The city's Planning Commission on Wednesday night denied a controversial 41-unit condominium development in the woods northwest of Danbury High School.
The proposal was voted down 2-1 after neighbors raised concerns that the development would increase traffic congestion and worsen the flooding of Padanaram Brook.
The project by Cotswold of Danbury proposed ranch-style condominiums clustered on 20 acres of the oblong 74-acre property.
The remaining 54 acres -- much of it wetlands -- was to be given to Danbury as open space.
Although the plan to cluster the units on the southern end of the property represented much less development than the 114-lot subdivision that was approved in the 1970s, neighbors have remained alarmed.
The development was expected to add about 400 car trips each day to neighborhood roads.
The plans drew scores of objections from neighbors on East Gate Road and Clapboard Ridge Road, south and west of the property.
Objection to development of the property dates to 1974, when the city approved a 114-lot subdivision that was started but never completed. Remnants of the abandoned project, including overgrown roadbeds, cracked and eroding concrete slabs, overgrown storm drain swales and catch basins clogged with sediment and tree debris, remain on the site.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.