ROR, Item IW 4.) A public hearing was held on April 26, 2011, May 10, 2011, May 24, 2011, and June 13, 2011. (ROR, Item IW 27; Item IW 46; Item IW 67; Item IW 93.) On May 12, 2011, the coalition filed notice of intervention under § 22a-19 with the agency. (ROR, Item IW 56.) The agency denied Saddle Ridge's application on July 12, 2011; (ROR, Items IW 114-15); and allegedly published notice of the denial in the Easton Courier on July 21, 2011.

Saddle Ridge commenced the appeal of the agency's decision on August 4, 2011. In Saddle Ridge's appeal, it alleges that the agency acted unlawfully and illegally in denying Saddle Ridge's application because the agency asserted jurisdiction over and denied the application based on activities outside of its jurisdiction and the upland review area; failed to render a decision based on substantial evidence in the record; ignored a previously issued wetlands permit; and never identified any new regulated activities. On December 2, 2011, the coalition filed a motion to intervene that was granted by the court, Levine, J.T.R., on December 12, 2011. On June 1, 2012 the agency filed its answer, and it filed the return of record in paper format on June 4, 2012. On July 17, 2012, it moved to supplement the record, and the court, Cohn, J., granted the motion on July 18, 2012. On January 29, 2013, Saddle Ridge filed its brief and the agency and the coalition filed their briefs on June 13, 2013. Saddle Ridge filed a brief in reply on July 30, 2013. As previously mentioned, the court heard these two appeals on September 8, 2015.^[6] On September 15, 2015, the agency filed a motion to supplement the record to which Saddle Ridge objected. Saddle Ridge also filed a supplemental brief on September 18, 2015. On October 7, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation regarding the motion to supplement the record.

II

Aggrievement

General Statutes § 8-30g(f), in relevant part, provides: " Any person whose affordable housing application is denied, or is approved with restrictions which have a substantial adverse impact on the viability of the affordable housing development or the degree of affordability of the affordable dwelling units in a set-aside development, may appeal such decision pursuant to the procedures of this section ." Additionally, General Statutes § 22a-43(a), in relevant part, provides: " [A]ny person aggrieved by any regulation, order, decision or action made pursuant to sections 22a-36 to 22a-45, inclusive, by . . . a district or municipality or any person owning or occupying land which abuts any portion of land within, or is within a radius of ninety feet of, the wetland or watercourse involved in any regulation, order, decision or action made pursuant to said sections may, within the time specified in subsection (b) of section 8-8, from the publication of such regulation, order, decision or action, appeal to the superior court for the judicial district where the land affected is located . . ."

On September 8, 2015, before this court, Huntley Stone, the manager of Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC, the general partner of Silver Sport, and the son of Marolyn Stone, introduced three deeds into evidence, to which the commission and the agency did not object. (Exhibits 1-3.) The deeds indicate that his mother, Marolyn Stone, and Silver Sport, were the owners of the property during the administrative stages through the time the appeals were heard and that Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC, is the contract purchaser and applicant in both matters. (ROR, Item 35; Item IW 1.)

" It is well established that a party may be aggrieved for purposes of appeal by virtue of its status as a property owner." Handsome, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 317 Conn. 515, 527, 119 A.3d 541 (2015). As the property owners, Marolyn Stone and Silver Sport are aggrieved. See id., see also General Statutes § 22a-43(a). Additionally, as Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC, is the applicant in both matters and appeals from the commission's and the agency's denials of its applications, it is aggrieved. See General Statutes § § 8-30g(f) and 22a-43(a).

III

...