EASTON PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION 225 CENTER ROAD EASTON, CT, 06612 __________ TELEPHONE (203) 268-6291 FAX

(203) 268-4928 RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED FEBRUARY 14, 2011 APPLICANT: Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC 68 Soundview Drive Easton, Connecticut 06612 Applicants Representatives: Attorney: Matthew Ranelli, Esq. c/o Shipman & Goodwin, LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103-1919 Engineer: Milone & Mac Broom, Inc. 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, CT 06410 PROPERTY LOCATION: At Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road, and Westport Road in the Town of Easton, Connecticut Assessors Maps: 3773B, 3774B Assessors Blocks: 15, 7, 27 Silver Sport Associates, Marilyn Stone c/o Huntley Stone

OWNERS OF RECORD: I. The Applications

Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC, the applicant for the owners of 124.704 acres at Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road and Westport Road, propose applications to authorize the construction of an affordable housing project, pursuant to Conn. General Statutes Sec. 8-30g.: 1. Amend the Easton Town Plan of Conservation and Development to delete or modify specific recommendations for residential densities not to exceed one family per every two upland acres on public water supply watershed land; 2. Amend the Easton Zoning Regulations to establish a new overlay zone titled Housing Opportunity Development (HOD) District, with related regulations governing that district; 3. Amend the Easton Zoning Map (Zon. Regs. Article 3 Districts) to provide for HOD District;

4. Rezone the applicants 124.7 acre site to a HOD District; 5. Authorize a subdivision of 10 lots and site plans for 105 townhouses to be located on said site; 6. Amend Section X.11 of the Easton Subdivision Regulations to exempt a setaside development from certain open space requirements. The purpose of the applications is to create a mixed-income housing community of 105 townhouses on the above-referenced property, pursuant to the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-30g, the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act. With the consent of the applicant the six (6) applications were considered concurrently in a public hearing commenced September 13, 2010, continued on September 27, October 18, October 25, November 8, November 22, and concluded on December 13, 2010. II. Description of Site, Environs, and Prior Application A. The property which is the subject of these applications (the Site) is a 124.704 acre tract in north central Easton, bounded by Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road and Westport Road. Silver Hill and Cedar Hill Roads are Town-designated, Scenic Roads pursuant to Town Ordinance under General Statutes 7-149a. The terrain of the Site consists of irregular topography divided by a major belt of wetlands which extends from its northwest corner to its southeast corner. There are several smaller wetlands. A 1,000-ft.-long pond, of about six acres, is in the southeast extremity of the Site, and there are several nearby rocky outcrops. A mosaic of over twenty different soil types have been identified on the site. Although once actively farmed in open meadows and two orchards (1934 aerial photos; Commission Record, November 8, 2010, Items 9 & 10), the Site is now predominantly second-growth woodland, adjacent to which is an open area of about 14 acres containing buildings and paddocks of the owners horse farm. (Application maps, Sheet EX-1; Commission Record, 09/27/10, Item #4.) The entire acreage of the Site lies on watersheds of two nearby public water supply reservoirs owned by the Aquarion Water Company. The easterly portion of the Site drains via Patterson Brook to the Easton Lake Reservoir about 1.4 miles to the east and the remainder of the Site drains via Ballwall Brook to the Aspetuck Reservoir which is about two miles to the west. (Easton Ct Public Drinking Water Source Protection Areas, map by CT Dept. of Public Health; Commission Record, 12/13/10, Item #5) B. The Site lies within a rural suburban area of widely-space single-family dwellings, and is located approximately six miles from the nearest urban centers in Fairfield, Bridgeport and Trumbull. The nearest major highways are Route 25, about four miles to the east, and the Merritt Parkway, about four and a half miles to the south.

There is no public transit service (other than Town school bus service) anywhere in the vicinity. The nearest public water service (an end-of-line special main to the Town Hall, Police Department and Public Library) is 1.4 miles away. There are no public sanitary sewers in any portion of Easton, nor within five miles in any direction of the Site. Because Easton lacks a commercial center and nonresidential zones, there are no significant centers for services or employment within six miles of the Site. On its four sides the Site is surrounded by approximately 24 single-family dwellings, virtually all on three-acre or larger lots. The entire northern section of Easton, including the applicants property, is zoned for single-family residential use at a minimum lot size of three acres per dwelling in order to protect the public water supply watershed. (Easton Zoning Regulations: Article 1. Purposes, Section 9; Article 3. Districts, Sections 3.1 and 3.2) The established low-density three-acre residential zoning is consistent with the Easton Town Plan of Conservation and Development which was officially adopted in 2007 after review by the State Office of Policy and Management and a unanimous endorsement vote at a duly warned Town Meeting. The Town Plan, despite applicants contention to the contrary, strongly endorses the principle of protecting the public water supply watershed lands at a density no greater than one dwelling unit for every three acres of site area and one family per every two upland acres. See Town Plan report, pages 3, 21, 34 and 101, and Town Plan Map. (Application legal notice; also citations in the GHD report of October 28, 2010, Appendix B, Commission Record, 11/08/10, Item #1) The low-density residential zoning of the Site, moreover, is wholly consistent with the watershed density and land use recommendations of the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut 2005-2010, adopted by the State General Assembly in 2005. (GHD Report to Commission, October 28, 2010; Commission Record 11/08/10, Item #1) C. The prior application for development of this property, made by the same applicants in 2008, was for a subdivision of 21 lots for 21 single-family dwellings, each lot comprising three or more acres, plus a 14acre parcel reserved for the existing horse farm (Application #08-04). This plan was modified and approved by the Commission in March 2009. The developer appealed several of the approval conditions and this appeal was resolved by mutually accepted Stipulation for Settlement on March 3, 2010. The prescribed period for recording of the approved subdivision map, per Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-25, after extension, expired August 30, 2010. The developers failed to record the approved plan within the allowed time limit and failed to seek a further extension of the filing period. III. Commission findings regarding substantial public interests in health and safety regarding public water supply: A. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTERESTS IN HEALTH AND SAFETY EXIST WITH REGARD TO THIS APPLICATION WHICH THE COMMISSION MUST PROTECT. SPECIFICALLY, THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY, WHICH IS THREATENED BY THIS APPLICATION, AND THIS SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC

INTEREST IN HEALTH AND SAFETY IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF THIS PROCEEDING. 1. The Commission finds that virtually the entire area, including the populations of Bridgeport, Fairfield, Stratford, Trumbull and Westport, are served by Aquarion Water Company. In addition, Aquarion Water Co. serves by regional interconnection the majority of the population during drought periods of Norwalk, Darien, New Canaan and Stamford. Aquarion Water Co. water mains also serve portions of Easton, Monroe, Redding, Ridgefield, Weston, Wilton and Shelton. The Commission finds that substantial public interests in health and safety, especially in regard to protection of the public drinking water supply for over 400,000 water consumers, in the communities stated above, exist with this affordable housing application which the Commission must protect, and that these interests are supported by substantial evidence in the record of this proceeding, summarized and highlighted herein, but more fully found in the full record of this proceeding. The Commission finds, notwithstanding the recognized need for affordable housing as noted in the State Policies Plan of Conservation and Development (Growth Management Principle #2, pp. 38-40), that the plans embodied in these applications would contravene other more significant principles of the adopted State Plan. These policies specifically advocate the protection of public water supply watersheds (Growth Management Principle #5, pp. 82 & 83), discouragement of water main extension into rural lands except where required to mitigate an existing pollution problem (Introduction and Overview, p. 7), encouragement of appropriate urban infill housing located for proximity to employment and transportation (Growth Management Principle #2, pp. 38 & 39), and discouragement of intensive development in rural areas not already supported by local infrastructure (Growth Management Principle #1, p. 21). (GHD Report of October 28, 2010, Appendix C, report to Commission by John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, dated November 8, 2010; Commission Record: November 8, 2010, Items #1 and #3) The proposed Housing Opportunity Development District (HOD) and proposed development project (The Development) greatly exceed well established and documented State of Connecticut standards for maximum allowable development density on public water supply watershed lands. The reports submitted in the record show that such standards are necessary to assure a safe drinking water supply for hundreds of thousands of water consumers. This public health and safety concern is of such fundamental importance to the whole population of nearby areas that it clearly outweighs the recognized need for affordable housing in such areas. Accordingly, the Commission cannot approve this application as presented with this proposed density. The State of Connecticut Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut 2005-2010 (State Plan) was adopted by the General Assembly in 2005 and therefore constitutes an official statement of the public interest in

2.

3.

4.

5.

conservation and development matters. The State Plan states that sources of drinking water must be continuously protected from intensive development because the cumulative impacts of continuing development on both existing and future water supply watersheds can result in deterioration of water quality, and specifically recommends as a density guideline that water supply watersheds require minimum lot sizes of one dwelling unit per two acres of buildable area (excludes wetlands). (State Plan, Growth Management Principle #5; GHD report to Planning and Zoning Commission, October 28, 2010, Commission Record 11/08/10, Item #1) The proposed application far exceeds this guideline. 6. The State Plan, moreover, addresses the question of appropriate location for dense housing in these words: Support efforts to develop appropriate urban infill housing to make better use of limited urban land, and reduce pressure for outward suburban boundary housing development. (State Plan, Growth Management Principle #2; John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, memoranda to Planning and Zoning Commission (3) dated December 1, 2010, Commission Record 12/13/10, Items #1, #3 & #4) A letter from the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH), Drinking Water Section (DWS), dated September 13, 2010, by Eric McPhee, Supervising Environmental Analyst, addressed to the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission in respect to DPHs Source Water Protection Review for Saddle Ridge Village, Easton, confirmed the state density guideline for public water supply watersheds of not more than one dwelling unit per two buildable acres and adds that The DWS believes, consistent with state policy for the protection of drinking water supply watersheds, that development of this nature is best located outside of a public water supply watershed area. (Commission Record, 9/27/10, Item #14) Documentation for the watershed protection maxim of restricting residential development density to no more than one dwelling unit per two acres of buildable area is set forth in the May 1989 Report for the Blue Ribbon Commission on Housing, on the Land Required to Support Residential Development in Connecticut (copy, in part, sent to this Commission by the Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection, Commission Record, 10/18/10, Item #2; GHD report to Commission, October 28, 2010, Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #1) As required by the General Statutes, the applications were referred to the Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency (GBRPA) for comment. GBRPAs response letter, dated August 27, 2010, states the Agency would not support the Saddle Ridge Village project due to potential impacts to the regional water supply. (Commission Record 9/27/10, Item #12) The Saddle Ridge Village applications were also referred to the Aquarion Water Company, owner of the Easton Lake and Aspetuck Reservoirs, for their comment. Two response letters were received. In a letter to the Chairman of this Commission, dated July 29, 2010, Brian T. Roach, Supervisor, Environmental Protection, stated:

7.

8.

9.

Because the development density of this proposal conflicts with fundamental principles of water shed protection and is, consequently, contrary to the recommendations of the Connecticut Department of Health, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management and the Regional Planning Agency Association of Connecticut, the Aquarion Water Company Department of Watershed and Environmental Management strongly urges the Town of Easton not to approve this application. (Commission Record, 9/27/10, Item 8) 10. A letter from Leendert T. DeJong, Aquarion Water Company, Manager, Watershed and Environmental Management, dated November 18, 2010 and addressed to Thomas Herrmann, First Selectman, stated the following (references to Eureka refer to the recent case of Eureka V, LLC v. Ridgefield Planning and Zoning Commission, 2010 WL 4609391, October 20, 2010, Cohn, J.): . . . it is also reasonable to conclude that pollutants that might emanate from the Saddle Ridge project site, which is located less than one and one-half miles from our Easton Reservoir and less than two miles from our Aspetuck Reservoir, might have more immediate and significant adverse effects to reservoir water quality than those posed by the Eureka project. Distance from a pollution source to the intakes of a terminal, or distribution, drinking water reservoir is a factor in assessing the risk posed to both the reservoirs ecology and the public drinking water supply. In our strong opposition to both the Eureka and Saddle Ridge high-density development proposals, Aquarion did not focus on the relative proximity or remoteness of the project locations to our reservoirs, however, because the watershed management studies and principles upon which our oppositions were formulated dealt most significantly on the cu[l]mulative impact of such developments within public water supply watersheds. These studies conclude that, regardless of their separating distance from a reservoir, high-density developments are inappropriate within public drinking water supply watershed areas because of their known, cu[l]mulative adverse effects on water quality. (Commission Record, 11/22/10, Item #2) 11. Numerous defects in the design plans for Saddle Ridge Village have been identified by the Commissions consulting engineer. (Report to Town of Easton, Connecticut Technical Review and Presentation of Findings, October 28, 2010, by GHD Inc., Gary A. Dufel, PE, BCEE, LEED AP, FASCE; 23 pages plus Appendices; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #1) These defects pose an extraordinary risk to the natural environment and water quality of the drinking water watersheds on which the Saddle Ridge Village site is located. The Commission finds there are critical flaws in the applicants plans which potentially jeopardize the health and safety of the general public which depends on the quality of the public water supply. In summary these defects are:

Cumulative impact of non-point pollution, insufficiently remediated, from overly intensive residential development would have a long-term impact on the environment (GHD report, pp. 2-5, p. 10); Environmental impacts will be from the site as a whole and cannot be managed effectively by individual lots (GHD report, p. 6); A much greater impact on the land and natural resources of the site, than from the previously approved single-family-lot subdivision, as a result of proposed clear cutting, extensive earthwork, use of lawn products, and greater impervious area, will significantly lower the environmental quality of the site and adversely affect the integrity of the watersheds (GHD report, pp. 6 & 7); Low Impact Development design has supplanted Best Management Practices as a more effective means of environmental protection, advocated for water supply watersheds by CT Department of Environmental Protection and not employed effectively in applicants plans (GHD report, pp. 8 & 9); Population of the site, with consequent direct impact on natural resources and water quality, would be dramatically greater from the Saddle Ridge Village plans, 180 to 260 persons, as compared to the previously approved single-family-homes subdivision, 85 to 100 persons (GHD report, p. 9); Inadequate testing was performed for the stormwater basins (GHD report, p. 12); Design of the hybrid stormwater detention and infiltration basins does not meet low-impact design standards nor comply with the CT DEP Stormwater Quality Manual, with the result that 20 per cent or more of pollutants in stormwater (depending on storm frequency) will be released directly to on-site wetlands with a consequent impact on the quality of water leaving the site. (GHD report, pp. 14 16)

12.

The Commission takes note of these clear words from its consultant: The consequences of failure on the watershed lands and reservoirs would have environmental and health consequences that could be staggering in their scope and remedies. The Lower Density development already approved is the better method of developing this property while protecting the environmental resources on site. (Report to Town of Easton, Connecticut, Saddle Ridge Development, by GHD, October 28, 2010, page 23; Commission Record 11/08/10, Item #1) 13. Responses by the applicants engineer, Milone & Mac Broom Inc., rely primarily on best management practices. (Commission Record 11/22/10 Item #11) Best

management practices have been discounted for effectiveness by the GHD report of October 28, 2010. (Commission Record 11/08/10, Item #1) That report states: . . . it should be recognized that the Best Management Practices manage at the end of a pipe, not at the source as Low Impact Development encourages. Low Impact Design ideas look to put stormwater back into the ground near where it is generated to mimic pre-existing conditions. Pollutants would not be carried to locations just feet from the wetlands. For the most part, this project relies on collection of stormwater, concentrating it and piping it in constructed basins very near wetlands. Pushing the development envelope in critical areas (drinking watershed in this case) has an added risk an extraordinary risk, and the applicant should be expected to provide extra ordinary methods of risk avoidance and protection in this case providing a density that conforms to state Policy and Management. Further, the Applicant has stated their project conforms to the State Guidance using Best Management Practices for stormwater control and treatment but rather than push the envelope for higher density development and rely on Best Management Practices that are beneficial but do not go far enough, the practices espoused by Low Impact Development are now accepted across the country as a superior method of development and is being practiced by engineers and planners. We believe a Low Impact Development would be much more in keeping with development within drinking water watersheds it would be less disruptive on the natural environment, and would be less risk to the important drinking watershed lands, and more consistent with the States Policies for development within a drinking water watershed. 14. The Commission cannot find that the applicants engineers responses meet the legitimate objections raised in the GHD report of October 28, 2010, and the intervenors experts. In particular the applications failure to establish a sound management structure for its nine separate homeowner associations casts doubt on the Projects long-term viability for critical watershed protection. (GHD report of October 28, 2010, Findings p. 23; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #1) 15. Because of the planned density of dwellings and septic systems on the development portion of the Saddle Ridge Village site, a 1.4 -mile public water line extension is proposed to reach the site. However this extension is contrary to the public interest as expressed in the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut 2005-2010, page 7, point 4) which states in part: . . . The states policy in public drinking water supply watersheds is to discourage the introduction of infrastructure for the purpose of accommodating new development. Exceptions may be allowed in certain instances where development has already occurred and added pollution controls are required to protect potable waters. (GHD report appendix, October 28, 2010; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #1) The Commission finds that proposing a dense development in a rural area which requires a major water line extension is in direct opposition to this important policy,

and the noted exception does not apply to this undeveloped property. The Commission further finds that the proposed water line extension would create incentives for more intensive development along its route resulting inevitably in additional development impacts on the water supply watershed. The applicant has stated that a water pumping station would be necessary to maintain adequate water pressure for fire fighting at the Development, but has shown neither plans nor location for the station. The applicant was informed by the Commission that its proposed water line route would impact two designated Town Scenic Roads (Cedar Hill and Bibbins Roads) and a third proposed Town Scenic Road (Orchard Lane, Town Plan of Conservation and Development, 2006, plan map), requiring a separate application, but no additional application has been made and the applications are therefore incomplete. (Public Hearing 10/18/10 meeting record. Also, report to Planning and Zoning Commission by John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, dated December 8, 2010; Commission Record 12/13/10, Item #1) The Commission concludes that the proposed water line extension is contrary to the public interest as expressed in the State and Town Plans of Conservation and Development, which interest serves a much larger population than the small number of beneficiaries of the proposed affordable housing development. 16. The applications propose amendments to the Easton Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map to establish a new Housing Opportunity Development (HOD) District. (applicants Petition For Text Amendment, Map Text Amendment booklet, by Shipman & Goodwin LLP, July 9, 2010, Tab 7, pp. 1-4) (Commission Record 9/27/2010, Item #7) The proposed HOD regulations provide as follows (in part): E. Lot Density. No HOD District shall have more than two and one-half (2.5) homes per gross acre of land. The proposed HOD District is the applicants property (as hereinbefore described which contains 124.7 gross acres (including wetlands). It is clear that the proposed amendments would create a potential build-out, or development capacity subject to site plan review, of 310 dwelling units (124 x 2.5 = 310). 310 dwelling units is 5.0 times the safe residential density for water supply watersheds as recommended by the State of Connecticut (Department of Health and other citations above). The Commission notes that the applicant is using gross acres, which fails to exclude wetlands and is inconsistent with the State and Town Plans of Conservation and Development. The proposed HOD regulations provide for a zoning site plan review but do not otherwise restrict the potential density of development as required to protect the public water supply watershed. (see Section N. of cited proposed regulations) (Report to Commission by John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, November 8, 2010; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #3)

The Commission finds the proposed HOD Regulations and Zoning Map to be in conflict with State standards for safe development density in a public water supply watershed (cited previously), as well as contrary to the adopted Town Plan of Conservation and Development. (Chapter 11; Residential Development and Housing) The proposed regulations and map, while aiming to increase the supply of affordable housing, are seriously detrimental to the greater public interest in preservation of the natural environment and safe drinking water. 17. Because of the density of the proposed Saddle Ridge Village development, and the complexity of its proposed infrastructure, a comprehensive management structure is essential to protect its watershed environment. Infrastructure would include 105 individual septic systems, extensive water and utility lines, common roadways and parking lots, stormwater drainage and detention facilities throughout the site, pumping station and other common facilities, all requiring diligent maintenance, monitoring and coordination. The application, however, proposes to divide this continuing responsibility among nine lots and nine individual homeowner associations. No provision has been made for essential monitoring, coordination and enforcement of these obligations among the respective lot owners, in any of the documents accompanying this application, including the Affordability Plan, Submission Draft, and Deed Restrictions, Schedule D. (Petition For Text Amendment . . . Site Plan Approval, by Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, July 9, 2010, Tab 7; Commission Record 9/27/10, Item #7) The failure of the application to provide a comprehensive and long-term management plan for the Development creates a high risk of accidental contamination of drinking water streams and reservoirs. (GHD Report to Planning and Zoning Commission, October 28, 2010, pp. 17 & 18; Commission Record, 10/18/10, Item #1) The Commission finds that the proposed creation of nine separate homeowner associations to respectively manage the water, sewage treatment, roads, drainage and other interconnected infrastructure on nine lots further jeopardizes public health and safety through lack of coordinated fiscal and managerial oversight. 18. On a more specific level, the architectural plans which accompanied the Saddle Ridge Village application depict the two dwelling models proposed for construction in the Development. (Commission Record 9/27/10, Item #5) Despite the proposed deed restriction prohibiting more than two bedrooms per dwelling (previously cited reference), the architectural plans clearly show for each house model a second-story room-size extra space easily usable for or adaptable to a third bedroom. Without strict enforcement measures in place, noted above, a rational judgment must conclude that the planned dwellings are at variance with the stated deed restriction and therefore the potential population of the Development is significantly higher than the density which would occur with 210 bedrooms. (Memorandum to Planning and Zoning Commission by John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, December 1, 2010; Commission Record 12/13/10, Item #3)

10

The Commission finds that this discrepancy in the applicants plans, in light of the lack of management oversight established above, is a serious flaw in the plans with a very high probability of disastrous consequences for protection of the regions public water supply, as noted by GHD in their report dated October 28, 2010. (Commission Record, 11/08/10, Item #1) B. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE POTENTIAL HARM PRESENTED BY THIS APPLICATION CLEARLY OUTWEIGHS THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN EASTON. 1. The Commission has balanced the need for 32 units of affordable housing in Easton versus the risks presented by this application to the over 400,000 users of the water supply. In weighing those competing goals, it is clear that the risk of potential harm clearly outweighs the need for affordable housing for the below reasons. The proposed Development, as presented in the Saddle Ridge Village application, plans, and response documents, all made part of the record, would pose a very serious and direct threat to the health and safety of more than 400,000 persons residing in nearby towns who require a safe public water supply, significantly supplied by the reservoirs and their supporting watershed areas, all of which are in the Town of Easton. The entire 124.7 acre site of proposed Saddle Ridge Village lies within watersheds of Aquarion Water Companys Easton Lake Reservoir and Aspetuck Reservoir, each less than two miles distant; see map Easton, CT Public Drinking Water Source Protection Areas, published September 2006 by the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health, Drinking Water Section (Commission Record 12/13/10, Item #5), and Saddle Ridge Village Drinking Water Quality Management Plan, report by Milone & Mac Broom Inc., November 2010, Figure 2-1. (Commission Record 11/22/10, Item #11) The Commission finds that the applicants engineers responses do not meet the legitimate objections raised in GHD report of October 28, 2010 by reason of applications failure to establish a sound management structure for nine separate homeowner associations, and for the other reasons stated herein. (GHD Report of October 28, 2010, Findings p. 23; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #1)

2.

3.

4.

5. Easton is a rural town with no sanitary sewers, and 89% of Eastons land area recharges into public water supply reservoirs and wells. Most of its terrain is not capable of sustaining intensive development. Yet, as evidenced herein, Easton is making concerted efforts in the affordable housing area, and the town recognizes the need to provide affordable housing. This application presents a clear and obvious danger to the drinking water supply, which is an immediate and clearly more significant danger than Eastons challenge to provide more affordable housing. Quite simply, if the water supply is compromised as a result of this high-density

11

development, affordable housing challenges and other housing issues will become irrelevant. 6. In fact, Easton has addressed and continues to address the affordable housing issue. Despite the fact that approximately 89% of Eastons land area recharges public water supply reservoir and wells, and most of its terrain is not capable of sustaining intensive development, the Town encourages affordable housing within the natural constraints imposed by its land and lack of infrastructure. These are some basic challenges Easton faces in providing affordable housing, such as the lack of public sewers and the large percentage of the town on the public watershed. 7. In September 1989, the Easton Town Meeting ratified the Regional Affordable Housing Compact for the Greater Bridgeport Region, establishing goals for such housing based on population. In February 1995, the Town Planning and Zoning Commission adopted regulations to authorize Affordable Accessory Apartments. (Zoning Regulations, Sec. 7.8.5) On July 1, 2007 the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted a comprehensive Town Plan of Conservation and Development which states the following policy (at page 96): In conformity with statutory mandate, and as limited by soil types, terrain, infrastructure capacity and water-supply watershed protection imperatives, explore means of increasing the availability of housing choice and economic diversity in housing such as public or private non-profit dwellings and setaside units in subdivisions. (Chapter 4) 8. Additionally, the adopted Town Plan recommends that a limited duration accessory apartment be allowed as a matter of right to any resident homeowner, subject to safe water supply and sewage disposal, and discontinuance if vacated. It is anticipated that this plan will contribute to meeting Eastons needs for more diverse and affordable housing and bring its total housing stock closer to the States 10% affordability goal. (See Town Plan of Conservation and Development, Residential Development and Housing, Chapter 11) 9. In the meantime, the Commission has concluded that the dangers inherent in this affordable housing application are very significant, substantial and clearly supported by the record of this proceeding, and we cannot in good conscience - even while noting the importance of affordable housing - support the project given the overwhelming evidence in the record. C. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS CAN BE MADE TO THIS APPLICATION WHICH COULD PROTECT THESE PUBLIC INTERESTS. Since this Commission has previously approved a subdivision for this property, it is clear that some housing development would be acceptable. However, this proposal for 105 units, based upon the evidence in the record, is unacceptable and presents a health and safety problem due to risk to the drinking water supply, as discussed above. The

12

Commission would be receptive to a revised housing application with a lower density, which could protect these important public interests. The revised application should be consistent with the standards and guidelines set forth in the State of Connecticut Conservation and Policies Plan for Connecticut (2005-2010) and the Town of Easton Plan of Conservation and Development. The revised application should also be supported by substantial evidence in the form of expert opinion confirming protection of the public interest in the drinking water supply. IV. Commission Findings regarding substantial public interests in health and safety for fire safety: A. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTERESTS IN HEALTH AND SAFETY EXIST WITH REGARD TO THIS APPLICATION WHICH THE COMMISSION MUST PROTECT. SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICATION PRESENTS FIRE SAFETY ISSUES WHICH THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO PROTECT, AND THIS SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST IN HEALTH AND SAFETY IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF THIS PROCEEDING. 1. The proposed Site Plans for the Development (Sheets # L-1 through L-8 inclusive) show substantial numbers of residential dwellings on privately-owned common driveways, typically only eighteen-feet-wide in travel width (although flanked by a 24-inch graded shoulder on each side); this contrasts with standard Town road requirements of 24 feet of travelway width plus graded shoulders. Applicants have cited Section 5.15.1 K. of the Zoning Regulations which allows for a common driveway of 16ft. width plus graded shoulders limited, however, to a maximum of four lots without public street frontage. Lot 2 of the Site Plans proposes 15 dwellings served by an 18-ft. common driveway. Lots 3 and 4 share a common driveway serving 17 dwellings. Lot 5 has 10 dwellings served by an 18-ft. common driveway. On Lot 6 there are 12 dwellings served by an 18-ft. common driveway. 14 dwellings on Lot 8 require access by an 18-ft. common driveway. 2. Most of the individual parking spaces, two for each residential unit, directly abut that lots 18-ft. common driveway, thereby requiring every parked vehicle (typically 16 to 20 feet in length) to back out in such manner as to simultaneously obstruct both lanes of the common driveway. Because of the lack of individual driveway space the 18-ft. common driveways must also provide at-curb parking for deliveries and visitors in excess of the two spaces per unit. 3. There is a significant probability that traffic congestion will occur periodically and will interfere at times with emergency access by fire and rescue vehicles. (see letters to Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission, September 13, 2010 from Schuyler Sherwood, Deputy Fire Marshal and November 3, 2010 from Peter Neary, Fire Marshal; Commission Record, 09/27/10 and 11/08/10) 4. The Commission finds that the potential traffic congestion resulting from excessive numbers of dwellings on narrow private roads (or common driveways) poses a

13

substantial risk to health and safety due to the probability of obstruction of access for emergency vehicles. B. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE POTENTIAL HARM PRESENTED BY THIS APPLICATION CLEARLY OUTWEIGHS THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN EASTON. 1. The Commission has balanced the need for affordable housing in Easton versus the risks presented with the existing fire safety problems. In weighing those competing goals, it is clear that the risk of potential harm clearly outweighs the need for affordable housing for the reasons stated herein. 2. The common driveway issues and traffic congestion issues discussed above, all supported by substantial evidence in the record, would pose a very serious and direct threat to the health and safety of the residents of this development. It is clear from the record that if emergency vehicles do not have unhindered access, a serious risk to life is presented. C. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS CAN BE MADE TO THIS APPLICATION WHICH COULD PROTECT THIS PUBLIC INTEREST IN FIRE SAFETY. This proposal for 105 units, based upon the evidence in the record, is unacceptable and presents a health and safety problem and risk to the residents due to limited access by emergency vehicles. The Commission would be receptive to a revised housing application with a lower density, which could protect this important public interest. The revised application should be consistent with State and Easton building, fire and safety standards, and must be satisfactory to the Easton Fire Marshal. V. Commission Findings regarding Easton Plan of Conservation and Development The Plan of Conservation and Development, Easton, CT, 2006 (Town Plan) was adopted, after public hearings and unanimous endorsement by a Town Meeting, on July 1, 2007. This application seeks to Amend the Easton Town Plan of Conservation and Development to delete or modify specific recommendations for residential densities not to exceed one family per every two upland acres on public watersupply watershed land (legal notice and application documents; Commission Record September 27, 2010, Item #7). Preservation of the quality of public drinking water supplies, as an obligation to the health and safety of the entire population of the region, is a cardinal principle which underlies the entire text and map of the Town Plan. This principle finds expression in many areas of the Plan text, notably at: Page 3 (The Plan, In Summary), 2. Protect the environmental quality and lowdensity character of the watershed lands consistent with the density standards of the

14

State Conservation and Development Policies Plan i.e., no more than one dwelling unit or six bedrooms for every two acres of upland soil and three acres of site area. Page 21 (Conservation Policies: Key To The Future), 2. Protection of the water supply watersheds which encompass nine-tenths of Eastons land and water resources is essential to the public health of more than a dozen populous communities. Page 34 (Policy Proposals), 1. Protection of the public water supply watershed in all sections of the town, as recommended in the State Plan of Conservation and Development and the Greater Bridgeport Regional Plan, is essential to the health, safety and property values of Easton and the most fundamental element of the Town Plan. Residential densities in public water supply watershed areas should not exceed one family per every two contiguous acres of upland soil on a site, or two to two and a half bedrooms per upland acre. All uses should be held to strict standards to protect the quality of surface and groundwaters. Page 101 (Land on Water-supply watersheds), Protect the environmental quality and low-density character of all water-supply watershed lands, as recommended by the State Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut, especially to maintain residential dwelling densities no greater than one 4 to 5 bedroom dwelling unit, or equivalent occupancy for every two acres of contiguous upland site area. Page 101 (Residential Development and Housing), Maintain the residential rural density of established three-acre residential neighborhoods and all water-supply watershed areas.

The Commission finds that the application proposal to amend the Town Plan, as stated in the application materials and legal notice, is diametrically opposed to a fundamental principle of the Town Plan, specifically, the maintenance of residential development density on public water supply watershed lands of not greater then one dwelling unit for every two acres of upland (non-wetland) land as recommended in State and Regional Plans. The Commission further finds that the requested amendment to the Town Plan is unsupported by documentation to justify an intensification of development on water supply watershed lands at considerable risk to public health for the limited benefit of additional affordable housing units. Zoning regulations and districts are required to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and to protect the public health and safety. (Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-2) Because these applications are inconsistent with basic principles of the Town Plan, and found by this Commission, on balance, to be contrary to the overwhelming public interest in protecting the public water supply, the requested text changes to the Town Plan, to the Town Zoning Regulations, and to the Town Zoning Map cannot be approved. VI. Commission findings regarding significant differences between earlier twenty-one lot subdivision and this application:

15

A. The Commission finds that there are significant differences between the prior twenty-one lot subdivision and this application. 1. The Commission finds that there are significant differences between the prior 21-lot single-family-dwelling subdivision and the plans embodied in these applications, to such a degree of difference that the wetland license granted to the 21-lot subdivision is not applicable to the plans proposed in these applications. The GHD Report to the Commission dated October 28, 2010 (Commission Record 11/08/10, Item #1) described significant differences between the approved 21-lot subdivision and the present 10-lot subdivision with 105 townhouses proposal, as follows (excerpts from Part II of GHD Report): In order to accommodate the greater density associated with the increased number of residential units and their need for additional area to accommodate driveways, parking, and site amenities, much more land is being disturbed and altered to fit development within the available site area. By the applicants calculations, 30% more land is impacted. The development is impacted. The development is showing a clear cut removal of all growth and habitat within the limits of the disturbed areas. This contrasts strongly with the potential to retain habitat within the development envelope with the approved application for single family residential use. The development plans for the proposed 105 condominium units with their necessary removal of existing features do not have flexibility for the protection and preservation of the sites natural features within the area of development. Essentially the land will be cleared of all growth and graded to fit the new residential units. The difference in overall environmental impact to natural habitat and the full range of ecosystems between the two development proposals is dramatic; hence the impacts within the watershed lands are significant. The 21 homes would generate a usage based upon 21 families. In Easton, an overall average family is just under 3 people per home, thus in round numbers using an average this is about 60 people. If one accepts an argument that these homes would generate more people, and one uses 4 to 4.5 people on average there would be 85 to perhaps 100 people occupying the site based upon the approved application and this roughly falls in line with the Applicants responses on school age children populations. The new proposal of 105 units could be expected to generate somewhere between 1.75 to 2.5 people per unit: 180 260 people, considerably more people and activity on the site. This difference in the numbers of people likely to be in residence and supported on this site impacts many factors including traffic, water use and septic discharges, and the general use and impacts on the land once development is constructed. (T)he applicant has stated in his Engineering presentation that the total impervious area is 8.1% of the property (buildings and roads). 8.1% of 124.7 acres is 10.1 acres. However a summary in the Drainage Report June 25, 2010 shows the area of

2.

16

impervious surfaces to be 12.35 acres. This discrepancy is almost 98,000 square feet of area and impacts the credibility of the conclusions given. 3. The Commission rejects any claim by the applicant that the previously-approved subdivision consisting of twenty-one (21) lots allows ten bedrooms for each new home. In fact, in that prior application the Commission made no such determination as to numbers of bedrooms, nor does the Commission have any authority to regulate the number of bedrooms in a home as part of a subdivision application. The prior approval was only for twenty-one lots and other conditions standard to a subdivision approval.

VII.

Commission findings regarding failure to receive a report from the Easton Conservation Commission: A. The Commission finds that the applicant has failed to provide a report from the Easton Conservation Commission as required in Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-26(e). This statute provides that the Commission shall not render a decision until the inland wetlands agency has submitted a report with its final decision to the commission. No such report with a final decision on this subject application has been received by this Commission. This failure alone should be sufficient to deny the subdivision application submitted by the applicant, since it is a requirement pursuant to this statute that the Commission receives such a report. However, since the applicant has contended that a report has been submitted, since there are multiple applications to be considered, and since these applications were submitted pursuant to a Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-30g filing, the Commission has chosen to also render a decision on the merits, without waiving its claim that the applicant has failed to comply with this statutory provision. The Conservation Commission letter addressed to Silver Sport Associates Limited Partnership c/o Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC, Re: Inland Wetland Application Permit #10-397, for a 10-lot subdivision of 105 townhouses, submitted by Saddle Ridge Developers, dated September 30, 2010, stating that the permit application was denied without prejudice, does not satisfy this statutory requirement for a report to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The reasons for denial by the Conservation Commission were the applicants failure to provide the required application fee as well as the required fee for a consultant to advise the Conservation Commission.

VIII.

Commission findings regarding Intervention Petition: The Commission hereby makes the following findings with regard to the Petition to Intervene pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 22a-19, filed on October 18, 2010 by The Coalition To Save Easton, a division of Citizens for Easton Inc., a non-profit corporation, which has as its mailing address CFE: The Coalition to Save Easton, PO Box 151, Easton, CT 06612. A. The Commission finds that a verified petition has been properly submitted, and the intervenors specific claims as set forth in their verified pleading are within the scope of the Commissions statutory jurisdiction.

17

B. After reviewing the intervenors claims, the Commission finds that the proposed conduct in the application does, or is reasonably likely to, cause the pollution, impairment or destruction of the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state, including but not limited to watercourses, wetlands, aquifers, groundwater and reservoirs, in violation of the State and Town Plans of Conservation and Development. (Commission Record: October 18, 2010, Item 5). More specifically, it is reasonably likely that impairment of the public water supply will occur with this application, as discussed above in Section III. The additional evidence submitted by the intervenors shows that impairment will occur. Reports prepared by experts for the intervenors have examined projected concentrations of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the Development (Report by Steven D. Trinkaus, PE, dated November 4, 2010; Commission Record, 11/8/10, Item #6), and water quality impacts of the Development. (Report by Michael S. Klein, soil scientist and wetland scientist, dated November 3, 2010; Commission Record, 11/8/10, Item #5) Each of these experts concurs with the conclusions on potential surface and groundwater quality impacts from the Saddle Ridge Village proposal as reported in the GHD report of October 28, 2010. C. The Commission further concludes that there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Such alternative consists of a revised application with a reduction in the number of units consistent with the principles set forth herein in Section IIIC. Such option should be considered by the applicant. IX. COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLVED that this application for an Amendment to the Easton Plan of Conservation and Development as last adopted 2007 to delete or modify specific recommendations for residential densities not to exceed one family per every two upland acres on public watersupply watershed land, is hereby DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The findings stated herein, which are supported by documentation and reports contained in the record of this proceeding; most specifically, the Commissions finding that the high density nature of this application and its threat to the public drinking water supply is inconsistent with the existing Easton Plan of Conservation and Development. These inconsistencies include: a. Protection of the public water supply watershed is strongly recommended in the State Policies Plan of Conservation and Development through maintenance of a development density of no greater than one dwelling unit per each two upland acres, with which the application is inconsistent. b. Substantial evidence has been presented that there is a high risk of adverse impact on the public water supply through inadequate measures to control the combined development impacts.

18

c. Potential contamination of the public water supply serving over 400,000 persons in nearby urban areas is a risk which overwhelms in importance the need for a minor addition to the affordable housing supply. 2. The proposed amendment does not adequately consider the following directives of Conn. Gen. Stat. '8-23(c) in respect to the preparation of the municipal plan of conservation and development: (3) the need for protection of existing and potential public surface and ground drinking water supplies; (5) the state plan of conservation and development adopted pursuant to Chapter 297; and (6) the regional plan of development adopted pursuant to Section 8-35a, nor does it agree with the directives of General Statutes Section 8-23(d) that the municipal plan shall recommend the most desirable density of population in the several parts of the municipality. 3. The proposed amendment to the Town Plan is not in conformity with the land use policies of the State Policies Plan of Conservation and Development which recommend low density development within the areas of the Locational Development Guide map for Conservation Area, which encompasses the site area and vicinity of watershed land; 4. B. Substantial harm to public health, safety and welfare as stated herein. RESOLVED that this application for an Amendment to the Easton Zoning Regulations to establish a new overlay zone titled Housing Opportunity Development (HOD) District, with related regulations governing that District is hereby DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The findings stated herein, which are supported by documentation and reports contained in the record of this proceeding; specifically, the creation of such an overlay zone presents substantial risks to the public drinking water supply, along with fire and safety risks, due to the high density nature of the application; the application is inconsistent with the police powers which this Commission must protect pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-2. Specifically, the Commission notes the following finding from above (Section IIIA17): The applications propose amendments to the Easton Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map to establish a new Housing Opportunity Development (HOD) District (applicants Petition For Text Amendment, Map Text Amendment . . . booklet, by Shipman & Goodwin LLP, July 9, 2010, Tab 7, pp. 1-4). (Commission Record 9/27/2010, Item #7) The proposed HOD regulations provide as follows (in part): E. Lot Density. No HOD District shall have more than two and one-half (2.5) homes per gross acre of land. The proposed HOD District is the applicants property (as hereinbefore described which contains 124.7 gross acres, including wetlands). It is clear that the

19

proposed amendments would create a potential build-out, or development capacity subject to site plan review, of 310 dwelling units (124 x 2.5 = 310). 310 dwelling units is more than 5.0 times the safe residential density for water supply watersheds as recommended by the State of Connecticut (Department of Public Health and other citations above). The proposed HOD regulations provide for a zoning site plan review but do not otherwise restrict the potential density of development as required to protect the public water supply watershed (see Section N. of cited proposed regulations). (Report to Commission by John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, November 8, 2010; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #3) The Commission finds the proposed HOD Regulations and Zoning Map to be in conflict with State standards for safe development density in a public water supply watershed (cited previously), as well as contrary to the adopted Town Plan of Conservation and Development (Chapter 11; Residential Development and Housing). The proposed regulations and map, while aiming to increase the supply of affordable housing, are seriously detrimental to the greater public interest in preservation of the natural environment and safe drinking water for all persons of the state; 2. Inconsistencies with the current Easton Plan of Conservation and Development, which does not provide for such a high density development in the watershed area, and does not allow for such risks in the watershed area, specifically pages 3, 21, 34 and 101; 3. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with a basic policy of the zoning regulations as stated in Article I, Section 9: To prevent the pollution of ponds and streams, safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and sound management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land and to preserve and protect the water supply for the entire region; 4. Inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan in Easton; 5. Substantial harm to public health, safety and public welfare as stated herein; specifically, significant harm presented to the public water supply. C. RESOLVED that this application to amend the Easton Zoning Map (Zoning Regulation Article 3 Districts) to provide for HOD District is hereby DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The findings stated herein, which are supported by documentation and reports contained in the record of this proceeding; specifically, the creation of such an overlay zone presents substantial risks to the public drinking water supply, along with fire and safety risks, due to the high density nature of the application; the application

20

is inconsistent with the police powers which this Commission must protect pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-2; 2. Inconsistencies with the current Easton Plan of Conservation and Development, which does not provide for such a high density development in the watershed area, and does not allow for such risks in the watershed area, specifically pages 3, 21, 34 and 101; 3. The proposed map amendment for a Housing Opportunity District (HOD) does not fulfill the mandate of Conn. Gen. Stat. '8-2 that zoning districts be designed to secure safety from fire and other dangers, to prevent the overcrowding of land and to avoid the undue concentration of population; 4. Inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan in Easton; 5. D. Substantial harm to public health, safety and public welfare as stated herein, specifically, significant harm presented to the public water supply.

RESOLVED that this application to rezone the applicants 124.7 acre site, located at Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road and Westport Road, to a Housing Opportunity Development District is hereby DENIED for the following reasons: 1. Since this Commission has denied the above amendment to the Plan of Conservation and Development; the above amendment to the Regulations to create the new overlay zone, and the above amendment to the Zoning Map, the application to rezone to the HOD District must also be denied. Specifically, the Commission notes the following finding from above (Section IIIA17): The applications propose amendments to the Easton Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map to establish a new Housing Opportunity Development (HOD) District (applicants Petition For Text Amendment, Map Text Amendment . . . booklet, by Shipman & Goodwin LLP, July 9, 2010, Tab 7, pp. 1-4). (Commission Record 9/27/2010, Item #7) The proposed HOD regulations provide as follows (in part): E. Lot Density. No HOD District shall have more than two and one-half (2.5) homes per gross acre of land. The proposed HOD District is the applicants property (as hereinbefore described which contains 124.7 gross acres, including wetlands). It is clear that the proposed amendments would create a potential build-out, or development capacity subject to site plan review, of 310 dwelling units (124 x 2.5 = 310). 310 dwelling units is more than 5.0 times the safe residential density for water supply watersheds as recommended by the State of Connecticut (Department of Public Health and other citations above). The proposed HOD regulations provide for a zoning site plan review but do not otherwise restrict the potential density of development as required to protect the public water supply watershed (see Section N. of cited proposed regulations).

21

(Report to Commission by John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, November 8, 2010; Commission Record 11/8/10, Item #3) The Commission finds the proposed HOD Regulations and Zoning Map to be in conflict with State standards for safe development density in a public water supply watershed (cited previously), as well as contrary to the adopted Town Plan of Conservation and Development (Chapter 11; Residential Development and Housing). The proposed regulations and map, while aiming to increase the supply of affordable housing, are seriously detrimental to the greater public interest in preservation of the natural environment and safe drinking water for all persons of the state. 2. In addition, the application to rezone must be denied with reference to the public health and safety issues stated herein, which are supported by documentation and reports contained in the record of this proceeding, specifically, rezoning of this parcel creates substantial risks to the public drinking water supply, along with fire and safety risks, due to the high density nature of the application. 3. Inconsistencies with the current Easton Plan of Conservation and Development, specifically, pages 3, 21, 34 and 101; 4. Inconsistencies with the existing zoning regulations; 5. Inconsistencies with the police powers which this Commission must protect pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-2; 6. Substantial harm to public health, safety and welfare as stated herein. E. RESOLVED that this application for Subdivision approval by Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC requesting a subdivision of 10 lots and site plan approval for 105 townhouses to be located on above said site is hereby DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The findings stated herein, which are supported by documentation and reports contained in the record of this proceeding; specifically, the creation of such a subdivision presents substantial risks to the public drinking water supply, along with fire and safety risks, due to the high density nature of the application; 2. Inconsistencies with the current Easton Plan of Conservation and Development; specifically, pages 3, 21, 34 and 101; 3. Inconsistencies with the existing subdivision and zoning regulations; specifically, Zoning Regulations Section 4.1.1 which limits the Permitted Use to one single family dwelling per lot, and Subdivision Regulations Section III d. which requires compliance of a subdivision plan with the Easton Zoning Regulations and the adopted Town Plan;

22

4. Substantial harm to public health, safety and welfare as stated herein; 5. Failure to provide a report from the wetlands agency, the Easton Conservation Commission, as required in Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-26(e). F. RESOLVED that this application by Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC to amend Section X.11 of the Easton Subdivision Regulations to exempt a setaside development from certain open space requirements is hereby DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The findings stated herein, which are supported by documentation and reports contained in the record of this proceeding, specifically, passage of such an exemption presents substantial risks to the public drinking water supply, along with fire and safety risks, due to the high density nature of the application. 2. Inconsistencies with the current Easton Plan of Conservation and Development, specifically, pages 3, 21, 34 and 101; 3. The proposed amendment is unnecessary because existing Section X.11 b) of the current Subdivision Regulations exempts an affordable housing development from open space requirements; 4. Substantial harm to public health, safety and welfare as stated herein.

________________________ Robert Maquat, Chairman,

(signed) dated February 14, 2011

23

EXHIBIT A COMPENDIUM OF MATERIALS COMPRISING THE RECORD FOR APPLICATIONS BY SADDLE RIDGE DEVELOPERS, LLC September 27, 2010 Public Hearing: 1. Two page excerpt from 2004 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual/ 2. Engineering Report, Saddle Ridge Village, Sport Hill road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road, and Westport Road, Easton, Connecticut, dated June 25, 2010 prepared for Saddle Ridge Developers, 68 Soundview Dr, Easton, CT 06612, prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc., 99 Realty Dr, Cheshire, CT 06470 (270 pages including tabs, maps and title page); 3. Letter dated September 27, 2010 (four pages) to Mr. Robert Maquat, Chair, and Commission Members, from Matthew Ranelli, Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, with three tabs of information (11 additional pages including the 3 tab pages); 4. A bound set et of blueprint size package of maps and plans entitled Saddle Ridge Village, Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road & Westport Road, Easton, Connecticut, June 25, 2010, prepared by Milone & MacBroom (51 pages including the title page); 5. A series of 5 renderings of proposed townhouses prepared by Carlson Construction, LLC, 470 Beechwood Avenue, Bridgeport, CT 06604, dated 3/12/10; 6. Condensed version of packet of maps and plans dated June 25, 2010 (See Item #4); 7. Booklet of application materials, prepared by Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, dated July 9, 2010, entitled Petition For Text Amendment, Map Text Amendment, Subdivision Approval, and Site Plan Approval of Saddle Ridge Developers For Property Located At Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill Road and Westport Road (Route 136), July 9, 2010, (comprising 12 tabbed sections, maps and 105 pages of text and tables); 8. Letter dated July 29, 2010 to Mr. Robert E. Maquat Chairman of the Easton Planning and Zoning Commission from Brian T. Roach, Supervisor, Environmental Protection, Aquarion Water Company (3 pages). (This letter was read in its entirety by the Chairman.); 9. Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission from Polly Edwards, R.S., Easton Health Officer, dated September 27, 2010 (one page). (This letter was read in its entirety by the Chairman.); 10.Letter to Planning & Zoning- Robert Maquat, Chairman, from Gary J. Csanadi, Easton Police Department dated 9/27/10 (one page). (This letter was read in its entirety by the Chairman.); 11.Letter to Mr. Robert Maquat, Planning and Zoning Commission, from Schuyler Sherwood, Deputy Fire Marshal, dated September 13, 2010 (two pages); 12.Letter to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission, dated August 27, 2010 from Brian Bidolli, Acting Executive Director, Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency (one page). (This letter was read in its entirety by the Chairman.); 13. Letter to Mr. Robert Maquat, Planning and Zoning Commission from E. William Martin, Jr., Easton Building Official, dated September 24, 2010 (one page). (This letter was read in its entirety by the Chairman.); 14. Letter to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission, dated September 13, 2010 from Eric McPhee, Supervising Environmental Analyst, source Water Protection Unit, Drinking Water Section (3 pages), with attached one page letter to Polly Edwards, R.S. Easton Health Officer, dated march 11, 2010 from Lori Mathieu, Public Health Services Manager, Drinking Water Section, and with attached two page memorandum to Lori Mathieu, Public Health Services Manager, Eric McPhee, Supervising Environmental Analyst, dated March 11, 2010 from Patricia Bisacky, Environmental Analyst 2, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health;

24

September 27, 2010 Public Hearing: Additional items for the record (continued): 15.Letter to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Easton Planning and Zoning Commission, dated September 26, 2010, from Margaret Miner, Executive Director of Rivers Alliance of Connecticut. 16.Letter to Margaret Anania, Planning & Zoning Department from Ira W. Bloom, Esq., Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.D. dated September 14, 2010 (two pages). 17.Letter to Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman and Goodwin, LLP, dated September 13, 2010 from Ira W. Bloom, Berchem, Moses & Develin, P.C.(two pages). The chairman noted that this letter acknowledged a total fee of $24,000 and that an additional check had been submitted to cover the fee; however, in the memo portion of the check there was written the words PAID UNDER PROTEST. 18.Letter from Matthew Ranelli, Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, Counselors At Law, dated September 13, 2010 to Robert Maquat, Chair, and Commission Members, Planning and Zoning Commission (one page), consenting to a 14 day extension . 19.Letter to John Hayes, Land Use Director dated July 23, 2010 from Lori Mathieu, Public Health Services Manager, Drinking Water Section, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health. October 18, 2010 Public Hearing: 1. Letter dated August 4, 2010 to Mr. Thomas J. Daly, PE, Milone & MacBroom, Inc., Re: Request for Water Service, Saddle Ridge Subdivision, Easton, CT, from Shokoofeh Rezazadeh, Planning Engineer, for Aquarion Water Company (1 page). 2. Letter dated October 18, 2010 to Mr. Matt Ranelli, Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, Re: Saddle Ridge Village, Easton, CT, from Milone & MacBroom, Inc., Ted Crawford, P.E., LEED AP, Project Manager, Associate (1 page). 3. A one-page memo from Stuart B. Popper to Matthew Ranelli dated October 18, 2010 Re: Estimates of School Age Children for 21 Lot Subdivision and 105 Unit Development with a three page attachment entitled Fannie Mae Foundation Residential Demographic Multipliers, Projections of the Occupants of New Housing, (Residents, School-Age Children, Public School-Age Children) by State, Housing Type, Housing Size and Housing Price, prepared for: Patrick Simmons, Director, Department of Housing Demography, Fannie Mae Foundation, Washington, D.C., prepared by Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D., David Listokin, Ph.D. William Dolphin, M.A., Center for Urban Policy Research, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, June 2006. 4. Four page memo dated October 8, 2010 to Ira Bloom from Denise G. Halstead, Donald Ferlow, Gary Dufel Re: Saddle Ridge Development (consisting of 23 questions on the project). 5. NOTICE OF INTERVENTION to Easton Planning and Zoning Commission from INTERVENER, The Coalition to Save Easton, a division of Citizens for Easton, Inc., signed by Leslie Minasi and Christopher Miles. 6. Report dated October 14, 2010 to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission from Chief John F. Solomon, Chief of Police, Re: Saddle Ridge- Review of application, Petition for Text, Map Text Amendment, Subdivision Approval and Site Plan Approval, with attached report from Police Officer Gary J. Csanadi dated 10/14/2010. 7. Submission from Marshall Hoover of the State of CT Department of Environmental Protection entitled Report For The Blue Ribbon Commission On Housing, On The Land Required To Support Residential Development in Connecticut, prepared by the Department of Environmental Protection, Water Compliance Unit, May 1989.

25

October 18, 2010 Public Hearing: Additional items for the record (continued): 8. Letter dated September 30, 2010 to Silver Sport Associates Limited Partnership c/o Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC, Re: Inland Wetland Application Permit #10-397, submitted by Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC, from Roy Gosse, Chairman, Conservation Commission of the Town of Easton, acting as the Inland Wetlands Agency for the Town of Easton. 9. Memo to Thomas A. Herrmann, First Selectman, Subject: Scheduling and Notice For Public Hearings, dated September 14, 2010, from John Hayes, Consultant & Land Use Director (5 pages in all). 10. Four page letter dated September 6, 2010 from Giuliano and Leslie Minasi, 34 Cedar Hill Road 11. Three page document submitted by Chris Miles at public hearing entitled Statement to the Easton Planning and Zoning Commission 12. E-mail dated September 27, 2010 from Constance A. Benson, 34 Pond Road, Easton, CT 13. Letter from Andre M. and Lynda A. Willauer, 880 Sport Hill Road, Easton, CT, 06612 dated September 9, 2010 to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission. 14. Letter dated September 18, 2010 to Easton Planning and Zoning Commission from Grant and Peggy Monsarrat of 370 North Park Avenue 15. E-mail dated 9/27/2010 to Thomas Herrmann (Elected Officials of CT) from Regina Frate 10 Silver Hill Road, Easton, CT 16. E-mail dated September 1, to Thomas Herrmann, Scott Centrella and Robert Lesslor from Karen Weinsess, 81 Tranquility Drive, Easton, CT 17. Memo to All P & Z Commissions dated September 28, 2010 from Will Tressler, 146 Bibbins Road with attached e-mail sent to Gov. Rell, Attorney General Blumenthal, Sen. John McKinney, and Rep. John Stripp and attached letter dated September 1, 2010

October 25, 2010 Public Hearing:

1. Letter of written response to GHDs memorandum of October 8, 2010, dated October 20, 2010 to Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, from Ted Hart, P.E., Vice President of Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (11 pages) with several attachments (22 pages in total). 2. 1 page E-mail from Patricia Bisacky, Environmental Analyst 2, Source Water Protection Unit, Drinking Water Section, Department of Public Health dated Tuesday, October 19, 2010, Subject: Carrying Capacity of Public Water Supply Watersheds Attachment: Carrying Capacity of PWS Watersheds Summary, pdf (13 pages) 3. Receipt for checks received from Saddle Ridge Developers, LLC in amount of $20,440 and $3,560 (previously referred to but not officially noted). 4. Letter dated August 17, 2010 to Matthew Ranelli, Esquire, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, returning original fee submitted, a check in the amount of $3,560, from John Hayes, Land Use Director requesting the required fee be received so that legal notice may be posted (proposed legal notice attached). 5. Letter dated August 26, 2010 to Mr. Robert Maquat, Chair, and Commission Members, and Planning and Zoning Commission, from Attorney Matthew Ranelli, Esquire, Shipman and Goodwin, LLP, resubmitting the check submitted previously for the applications, in the amount of $3,560, stating they will pay the difference once they agree. 6. Two page letter dated October 22, 2010 to the Coalition to Save Easton c/o Chris Miles from Steven D. Trinkaus, P.E., CPESC, CPSWQ. 7. One page letter dated October 25, 2010 To the members of the Easton Planning & Zoning Commission from Attorney Janet P. Brooks.

26

October 25, 2010 Public Hearing: Additional items for the record (continued): 8. One page letter dated October 25, 2010 to Mr. Robert Maquat, Chair, and Commission Members from Matthew Ranelli, Esquire, Shipman & Goodwin LLP (granting a 23 day extension until November 22, 2010 in which to complete the public hearing). November 8, 2010 Public Hearing: 1. Gary A. Dufels letter dated October 28, 2010 to the Easton Planning & Zoning Commission, Attn: Mr. Rob Maquat, Re: Easton Saddle Ridge, GHD Project No. 8614543 (one page) with Gary A. Dufels Report dated October 28, 2010 with document entitled Town of Easton, Connecticut, Saddle Ridge Development P&Z Application, Technical Review and Presentation of Findings, October 28, 2010 (23 page document on top with Appendices A through E attached) 2. Six page letter dated November 8, 2010 submitted by the Town Engineer, Edward Nagy, P.E. to the Planning & Zoning Commission and stated that Ed Nagy would speak next. Ed Nagy highlighted his letter dated November 8, 2010 specifically noting that some of the proposed septic systems were not located within the mandated setbacks of the State Connecticut Public Health Code i.e. Lots 5, 7 and 9. (Ed Nagy highlighted his letter for the record). 3. Seven page memo from John Hayes, Consultant and Land Use Director, dated November 8, 2010 to Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Easton regarding the Saddle Ridge Village Applications (Mr. Hayes read the document into the record). 4. Two page letter from Fire Marshal Peter Neary dated November 3, 2010 to Mr. Robert Maquat, Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the preliminary plans for Saddle Ridge Village. Mr. Neary was present in the audience but had no further comments then his letter. The chairman read his letter into the record. 5. Six page report from Wetland Scientist Michael S. Klein, Principal, Soil Scientist, Professional Wetland Scientist, Environmental Planning Services dated November 3, 2010 with three pages of credentials attached. 6. Two page report from Steven D. Trinkaus, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, Trinkaus Engineering, LLC, dated November 4, 2010 with 13 pages of credentials and experience attached. 7. Four page report Mark A. Gottlieb, LEP, President, Catalyst Environmental Consulting, Inc. dated November 8, 2010 with four aerial photographs attached, four page list of credentials and experience attached and twenty pages from Conn. Gen. Stat. Chapter 446d*, Solid Waste Management (Bound version also submitted and signed by Chairman). 8. Large 1934 aerial photo showing the Saddle Ridge property. 9. Small 1934 aerial photo showing the Saddle Ridge property with and outline of the proposed development as an overlay with areas of interest with areas of interest in red. 10. Small 1934 aerial photo showing the Saddle Ridge property with the proposed development plan as an overlay with areas of interest in red. 11. Disc entitled Petition for Text Amendment, Map text Amendment, Subdivision Approval, and site Plan Approval at Sport Hill Road, Silver Hill Road, Cedar Hill road and Westport Road (Route 136). 12. Letter dated November 8, 2010 to Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, from Ted Hart, P.E., Vice President, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (two page letter with attachment) 13. Letter dated October 20, 2010 to Matthew Ranelli, Esq. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, from Ted Hart, P.E., Vice President, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (11 pages) with three tabbed areas. 14. Letter dated November 2, 2010 from Will Tressler to All Members of the Easton Planning and Zoning Commission.

27

November 22, 2010 Public Hearing: 1. Letter dated November 22, 2010 to Robert Maquat, Chair and Commission Members, Planning and Zoning Commission from Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin LLP Agreeing to Commissions request of time until December 13, 2010. 2. Letter dated November 18, 2010 to Thomas Herrmann, First Selectman, from Leendert T. DeJong, Manager, Watershed and Environmental Management, Aquarion Water Company with cc: to Brian Roach, Supervisor, Environmental Protection, Aquarion Water Company, comparing Saddle Ridge Development with the Eureka V LLC Development in Ridgefield. 3. Letter dated November 22, 2010 to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Easton, from Charles J. Rotherberger, Staff Attorney, Connecticut Fund for the Environment and Save the Sound. 4. E-mail from Leslie to Margret with Trinkaus Supplemental letter attached, Letter dated November 9, 2010 to the Coalition to Save Easton from Steven D. Trinkaus, P.E., CPESC, CPSWQ supplying the pollutant concertrations for the land uses which were utilize and discussed in his letter of October 22, 2010. 5. Four page letter from Chris Miles to the Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission read into the record November 8, 2010. 6. One page memo dated November 18, 2010 to Robert Maquat, Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission, from Chief John F. Solomon with accompanying one page report dated 11/18/10 from Police Officer Gary J. Csanadi. 7. Two page letter with one page attachment dated November 8, 2010 to Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin, LLP from Ted Hart, P.E., Vice President, Milone & MacBroom. 8. Two page letter dated November 7, 2010 from James Riling to Easton Planning & Zoning Commission read into record November 8, 2010. 9. Two page document entitled Town of Easton, Connecticut, Saddle Ridge Development P & Z Application, November 22, 2010 with accompanying map from Gary A. Dufel, P.E., BCEE, LEED AP, F. ASCE, of GHD Inc. 10. Booklet entitled Protecting Connecticuts Water Supply Watersheds: A Guide For Local Officials, Edited by: James M. Doenges, Chropher P. Allan, RlS. James Benson, Robert J. Jontos, Jr., R.S., January 1993 11. Booklet entitled Saddle Ridge Village Drinking Water Quality Management Plan November 2010 Prepared for: Saddle Ridge Developers, 68 Soundview Drive, Easton, Connecticut 06612 prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc., 99 Realty Drive, Chesire, Connecticut 06410 (approximately 90 pages in total including appendices). 12. Booklet entitled Saddle Ridge Village 1.) Response to GHDs October 28, 2010 letter, 2.) Response to the Town Planners November 2, 2010 memorandum and 3.) Traffic Count Memorandum, dated November 22, 2010, Prepared for Saddle ridge Developers, 68 Soundview Drive, Easton, Connecticut, Prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc, 99 Realty Drive, Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (approximately 25 pages in total). 13. Booklet, a little over an inch thick, with 10 tabs and with a seven page letter addressed to Mr. Robert Maquat, Chair, and Commission Members Re: Supplemental Materials from Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin LLP. 14. Two page letter dated November 22, 2010 from Richard Paukner of 349 Silver Hill Road, Easton, CT with attached court case totaling 18 pages, Eureka V LLC v. Ridgefield Planning and Zoning Commission.

28

December 13, 2010 Public Hearing: 1. Two page Memorandum dated December 8, 2010 (*revised for small typo, noted by Chairman) to the Planning and Zoning Commission from John Hayes, Consultant Re: Saddle Ridge Village Subdivision. 2. Memorandum dated December 3, 2010 to Tom Herrmann, Scott Centrella, Robert Lessler, Robert Maquat, John Hayes and Ira Bloom from Wilfred W. Tressler for The Coalition to Save Easton with enclosed letter and attachments about inconsistencies involving Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g., for a total of four pages. 3. Two page Memorandum dated December 1, 2010 (*corrected for omitted text, noted by Chairman) to Planning and Zoning Commission from John Hayes, Consultant Re: The Density Issue, in Respect to the Proposed Saddle Ridge Village Development. 4. Three page Memorandum dated December 1, 2010, revised December 3, 2010, with corrections in bold, to Planning and Zoning Commission from John Hayes, Consultant, Re: Response to Comments by Milone & MacBroom on November 8, 2010 Report to Planning and Zoning Commission by John Hayes, Town Planning Consultant. 5. Large colored map submitted by John Hayes entitled Easton, CT, Public Drinking Water Source Protection Areas, prepared by the State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Drinking Water Section, 410 Capitol Avenue, MS#51 WAT, P.O. Box 340308, Hartford, CT 06134, printed by DWS, Source Water Protection Unit, September, 2006, Street data (c) 2006 TeleAtlas North America. 6. Three page memo dated December 3, 2010 to Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Saddle Ridge Village from Edward L. Nagy, P.E., Director of Public Works, Town Engineer. 7. Two page letter dated December 3, 2010 to Coalition to Save Easton c/o Mr. Chris Miles from Trinkaus Engineering, LLC, Steven D. Trinkaus, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, Re: Saddle Ridge Project. 8. Signed 20 page letter dated December 1, 2010 (e-mailed by Leslie Minasi to P&Z), addressed to Chris Miles and Leslie Minasi, Coalition to Save Easton, Re: Saddle Ridge Developers, Sport Hill, Silver Hill, Cedar Hill and Westport Roads, Easton, CT from Michael S. Klein, Principal, Soil Scientist, Professional Wetland Scientist, of Environmental Planning Services. 9. Report to Town of Easton, Connecticut, Closing Comments, November 30, 2010 by GHD (Gary A. Dufel, P.E., BCEE, LEED AP, FASCE); 7 pages. 10. 3 page letter to Members, Easton Planning & Zoning Commission dated November 30, 2010 Re: Application of Saddle Ridge Developers LLC from Ira W. Bloom, Esq., of Berchem, Moses & Develin, P.C. 11. Statement from Easton Democratic Town Committee from a Special Meeting held December 1, 2010. 12. Two page letter received by Planning & Zoning Commission dated December 13, 2010 Re: Proposed Saddle Ridge Village Subdivision from the Coalition to Save Easton. 13. Two page letter to Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, dated December 10, 2010 Re: Saddle Ridge Village, Easton, Connecticut, MMI #2683-01-17 from Stuart B. Popper, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. 14. Bound Booklet with 10 tabs and a three page cover letter to Robert Maquat, Chair, and Commission Members, Planning and Zoning Commission, dated December 13, 2010 Re: Supplemental Materials from Matthew Ranelli, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin, LLP.

29