The state’s Appellate Court has ruled that the members of the Ansonia Inland Wetlands Commission didn’t have enough evidence in front of them when they rejected a controversial development application for land at 135 Hill St.
The Appellate Court’s ruling, officially released Sept. 4 and posted at the end of this article, could allow a proposal to build 18 age-restricted housing units in nine duplex buildings to proceed.
However, Kevin Blake, the city’s corporation counsel, said Tuesday the Inland Wetlands Commission has already voted to appeal the Appellate Court’s ruling, which will take the case to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The original application to develop 7.5 acres of 16 vacant acres on Hill Street was filed in 2008 by TUG, a limited liability company from Stratford, and the estate of Casmir Machowski, the entity that owns the land.
Machowski’s estate in the appeal was represented by attorney Dominick Thomas of Cohen and Thomas in Derby.
The application “ignited vehement opposition,” according to the Appellate Court, especially from residents on Shortell Drive, Hunters Lane and Sharyl Drive. Click here for an article from the New Haven Register.
Those residents argued that the development at the site as proposed would result in significant flooding on their streets, since the development was to be built on a steep hill. The project would require 30,000 cubic yards of fill to be trucked to the site — along with the creation of a water detention pond on the hill.
The property includes 1.8 acres of wetland and water courses.
Members of the Inland Wetlands Commission rejected the application on Nov. 5, 2009. They believed the project would present an “extreme erosion” hazard to wetland at the bottom of the steep hill.
The developer appealed the Inlands Wetland Commission’s decision to Superior Court in Milford, where a judge ruled in Ansonia’s favor.
However, the developer then took the case to the Appellate Court in Hartford. Arguments were heard in April — and a three-judge panel ruled in the developer’s favor last week.
The proposed detention pond played a key role in the court’s decision.
The Appellate Court ruled that the Ansonia Wetlands Commission and the lower court relied on “potential” damage to local wetland, as described by an engineer hired by the city to review the development application. Essentially, the judges ruled the Ansonia commission’s initial denials were based on too many “ifs.”
Specifically, the commissioners and the lower court relied heavily on an assumption the detention pond to be built on the hill would fail and nearby wetlands would be damaged.
“Evidence regarding potential impacts to wetlands in the event of a failure of the detention basin does not in itself amount to substantial evidence,” the judges wrote in their decision.
The development, the judges noted, was to be constructed outside of the property’s 1.8 acres of wetland.
