At the March 19 Planning & Zoning meeting, the commission continued application 26.02 for an amendment to a special exception at 9 Covered Bridge Road. The commission also briefly discussed a new item on the agenda: public participation not relating to specific applications.

Chair David Rosen said of the new public participation section, “We are going to be adding that. This is on a trial basis, and the idea is for members of the public to comment on general matters relating to Planning & Zoning, but not to comment on specific applications. For example, if there is a closed application where there is a legal thing going on or a proposal that’s active now, that’s not what this is for. This is for more general comments and to allow members of the public the opportunity to speak briefly with the usual decorum that I expect.”

Rosen invited members of the public to speak, but no one volunteered. After that, Rosen invited the applicants on application 26.02 for an amendment to a special exception at 9 Covered Bridge Road. The applicant hopes to remove the requirement for the entrance bridge to be covered by a structure. Rosen informed the group that the commission was waiting for a third-party review from the town engineer to see if a covered bridge structure is feasible in the area, but it has now been submitted.

Applicant Anthony Lucerna approached the commission and asked if the commission had any questions for him based off of what was received from the engineer.

Commissioner Connie Widmann asked if there has been any escrow money set aside for the projects that have yet to be completed as the property has fallen into bankruptcy.

Lucerna responded, “Yes. During the bankruptcy … what’s called the ‘stalking horse,’ who ultimately became the buyer of the property that I was forced to sell to, requested the court to hold funds in escrow if he were required to build a bridge … It was determined that it was part of his purchase that I appear in front of this commission, since I initially brought the project in front of the commission and brought it back in front of the commission when we added 30 units.”

Commissioner Roy Meadows commented on a letter from attorneys about the property. He disagreed with claims about the possible foundations being added near the bridge changing soil conditions. He brought a drawing of a potential structure with him that he created himself. While the type of covering is up for debate, according to Meadows, he said that he has been around construction for about 20 years and took some civil engineering courses for his engineering degree and believes “there is a way of putting a cover over what’s there.”

Rosen then entered the discussion of possibilities for the property. He explained that Meadows is proposing that the structure diffuses load bearing weight because the current bridge’s load-bearing part is not on the current bridge core system, rather it is outside of it. Rosen and Meadows agreed that the “covered” structure would not rely on the current structure.

Widmann said, “My feeling is, at the end of the day … this just substantiates the original application that was approved for the development was to include a covered bridge. The bridge was built not to withstand a covered bridge, and it needs to withstand a covered bridge, however it goes about being done. It was part of the original application and there shouldn’t be a reversal of that.”

Rosen and Commissioner Barbara Manville both agreed with Widmann.

The drawing from Meadows was handed to Lucerna. Lucerna said that Meadows’ drawing is “exactly what [the engineers are] saying they can’t do, that they cannot put footings outside of the structure that’s there now.” He said that new footings would “disturb” the foundation of the bridge that is already there. Lucerna then gave the commission the measurements for the bridge and compared it to highway crossings. Lucerna said that if he had to put beams in that are comparable to highway crossings, the bridge would not “look like a covered bridge.”

“The width of the bridge is thirty-some-odd feet wide. There are no covered bridges in the state of Connecticut that are thirty-some-odd feet wide. There’s no historic bridges that are thirty feet wide … The concept of putting a cover over this bridge was brought up at the last meeting … by one commission member who thought it would be a good idea to put a cover over the bridge. Without even thinking about the engineering of it, I agreed to it. Shame on me, but the reality of what this would look like … it’s not gonna look like the covered bridge that everybody has a picture of what a covered bridge is,” Lucerna said to the commission.

Lucerna, once again, briefly went over the history of the property. The original foundation of the bridge was for a railroad crossing in the 1800s. In the 1950s, the then-property owner put a covered bridge there. Lucerna said that if the commission wants something designed for the bridge, he will have Ryan Preston design it and bring it in for the commission.

Manville said, “The idea, I think, behind all of this is to have the covered bridge and bring back a feeling of the rural essence of Hawleyville. It’s part of the fabric of our town was that covered bridge.”

Widmann added part of the agreement for a large development in a rural area is keeping the development “in-line” with the town.

Lucerna responded that the structure that needed to be built for fire and pedestrian egress is “not rural whatsoever.” He repeated his point that covered bridges are not this big, and that this proposed bridge “will have to be high … to allow for fire apparatus.” He said that it was “never a good idea to start with.”

Rosen said that he wants to take a look at the possibilities. Meadows stated again that he thinks there are some “inaccurate” statements in the letter presented to the commission. Manville suggested that Lucerna “think outside of the box” and look at John Curtis’, town engineer, recommendations.

Rosen recognized that this structure will not be “conventional,” but he wants Lucerna to try and maintain some of the “ambience” of a covered bridge. Widmann said that if the commission approves this amendment to the special exception, it would not set a good precedent. She asked if there were other approaches to make the bridge look appealing without a cover. Lucerna asked her to expand her thoughts.

Widmann suggested an archway over a sidewalk — “something that would be attractive and appealing between a structure and landscaping that softened the approach to a hard bridge.”

Lucerna suggested something that “was a covered structure that looked like a covered bridge and … at the main entrance to the project.” He asked if this is something the commission would consider.

Manville wanted to clarify if it would go over the water, Lucerna answered “no.” Manville said that the name of the road is “Covered Bridge.” Lucerna replied that was established before he “even thought about buying this property.” Manville suggested creating a separate walkway over the water with a covering. Lucerna said that there is already a sidewalk into the property.

“Well,” Manville said, “make a separate one.” Lucerna said that it would require the same design they were debating. Rosen said that it would have to be “really separate” because of the safety debate on the table. Rosen, ultimately, said that another walkway would be “redundant,” as Manville put it.

Lucerna asked for an extension to draw up his idea he came up with at the meeting. Meadows asked for clarification as to where his new idea would be. Lucerna said that it would be right at the property line on Hillcrest Drive. Meadows raised concerns about school buses as where Lucerna is suggesting this covered bridge façade would be is in the same area where the school bus turns around.

Rosen said that he is “all ears,” he just wants to make sure “it’s not goofy.” Widmann suggested that the covering be “communal,” so if it is raining, children can stay under it while waiting for the bus.

Lucerna said he will bring a concept drawing to the next meeting for the commission to look at.

Rosen then invited the public to speak.

Public Comment

Janet McKeown spoke. She said that she also has a copy of the letter Meadows was referring to. She said, “It’s not my problem that he agreed to something he should not have how many years ago … I think that bridge was never going to be built. I think he’d had no plan to do it right from the start.”

McKeown reiterated the point that the agreement was for a covered bridge, the road is named “Covered Bridge Road,” and the apartment complex is “Covered Bridge Apartments, for God’s sake.” McKeown hopes there will be something built to “get something back in our neighborhood that is missing.”

Rosen closed the public comment, and asked Lucerna for an extension, to which he agreed to. The application will be continued at the next meeting on Thursday, April 2, 7 pm, in Newtown Municipal Center’s Council Chambers.

Other Planning & Zoning News

One 8-24 referral that was missed at the last meeting was approval of replacing the bridge at Brushy Hill Road. The request for purchase has already been completed, all the approvals have been squared away, and now the crews are ready to do the physical work once it is approved by Planning & Zoning.

Rob Sibley, director of Land Use, went over the specifics of the bridge including length, width, and type of bridge. The referral was approved unanimously.

In Sibley’s director’s report, he announced the launch of a new Land Use Agency website, newtownlanduse.org. Other areas of technological improvement include audio upgrades to the Council Chambers, as there have been several complaints about poor audio quality in that room.

Sibley is also working on rolling out a hybrid option for public commenters and commissioners to participate in meetings virtually. Rosen did ask that commissioners attend meetings in-person as much as possible. Hybrid meetings will roll out at the next meeting, April 2.

=====

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