MILFORD -- The state Department of Environmental Protection has sided with a city agency in a lawsuit filed against it by a Wilton developer seeking to build a 284-unit apartment complex on Wolf Harbor Road.

AvalonBay Properties Inc. is seeking to build the apartments under the state's controversial Affordable Housing Act, and would reserve 25 percent of the units for families earning less than Milford's median income, which is $62,000 for a family of four.

The company's lawyer argued that the Inland Wetlands Agency attached special significance to the presence of Eastern box turtles on the 42-acre site, but only the state DEP has jurisdiction over upland species.  The DEP, in a brief filed Thursday by assistant attorney general Richard F. Webb, found that local wetland agencies have "remedial" functions, which allow them to regulate activities outside of wetland boundaries.

Since the Eastern box turtle spends most of its life on dry land but also depends on wetlands, it is appropriate for the city's wetlands agency to protect it, Webb wrote.
"The DEP says we acted properly," wetlands agency Chairman John Ludtke said. "If the Eastern box turtle is a wetland-dependent species, it is our responsibility to protect that species and its habitat," he said.  AvalonBay spokesman Lee Feldman declined to comment because the brief is part of active litigation.

The brief was filed in New Britain Superior Court in one of three separate lawsuits AvalonBay Communities Inc. has filed in repsonse to city land use boards' handling of its application.  Testimony will resume Sept. 11 in Milford Superior Court on the company's mandamus action against the Sewer Commission, court officials said.  That suit seeks to compel the commission to grant AvalonBay a permit to connect its development into the city's wastewater system.

The company's lawsuit against the Planning and Zoning Board is over the board's denial of its site plan in June.  The city's brief in that case is due Sept. 30, with the company allowed 60 days to respond.

As to the meeting itself, all commissioners present voiced their initial feelings, and will be listening to the tapes of any meetings they missed in this application cycle.

1. five (5) commissioners present--one not feeling well, the other had to recuse himself;
2. representative of the applicant present in audience, newspaper; members of the public;
3. each commissioner had opinions and stated them--option of proposing conditions rather than "up or down" discussed;
4. box turtle, crossing town boundaries, use of multiple bathrooms/family flush totals, trade-off of open space for tight density, whether or not Wilton part of property is part of any equasion in conservation matters discussed...full record in front of Commission.
5. dates offered for writing decision--MONDAY, FEB. 4 in the evening in Town Hall is next date--decision has to be made at the FEB. 6 regular meeting or else a special meeting will be needed;  the idea of getting an extension from the applicant for 35 days broached by Vice-Chair.  The meeting adjourned at 11:05am.

   ---

Conservation Public Hearing closed...35 days from Jan. 7 for decision...unless applicant grants 35 day extension.
Observer at the Jan 7. 2002 continuation reports lively public input and legal argument. 

1. Applicant must mark boundaries of septic systems on the ground
2. Applicant must indicate 100' regulating buffer
3. Indicate house footprint markings (most specific indicators in regulated areas)
4. Tree removal marking
5. To measure effects:  cutting and filling markers correlated with plans for each activity on each building site
6. Need new staking for Public Water Supply lines (faded out)
7. Mark center of road (with fresh stakes)

• Questions asked about effects of chlorinated water on recharge in groundwater for others than the 18 families in this proposed subdivision, and for the proper functioning of septic systems--will this eventually lead to need for sewers?
• Where are the power lines?
•  Are the drainage structures (i.e. culvert) already built legal and proper?
• Will there in effect be "clearcutting" to insert drainage structures at such a high-density site?
• What is the story about dry hydrants?
• Where will water supply come from?  (Answer--down Route 57.)
• What are the plans for the Wilton part of this large Fromson-Strassler property?  (Answer--None in this application.)

In the "complaint" dated April 12 (to be returned May 15),  the Plaintiffs, among other reasons, claim "...The entire record of the public hearing demonstrates the predisposition on the part of the Commission and an effort by the Commission to create and fabricate reasons for denial that would insulate the Town of Weston from the statutory requirements that it approve this Affordable Housing Application."