P&Z Rebuffs Proposal To Relax Commercial Lot-Size Rules

By Andrew Gorosko

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members have rebuffed the Economic Development Commission’s (EDC) proposal to relax the town’s lot-size calculation regulations for commercial development.

The EDC had sought the zoning rule changes, in part, to maximize the number of building lots that could be created in commercial subdivisions, especially at a 37.5-acre site adjacent to Commerce Road, which the town plans to acquire from the state for future industrial development. That sloped site contains extensive wetlands, posing developmental constraints.

The EDC had sought 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 revisions, which were sought by the EDC, would have applied to new subdivisions in the various industrial, business, and professional zones in town.

If the lot-size calculation rules were relaxed, several more building lots might be created at the 37.5-acre industrial site than would be otherwise possible due to developmentally limiting factors, such as the presence of wetlands and slopes.

After discussing the EDC proposal at a February 19 P&Z session, P&Z members voted 4-to-1 against relaxing the lot-size calculation rules for commercial development. Voting to turn down the EDC request were members Sten Wilson, Lilla Dean, Robert Poulin, and Jane Brymer. Chairman William O’Neil dissented.

Before the P&Z vote, Mr O’Neil said the 37.5-acre parcel south of Commerce Road is a suitable location for future industrial growth. Mr O’Neil added that he was not inclined to exempt all potential commercial development from the strict lot-size calculation rules, suggesting that those rules be relaxed only in cases where commercial development would have access to sanitary sewers and to public water supplies. Envisioned commercial development at the 37.5-acre site would have access to both those public utilities. Last fall, the selectmen endorsed wetlands and engineering studies to gauge the development potential of that property.

Earlier this month, the P&Z endorsed a town plan to extend municipal sanitary sewer service to the 37.5-acre site, where the minimum building lot size is two acres.

Environmental Issues

Ms Dean said the town cannot allow additional water quality degradation to occur in the Pootatuck River system, which is adjacent to that development site.

“It really is an environmentally sensitive area,” she said. The Pootatuck River system in that area is one of only eight places in the state where brook trout reproduce naturally.

Ms Dean expressed her developmental concerns in terms of the amount of developed land that would be covered by impervious surfaces, such as pavement and roofing. Those impervious surfaces would shed stormwater runoff into the nearby Pootatuck River system, possibly environmentally damaging it, she said.

Relaxing the rules for commercial development would weaken the P&Z’s position on lot-size calculation for development in general, Ms Dean said.

Mr Wilson said the P&Z should uphold high standards for watershed quality and water quality protection, and consequently turn down the EDC proposal. Mr Poulin and Ms Dean concurred.

 Ms Brymer said she appreciates the requirements of water quality protection, but added the town needs additional economic development.

Mr Poulin observed, “This [would be] a chink in our armor, and I’m not willing to put that chink in at this point.”

 P&Z members then voted to reject the proposal.

Mr O’Neil noted that two branches of the town government — the P&Z and the EDC — found themselves on opposite sides of the commercial lot-size calculation issue.

After lengthy consideration, in September 2002, the P&Z tightened its minimum requirements for the calculation of building-lot sizes in subdivisions. The move was intended 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 defined 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. Under the lot-size calculation system, land of poor quality would produce fewer building lots than would land of higher quality.

The lot-size 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 recent letter to the P&Z, EDC member Kim Danziger had written, “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 had asked that the stricter lot-size calculations pertain only to residential subdivisions, not commercial subdivisions.