On September 7, the Ridgefield Planning & Zoning Commission voted to deny both petitions submitted by the owners of the Bennetts Pond property which would have allowed them to develop the property under a newly-created "MUCD" mixed use corporate development regulation.

ROSA was actively involved throughout the process, speaking in opposition to Eureka's plans at the public hearings, working to ensure high public interest and participation, involving officials from neighboring and downstream towns, and ultimately helping to provide the Planning & Zoning Commission with a legal basis for denial.

As you know, Eureka had submitted two petitions to the P&Z: one to create the MUCD use in the existing CDD (Corporate Development District) zone, and the other to re-zone the former Lynette Burton 2.7 acre property from RAA (two-acre residential) to CDD.

Commissioner Walter Slavin drafted the Memorandum of Denial in July, which was slightly modified as a result of discussion during the Commission's September 7 meeting. In the following recap I have summarized and quoted from the final documents of decision/denial. The original document can be viewed or copied at the P&Z office in the Town Hall Annex.

Reasons stated for the vote against the Proposed Amendment to Zoning Regulations:

• The proposed regulations lacked specific standards for the Commission to evaluate any application received under the regulations. The denial states that the proposed regulations were "vague and inconclusive as to the proportion of development for each of its components" (i.e., offices, conference center, condos, single-family homes).
  
  
• The regulations undermined the ability of the Commission to review any proposal under the regulations in detail, and at all stages of the development. The text of the amendment allowed for P&Z Special Permit review only at the initial, over-all design stage.
  
  
• The regulations would have allowed a plan that created "large areas of non-passive open space" (i.e. a private, 18-hole golf course). Such non-passive open space would have met the entire open space requirement under their proposal.
  
  
• The proposed regulations would have removed the legislative powers delegated to the Planning & Zoning Commission under Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-2 which grants the Commission "the power to legislate through zoning schemes and regulatory control the use of land and buildings throughout the municipality."
  
  
• The proposed regulations would have allowed "development that would be far too intense, with adverse impact on sensitive lands", and would promote "the unreasonable destruction of the natural resources (such as forest habitat and aquifers)" by allowing "incompatible development in sensitive areas". The denial also states that the proposal "threatens to increase water pollution to the detriment of ground water sources, and will have an adverse effect on air quality and the environment in general."

The final vote on this Memorandum of Decision was 8 - 0. Voting in favor of the Decision were Chairman Nelson Gelfman, Di Masters, David Huntoon, Michael Autuori, Walter Slavin, John Katz, Roy Paulson, and David Huntoon. David Wood was absent.


Reasons stated for denial of the proposed re-zone of the 2.7 acre RAA parcel to CDD:

• The existing structures would become non-conforming.
  
  
• The location of the RAA land creates a buffer to protect other residential lands to the west.
  
  
• The use of this parcel for single-family residential is more compatible with nearby residential development.
  
  
• Retention of the RAA zone and buffers it imposes will help to protect environmentally sensitive lands to the west from "more intense and potentially damaging development".

The final vote on this Resolution of Denial was 6-2. Voting in favor of the denial were Chairman Nelson Gelfman, Di Masters, Michael Autuori, Walter Slavin and John Katz. Voting against the denial were David Huntoon and Roy Paulson. David Wood was absent.

We are very pleased with the outcome of the P&Z decisions regarding Eureka's proposals, and believe that ROSA's efforts and those of many other area residents contributed to the decision to deny both Eureka petitions. While we believe that the developers are likely to submit a new proposal in the near future, the terrible destruction of this beautiful property has been averted, at least for now.

We are preparing for the next round.

Ellen Burns
Ridgefield Open Space Association