.

Ridgefield Developer Brings Suits Against P&Z Over Imposed Conditions

Ridgefield developer Michael Eppoliti is reportedly seeking to have conditions imposed by P&Z on his proposed 14-unit affordable housing development on North Salem Road lifted.

Ridgefield developer Michael Eppoliti has reportedly brought a pair of lawsuits against the town Planning & Zoning Commission over conditions placed on the approval of his .

When the Planning and Zoning Commission and Inland Wetlands Board , it reduced the density from 16 units to 12 and imposed several conditions based on recommendations from a town engineering consultant. However Eppoliti reportedly appealed and after a lengthy process the commission recently gave final approval for 14 units.

However according to a report in the Ridgefield Press Eppoliti is now suing to have the conditions removed from the original approval. In particular he is opposed to a requirement that his engineers conduct a “groundwater mounding analysis" on the property at 7 and 9 North Salem Road, to gauge the development's in the area, according to the report.

Meanwhile Eppoliti is reportedly forging ahead with connecting the property to the North Street sewer line in order to circumvent flow problems in the line that serves the immediate neighborhood.

For more check out the Ridgefield Press report.

John Symon July 03, 2012 at 12:19 AM
Pretty lame for patch to base a totally local story on the reporting by others. That being said.... How disheartening to see a local family use 8-30g against his own town. Work it out with P&Z, Michael. Dont act like an interloper. You're suing over legitimate concerns.
Eileen July 03, 2012 at 11:31 AM
I agree. Most developers have their eye on only one thing...developing. Too many don't care about the impact on local resources,etc. Just want to get their damn thing built and get that money in their pockets.
Henry Glawson July 03, 2012 at 08:00 PM
John Symon: "...local family using 8-30g against his own town." Typical elitist, self- entitled attitude. How is 8-30g being used "against" the town? From what perspective? Do you alone get to decide what is "against" town interests? Just because you harbor this pretentious attitude that 8-30g is not good for the town does not mean that everyone shares that attitude. How do you propose that this developer "work it out with P&Z"? Have you even been following this story? Don't you think that as a developer interested in getting his project built ASAP, that he would have tried every means to avoid a long and expensive court battle? The law gives a builder 15, and only 15, days to appeal a decision by the P&Z board. After those 15 days the builder can no longer appeal and has no other recourse. Do you really believe that 15 days is enough time to "work it out with P&Z"? Separately, if you think he is suing over legitimate concerns, what is the point of your post? He is not suing "under 8-30g" as you seem to infer; rather, the entire project is being built under 8-30g authorities.
John Symon July 04, 2012 at 01:42 AM
Henry I attended two public hearings on this property. Were you there, too? 8-30g bypasses the towns zoning regulations. Are you unaware of that? "However according to a report in the Ridgefield Press Eppoliti is now suing to have the conditions removed from the original approval. In particular he is opposed to a requirement that his engineers conduct a “groundwater mounding analysis" on the property at 7 and 9 North Salem Road, to gauge the development's potential impact on drainage and groundwater in the area, according to the report." I think the groundwater is a legitimate issue that was made a condition of approval. I guess you don't In addition, when they gave him initial approval of 12 units, for a nanosecond he was accepting of that density. Then, he submitted another application pleading "financial hardship" - of which he offered no evidence. I think it sucks, and the landscape of our town is changing and he is contributing to it.
Henry Glawson July 04, 2012 at 09:23 AM
Of course I'm aware that 8-30g usurps normal zoning regulations. At what point did I indicate otherwise? My problem centers around the town's approach. The builder is asserting that the particular test that the town is asking him to conduct in this case is both prohibitively expensive and inappropriate for the desired end state. A quick google search seems to substantiate at least his claim that a groundwater mounding analysis is, in fact, not an appropriate test for this situation. So, essentially the town is stonewalling here. Believe it or not, some people believe that there is a need for this type of housing in town, and it looks like the town is using means beyond those legally available to prevent this project from being built. Frankly, it sounds illegal to me. And just because you think it sucks, doesn't mean that it actually does.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »