On Thursday, February 5, Newtown Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve application 25.25 by Civil 1. The application is for a property at 90 Mt Pleasant Road for the construction of two athletic fields, a club house building, and associated parking. The clubhouse, while mostly used for storage, will also have locker rooms, concessions, and restrooms. The roof will include a patio for viewing both fields.

At the second meeting for this application on November 6, a last-minute filing by an intervenor was presented to the commission. The intervenors, Pat Napolitano and Whippoorwill Hill Road LLC, represented by engineer Steven Trinkaus and attorney Joe Mortelliti, spoke and offered testimony at the December 4 meeting. Trinkaus discussed potential environmental impacts, technical issues, and issues he found within the stormwater management system.

At the January 15 meeting, attorney John Knuff, engineer Chris Pawlowski, and traffic engineer Brian Dempsey offered their rebuttals to the intervenors’ testimony. Public comment was mixed, with some residents expressing opposition and some expressing support. Parents of young athletes supported this application, while neighbors in the Whippoorwill Hill Road area raised concerns over noise levels and idling car engines.

After a few public comments at the January 15 meeting, the commission closed the public hearing as time was running out on the application. At that time, the application had been open for 91 of 100 allotted days. The only outstanding issue left over from that meeting was in regard to the super majority petition filed by the intervenors. It was unclear whether or not the petition was valid, and Rob Sibley, director of Land Use and Planning, informed the commission he would have written comments for the next meeting.

On February 5, town attorney Pat Sullivan submitted a memorandum explaining the super majority petition and its validity. Commissioner Barbara Manville read the memorandum in its entirety for the record.

The memorandum read, in part, “A valid Protest Petition required the signatures of owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the lots included in such proposed change, or twenty percent of the lots within five hundred feet in all directions of the property included in the proposed change.”

It continued, “Where there is more than one owner of a lot those owning the entire interest in the property must jointly object to the change … the Land Use Office has calculated the area represented by the lots where all owners have signed. Considering that all owners of the lots must have signed the Petition in order for the area of that lot to be counted, the Petition falls short of the twenty percent threshold required … Since the Protest Petition does not meet the minimum standard required under any scenario, the Protest Petition is not valid.”

Following the reading of the memorandum, Chair David Rosen said that the petition is now “pretty clear.” He asked the commissioners if there was any discussion.

Manville said, “I would just like to make one comment. I just think the proposal is an added asset to the town. It’s going to bring people to town, it’s going to bring people to all of our restaurants … I think this is going to be a great addition.”

Rosen added, “In listening to all the testimony … I did not think the environmental impact was proven in my estimation. And I feel like something like this … would be an asset to the town. I do sympathize with those living locally, however, it’s not like this use is going to be like in times right now … it would be quiet.”

Rosen thinks this is a “good use of property,” and that there will not be a “large building staring them right in the face.” Manville expanded on that, pointing to other applications of large apartment complexes being proposed in town.

After the brief discussion, Rosen put the application for 90 Mt Pleasant Road to a vote. Alternate Commissioners Charlie Gardner and Jill Soderholm were seated for the vote.

=====

Reporter Sam Cross can be reached at sam@thebee.com.