Residents filled the lower meeting room at Edmond Town Hall on the wintry night of January 8 to watch and listen as members of the Borough Zoning Commission (BZC) deliberated on a development firm’s controversial proposal to create new zoning regulations, which would serve as a regulatory mechanism to allow that firm to apply to demolish the vacant former Inn at Newtown at 19 Main Street and replace it with a market-rate rental apartment complex.

Well over 50 people were present as BZC members spent nearly two hours reviewing the specifics of 19 Main Street LLC’s proposed zoning rules. Because public comments were not allowed at the session, which was not a public hearing, a number of people in the audience wore symbolic red garments to demonstrate their opposition to the redevelopment proposal.

At November and December BZC public hearings on the matter, which totaled nearly five hours, and attracted about 100 and 50 people, respectively, audience members spoke at length, with most of those speaking in opposition to putting the 3.002-acre site to the proposed new use.

To provide the BZC with a sense of what it has in mind for the site, the developer has offered a conceptual site plan and conceptual rendering of the project. The development firm would formally pursue such a project if the BZC approves its proposed zoning regulations.

According to a “conceptual site plan” submitted to the BZC, 40 apartments, contained within three multiple-story buildings, would each be approximately 1,200 square feet in floor area. There would be a total of 72 parking spaces, of which 22 spaces would be in the form of garage space on the bottom level of a larger apartment building located at the rear of the site. The other 50 parking spaces would be located outdoors behind two smaller apartment buildings positioned at the front of the site. Monthly rents are projected to range from $2,500 to $3,000.

Chairman Leads Discussion

BZC Chairman Douglas Nelson conducted the January 8 session. “This is not a public hearing (but is) a chance for the commission to discuss this,” he said of the zoning rules proposal.

“This is a big one... There’s no doubt about it,” Mr Nelson said. “We have 35 days to make a decision on this,” he added. “We had five good hours of discussion... A lot of inputs were made,” he said of the two previous public hearings.

Mr Nelson then described the details of the developer’s proposed Borough Residential Overlay District (BROD), an overlay zone that could be atop certain residentially-zoned lots within the borough, provided that those lots meet certain criteria. In the pending proposal, the BROD rules would be applied to 19 Main Street. Several other unspecified properties besides 19 Main Street potentially could be redeveloped under the BROD rules.

Mr Nelson pointed out that a BZC approval of the developer’s proposed regulations would be subject to a stricter standard of approval than normal, when considering that the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) decided in November that the proposed zoning regulations are not consistent with the tenets of the 2014 Town Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr Nelson said another factor that requires a stricter than normal standard of approval is a “protest petition,” which was submitted to the BZC.

Thus, to approve the developer’s proposed zoning regulations, the five-member BZC would need to muster four affirmative votes, or a super majority, instead of the standard three affirmative votes, or a simple majority, he said.

Some of BZC members’ discussion of the proposed zoning rules on January 8 focused on semantics, or determining the meaning of the words used in the proposed regulations.

“The applicant put the words together,” Mr Nelson commented.

Borough Attorney Monte Frank told BZC members, “You have a tremendous amount of discretion in approving this or not approving this... at this stage.”

Mr Frank added that while it would be acceptable for BZC members to make some minor changes to the proposed rules, he recommended that they not make any major changes.

BZC members discussed how the proposed zoning rules would work in practice, seeking to understand the practical effects that such regulations would have in terms of construction.

Mr Nelson told BZC members that the construction conceptually proposed by the developer would require a site development plan approval, a special zoning permit, and a Village District zoning certificate.

The project also would require approval from the Borough of Newtown Historic District Commission because the site is in the borough’s historic district. The historic aspect of the property has served a magnet for public opposition to the redevelopment project.

Also, such construction may require a wetlands/watercourses protection permit from the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC).

Mr Nelson commented that the BZC would determine the maximum construction density for such a project, if the zoning rules that would allow such a project are enacted. “These are things that can be debated,” Mr Nelson said.

More broadly, he added that it is not the BZC’s task to “rewrite” the proposed zoning rules, but essentially to vote on them as they have been presented.

At an upcoming session, BZC members will discuss if they want to make specific changes to the proposed rules, he said. The BZC plans to resume its deliberations on February 12.

Mr Frank urged that BZC members not discuss among themselves the proposed zoning regulations. Such discussion should occur at the February 12 BZC meeting, Mr Frank said. BZC members, however, are allowed to seek clarification about the proposed rules from the BZC’s staff members, Mr Frank added.

As the January 8 session closed, Mr Nelson addressed the audience, saying “Thank you... Thank you for your patience.”

The Property At

19 Main Street

The Inn at Newtown was a restaurant, bar, and lounge. It suddenly closed for business in January 2016. The property was the site of Mary Hawley’s homestead. Mary Hawley was the town’s benefactress, donating many public facilities to the town.

All the apartments proposed by the developer would be offered at the “market rate,” and none would be designated as “affordable housing.” Also, the there would be no age restrictions on tenants.

The developers have told residents that they want to design a project that fits into the neighborhood in terms of architecture and are open to suggestions on what would work best at the site.

However, residents speaking at the two public hearings largely opposed the redevelopment proposal, generally saying that such growth would not visually fit in on Main Street within the historic district where most properties hold older, single-family houses. Some residents have suggested that such a project would be better suited for land elsewhere, possibly at Fairfield Hills.

Also, some residents have said that the presence of a multifamily complex would worsen traffic problems on Main Street. The developer contends that such a complex would generate less traffic than was generated by the former inn.