headline

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: May 22, 2009 12:00 am

Queen/Church Hill

About 3:43 pm on May 17, a two-car collision occurred at the intersection of Church Hill Road and Queen Street.

In that incident, motorist Christina Reed of 63 Main Street, who was driving a 2007 Toyota Avalon sedan, drove into the rear end of a 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse convertible driven by Claudia Anderson of Brookfield, police said.

Ambulance volunteers transported Reed to Danbury Hospital to be checked for possible injuries, police said. Police issued Reed a written warning for failure to drive a reasonable distance apart.

Vandalism

Sometime on May 15 or May 16, someone illegally entered property at 46 Hundred Acres Road and vandalized the premises, police report.

Police said that the vandal spray painted vulgarities on a house, a workshop, and two barns. There have been several such vandalism incidents at that property. Police are investigating and ask anyone with knowledge of the incident to contact them at 426-5841.

Rollover

About 7:37 pm on May 19, motorist Nathaniel Burns, 17, of 8 Wendover Road was driving a 2002 Honda Odyssey minivan northward on Poverty Hollow Road, near Wentworth Drive, when a bee flew into the vehicle, causing him to lose control of the minivan, police report.

The minivan went off the left road shoulder, traveled down an embankment, rolled over twice and then landed on its wheels, police said.

Police said Burns was transported to the hospital for a medical evaluation. A pet dog that was riding in the vehicle appeared uninjured, police said. Police verbally warned Burns for making a restricted turn.

Comments

Comments are open. Be civil.

0 comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

‘Timeless Newtown’ Series Updated With ‘Ageism Unmasked’ Book Talks

Longest Day Fundraiser Continues Raising Funds For Alzheimer’s Research

Borough Continued Traffic Safety Discussion, New Cultural District

‘The Isle of Skoo’ Premieres New Assembly Show

PD Open House Planned

Thank you for pointing out the trail access provisions included in the BOS motion—it’s an important clarification that deserves more attention in this conversation. If the development is, in fact, required to provide permanent free public access and commit to ongoing maintenance of this section of the Rochambeau Trail, that is a remarkably beneficial outcome for the town. oIt’s not every day that a private project shoulders the long-term burden of preserving and caring for a public historical corridor at no taxpayer cost—especially one that previously had no formal access, upkeep, or visibility. Let’s be honest: the idea that the only way to protect history is by preventing any development nearby is a rigid and unworkable standard. What’s being proposed here appears to strike a rare balance—historic preservation, public access, and smart development all rolled into one. That’s not a loss its a win. So rather than allowing a handful of voices to derail progress under the banner of “historic purity,” maybe it’s time to acknowledge the reality: this trail is better off with structured stewardship and visibility than remaining an overgrown ghost on old maps. Let’s move forward. Bring in the easement, bring in the public access—and yes, bring in the bulldozers!!! Progress and preservation can coexist. Let’s not let the NIMBY use fear or nostalgia keep us stuck in the past.

Discusses Rochambeau Trail And 6 Commerce Road

I've heard that several people are under the impression that the public might be banned from the Rochambeau Trail. Points 2 and 3 from the BOS motion (included in full below) make it clear that public access to the trail is part of the requirements for the developer. From what I understand, it requires free public access to the trail in perpetuity. Technically, this could be argued to be a "payment-in-kind," that attempts to balance public good with overall town growth. We can argue about weather that balance is acceptable and how the trail may be affected, but with the understanding that the trail is expected to be maintained as a publicly accessible trail regardless. July 15, 2024 Board of Selectmen approved motion: Discontinuance of Reservoir Road: Selectman Cruson moved the resolution: Resolved, that the Newtown Board of Selectmen, in accordance with Section 2-115(d)(8) of the Town Charter and Conn. Gen. Stat. §13a-49, and subject to the conditions set forth below, hereby discontinues an unimproved portion of Reservoir Road described as “Portion of Reservoir Road to be Discontinued “on that certain survey map which will be recorded on the Newtown Land Records titled “Map Showing Portion of Reservoir Road to be Discontinued” dated August, 2023 and revised September 15, 2023, and certified substantially correct by Gregory Szyszowski of SLR (the “Survey Map”), said discontinuance contingent and effective only upon the completion of the following: 1. The approval of an application for the development of land in the manner described in a letter from Attorney Thomas W. Beecher to First Selectman A. Jeffrey Capeci and Members of the Board of Selectmen dated May 30, 2024, pursuant to the “Residential Open Space Development” regulations of the Borough of Newtown by the Borough of Newtown Zoning Commission, and construction of that approval project within the timeframes required for special exception approval; 2. The inclusion of the discontinued portion of the road as part of the final Declaration of Conservation Restriction; 3. The conveyance of a mutually agreeable public easement to the Town of Newtown for pedestrian, bicycling, equestrian, and all other passive recreational uses (to exclude the use of motorized vehicles except as may be necessary by the Town or its designee to effectuate the purpose of the easement), and for municipal utility purposes; Be it further resolved, that Castle Hill Real Estate Holdings, LLC., its successors and assigns, shall not use any portion of the discontinued road as a vehicular road or access way to and from any developed portions of the property. Be it further finally resolved, that should any of the foregoing contingencies not occur, then the discontinuance contemplated herein shall not become effective and this resolution will become null and void. From: https://www.newtown-ct.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif12216/f/minutes/bos_7-15-24_min-_att_final.pdf

Discusses Rochambeau Trail And 6 Commerce Road

Is this paper road (roads that only exist on paper map but not in reality) even owned by the Town? Many roads that predate the Town's road standards are privately owned and were never accepted by the Town, such as many of the nonconforming roads around the lake communities where the property owners own right to the center line. That is something we had to deal with when working on the Roads Ordinance a few years back. We also had to deal with a private road to run the utilities to the new SHS.

Discusses Rochambeau Trail And 6 Commerce Road

For anyone who wants to know, I cant post a link here, but Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority has an entire website. Look up "HRRA whats in whats out"

I Get It!

It’s important to clarify that while public process matters, so does the right of a property owner to reasonably develop land they legally own—especially when they follow the rules and engage with the town in good faith. The Board of Selectmen (BOS), whether one agrees with their decision or not, did not “give away” anything. The land in question was part of a road that had been unused and undeveloped for generations. There was no public access, no signage, and no infrastructure—just an overgrown path most residents never knew existed. Mr. Ackert calls the discontinuance “illegal,” but state law grants municipalities the authority to discontinue roads, subject to procedural requirements. The fact that this matter is in litigation shows that questions of law are being properly addressed in court—not in letters to the editor. If the court finds procedural flaws, they’ll be corrected. That’s how the legal system works. Real solutions are found through public process and the courts, not through social media outrage. What’s missing from this conversation is a recognition that towns need to balance many interests: history, environment, public access, private property rights, and economic development. And while the newly championed Revolutionary War heritage is important, there are also pressing modern realities: towns need housing, economic vitality, and responsible development. These things don’t happen in a vacuum—they require compromise, planning, and often, yes, change. If residents truly wish to preserve this trail as public space, the appropriate path is through purchase, conservation easement, or formal designation—not by expecting private landowners to bear the burden of public sentiment. If the writer believes so strongly in its value, perhaps they might consider investing in its preservation themselves. We can honor our history without freezing our town in time. Development and preservation aren’t mutually exclusive—but vilifying one side of the conversation only deepens division. Let’s focus on solutions that balance respect for the past with the rights and needs of those who live here now.

Discusses Rochambeau Trail And 6 Commerce Road

<< Jul 2025 >>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
29	30	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31	1	2

Log In

headline

Leave a Reply Cancel reply