EDC Seeks Commercial Subdivision Rule Changes

By Andrew Gorosko

To maximize the number of building lots that could be created in commercial subdivisions, the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is seeking some zoning regulation changes from the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).

The EDC is seeking to have the P&Z exclude from commercial subdivision applications the stricter lot-size calculation requirements, which were approved by the P&Z in 2002 as environmental safeguards. The rule changes being sought by the EDC would apply to new subdivisions in the various industrial, business, and professional zones in town.

After lengthy discussion, in September 2002, the P&Z tightened its minimum requirements for the calculation of building-lot sizes in subdivisions. The move was designed to curb the development of land of marginal quality, during a time of rapid growth. The controversial rule changes were especially aimed at better controlling rapid residential growth. Those rule changes drew mixed responses from the public, with some residents saying the changes are an appropriate way to conserve land, while others viewed the changes as an infringement of property rights.

Those rule changes altered how minimum building lot sizes are calculated, excluding from that calculation features such as wetlands, watercourses, floodplains, steep slopes, and private rights-of-way leading to rear lots.

The revised rules more strictly define what constitutes a building lot, thus potentially reducing the number of building lots that could be subdivided from parcels. The regulations require that a building lot contain an amount of useful land that is at least equal to the minimum lot size in acres for the land-use zone in which that lot is located. The extent to which the revised regulations reduce the “building lot yield” at a given site varies widely, depending on the physical aspects of the particular property.

The rules do not expressly prohibit construction in wetlands or in areas with 25 percent or greater natural slopes, but simply require that such terrain be excluded from minimum lot size calculations, in an effort to have structures built on relatively better quality land.

In a letter to the P&Z, EDC member Kim Danziger wrote, “It is understood that the regulations as currently written aid in preserving the character of Newtown…The impact on available commercial sites, and consequently the economic impact of the loss of these sites, is substantial…As commercial development is scrutinized to a much greater extent than residential development, the open space aspects of commercial subdivisions are already considered through other means and regulations.”

 Mr Danziger asked that the stricter lot-size calculations pertain only to residential subdivisions, not commercial subdivisions.

 

Public Hearing

At a January 29 P&Z public hearing on the EDC’s requested subdivision rule changes, Mr Danziger said that holding commercial subdivisions to the revised lot-size calculation rules cuts into the local economic growth potential that is afforded by such subdivisions.

Commercial development is different than residential development, he stressed. The lot-size calculation rules thus become another hurdle for commercial development to surmount, he said. He termed the regulations “unnecessary overkill.”

P&Z member Lilla Dean asked why the P&Z should have different environmental standards for commercial subdivisions and for residential subdivisions. The underlying reason for the stricter lot-size calculation rules is environmental protection and more specifically wetland protection, she said.

Mr Danziger responded that there are larger sets of controls in place over commercial development than there are over residential development.

The rule change requested by the EDC would affect the overall number of building lots that could be created in a commercial subdivision, with the underlying goal of maximizing local economic growth, he said.

Mr Danziger pointed out that the 37-acre parcel near Commerce Road, which the town plans to acquire from the state for industrial park development, has a significant amount of wetlands on it, with as much as one-third of the site being wet.

Under the existing regulations, the presence of extensive wetlands there would reduce the total number of building lots that could be created on the parcel, he said.

“This [requested rule change] is strictly for calculating the number of units that can be developed on a parcel,” he said.

Again, Ms Dean responded that she does not understand why the P&Z should draw environmental distinctions between the subdivision of residential land and the subdivision of commercial land.

Resident Adrian Sharp of 6 Galilee Way, representing Trout Unlimited, said he is heartened that the P&Z is concerned about environmental preservation. Mr Sharp said that one of only eight areas in the state where brook trout reproduce naturally is not far from the envisioned industrial park.

Community Development Director Elizabeth Stocker said that besides the planned industrial park, there are several areas in town that would be affected by the EDC’s requested rule change.

P&Z members are expected to act on the EDC’s requested rule change at an upcoming session.