On Thursday, April 16, Newtown Planning & Zoning Commission conducted its regular meeting to continue and vote on an application to eliminate the cover of the covered bridge on Covered Bridge Road. The commission chose not to eliminate the cover, instead choosing an alternate covering that would emulate the covered bridge.

At applicant Anthony Lucerna’s last meeting, he informed the commission that he would work with engineers for possible solutions to provide a covering of some type to emulate the covered bridge that was once outside Covered Bridge apartments. While the application is to remove the requirement, the commission did not want to do that.

Lucerna, with his engineer Dainus Verbickas, presented two options to the commission at the April 16 meeting, “The drawing that you see on the screen was produced based on the conversations that we had at our last meeting [where we] looked at alternatives versus the bridge itself.”

There were two proposed locations for a covered structure: One being the “preferred” location, but spilling out onto town property, requiring an easement from the town; the second “just before the emergency access route.” Lucerna and Verbickas showed a picture of an example of what would be built there.

Lucerna then asked if the commissioners had any questions. Director of Planning and Land Use Rob Sibley asked a clarifying question about where the proposed locations are. Lucerna again explained that proposed location one would require an easement from the town and that option two is completely within Covered Bridge’s property lines.

Verbickas explained that the bridge is about 36 feet in length and about 38 feet wide, so it “spans sidewalk and roadway.” He confirmed that the first location would require “something from the town allowing us to construct within the town right of way.” Lucerna and Verbickas said that the first location would be “preferable,” based off of what the commissioners have said during the process.

Chair David Rosen said, “I’m interested to hear what people think, ‘cause I’m thinking about this, thinking about the neighborhood … honestly what you showed was actually a pretty attractive structure. I’m also thinking about the neighborhood itself, which is going to be subject to more building in the area, and I’m thinking that closer to the entrance … is a better choice.” Rosen said that it is “more visible to the road,” which is another reason he preferred option one.

Alternate Commissioner Jill Soderholm asked if there would be any visibility issues with option one, and Lucerna said no. Commissioner Roy Meadows asked if it would interfere with school buses turning around, and Lucerna again said no and explained that the bridge would be set back 10-15 feet.

Meadows then asked about what the foundations for the bridge will look like. Lucerna said he wants a “minimal amount of disturbance,” and will use “micropiles,” piles that are drilled in, not pounded in.

Sibley reminded the commission that option one would require going through what the charter states to obtain an easement from the town; “alternate two has none of that.”

Rosen then invited the public to speak.

Janet McKeown was the only member to speak. She said, “The other option, which was not discussed … fix what was done incorrectly to begin with and put a cover over the existing bridge.” She understood that would be a lot of work and then discussed school bus routes briefly. She stated that she likes option one more because it would “look better” rather than being set back.

Sibley asked if there could be a condition of approval based on the decision of another agency. Town attorney Pat Sullivan explained that approvals of Planning & Zoning are not generally conditioned upon other town departments’ approvals.

While Lucerna informed the commission that he would assume the responsibility of obtaining an easement from the town, with Sullivan’s advice, the commission made the decision to vote upon alternate location two.

The vote for the first option cover passed on a 4-1 vote, with Rosen, Meadows, Commissioner Peter Schwarz, and Soderholm voting in favor, and Commissioner Barbara Manville voting against.

Amending Farmers Market Definition

Application 26.06 by Ian Appleby is for a “text amendment to the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Newtown, to amend the definition of Farmers Market to include live music.” Appleby, a Newtown resident, owns a bee farm in town and jars honey, which he sells at Newtown Farmers Market during the summer.

Appleby said that the farmers market is a “special place,” and Fairfield Hills is the “spiritual and physical center of Newtown,” and the farmers enjoy having the market on campus. Appleby explained that farmers markets are becoming more “experiential” rather than “transactional,” and Newtown used to allow amplified music at the market. Appleby wants to return that aspect to return to the “experiential” nature of the farmers market.

He further explained that there was a small budget set aside to pay local musicians for their work and time, which has transformed to small businesses sponsoring the music. This sponsorship then gets businesses more recognition and creates opportunities for local artists to showcase their talent.

The outdated language did not explicitly allow amplified music, which made last year “tough.” Appleby said that people were asking where the music was last year.

“I want to help make this right. Every single community member I talked to at the farmers market, every single one, was in support of live music. I did not meet a single individual who voiced anything other than that,” Appleby told the commission. He explained that other markets in the area have music and that it really helps with morale for the farmers as the days can be long and hot.

Appleby said he wanted to resolve the issue without much “hubbub … All I’m asking for is the ability to change the definition of farmers market to include live and amplified music … in accordance with all state and local statutes and limitations.” Appleby then showed three videos: one from two years ago when live, amplified music was allowed, one from last year where the musician could not be heard due to the limitations of the definition, and another from a farmers market in Westport.

Sibley read the actual language into the record, which includes live amplified and unamplified music and entertainment.

Alternate Commissioner Don Mitchell asked what constitutes “entertainment” at the farmers market. Appleby responded, “Gogo girls? I’m just kidding!”

Mitchell raised his hand, saying that he voted in favor of the change. Appleby expanded his thoughts, saying that the focus is on local talent, “local restaurants support local musicians and the farmers market.” Appleby said that the library has reached out regarding a potential story time for children, which would fall under the “entertainment” umbrella.

Sibley said he likes “entertainment” from an “enforcement” standpoint.

Manville said, “I see this as a great opportunity for high school kids.” Appleby said that is the focus.

Rosen invited members of the public to speak. Hearing none, he said that he thought this was a “no-brainer,” which there are not a lot of when it comes to Planning & Zoning. After a comedic confession from Meadows explaining that he likes to sing to his tomatoes, the commission put the application to a vote.

It passed unanimously.

=====

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