Ridgefield Wetlands Board Suffers Second Court Loss in Less Than Two Months

RIDGEFIELD, CT / ACCESS Newswire / July 16, 2026 / For the second time in less than two months, a state Super­ior Court judge has ruled against the Ridge­field Inland Wet­lands Board over a pro­posed mul­ti­fam­ily hous­ing plan. Luis Picoita, a staff member at Binn farm in Ridgefield, feeds some of the animals, including sheep and an alpaca, in a 2010 file photo. Property owner Moreton Binn has proposed redeveloping the former home of the Binn Animal Rescue into about 40 apartments. The court recently ruled in favor of prop­erty owner More­ton Binn, over­turn­ing the board's denial of his applic­a­tion to build a bridge provid­ing access to a pro­posed redevel­op­ment at 599 Branchville Road.In its 26-page decision issued June 26, the court found that none of the three reas­ons the board cited for deny­ing Binn's applic­a­tion "were sup­por­ted by sub­stan­tial evid­ence of an adverse impact" and that the denial "lacked sub­stan­tial evid­ence."The pro­posal calls for a bridge over a stream, along with a drive­way and drain­age improve­ments within the wet­lands upland review area.The court gran­ted Binn's appeal and ordered the board to approve the applic­a­tion. The board can either com­ply with the rul­ing or appeal it to the Con­necti­cut Appel­late Court.The board was expec­ted to dis­cuss the court's decision in exec­ut­ive ses­sion at its meet­ing Thursday, said attor­ney Tom Beecher, who is rep­res­ent­ing the Inland Wet­lands Board.Attor­ney Robert Jew­ell, who rep­res­ents Binn, said, "We are pleased but not sur­prised."Binn's pro­posal, first sent to Ridge­field's Inland Wet­lands Board in July 2024, was unan­im­ously denied by a vote of 5-0.The board's denial stated the pro­posed stream cross­ing and related site work will have a "det­ri­mental impact on the wet­lands loc­ated throughout the sub­ject site, and that a feas­ible and prudent altern­at­ive may exist."The board also said the pro­posed bridge "will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on the stream and wet­land areas that it is designed to cross."Sep­ar­ately, Binn has pro­posed redevel­op­ing the prop­erty with about 40 apart­ments. An earlier ver­sion of the pro­posal, which called for lux­ury apart­ments, was denied. He later with­drew that applic­a­tion and sub­mit­ted a revised plan that includes a mix of afford­able and mar­ket-rate units.The Binn prop­erty is in the town's Branchville neigh­bor­hood, where many res­id­ents and offi­cials are con­cerned about the poten­tial for over­de­vel­op­ment and the need to retain green space.The nearly 20-acre prop­erty con­tains a single-fam­ily home and was formerly home to the Binn Animal Res­cue Facil­ity, which oper­ated there for 15 years before relo­cat­ing out of state. The animal enclos­ures and farm roads remain, and the home's main build­ing dates to 1780.Abbott Avenue PlanIn May, the court also ruled against the Inland Wet­lands Board in a sep­ar­ate case involving a pro­posed 14-unit town­house devel­op­ment on Abbott Avenue.The plan centered on a pro­posed afford­able hous­ing devel­op­ment at 27 Abbott Avenue, a half-acre prop­erty cur­rently occu­pied by a single-fam­ily home built in 1951. Developer and prop­erty owner Veton Alimi sued the town's Inland Wet­lands Board after the board rejec­ted the pro­posal in 2023.Alimi filed an appeal in Super­ior Court in Dan­bury the fol­low­ing month, arguing he was "aggrieved" by the board's decision.In its 88-page decision, the court found the board lacked suf­fi­cient evid­ence to deny the applic­a­tion, writ­ing that the record did not estab­lish either the like­li­hood or the nature of any adverse impact the devel­op­ment would have on nearby wet­lands.For more information, please contact bob.jewell@dmglaw.com.SOURCE: More­ton BinnView the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

Raccontata damorningstar.com