At the last Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, May 15, the commission heard several applications and many opinions from the public. The first application regarding the Taunton Press building was continued to the next meeting, Thursday, June 5. Following the continuation, the first application, 25.04, was read into the record by Barbara Manville.

The first application is about a text amendment to create a new zoning district called “Senior Living Residential District.” This new district requires at least five acres of land for medium-density housing to create “active adults over age 55.”

Peter Olson, the attorney representing GRC Construction LLC, said, “The Senior Living Residential District is established to encourage the development of well-designed, smaller housing communities tailored for active adults age 55 and older, promotes flexibility and creativity ad design while ensuring new developments harmonize with the surrounding environment. The intention is that these developments will qualify under federal statute known as the Housing for Older Persons Act. Essentially, under federal law, discrimination in housing is illegal.”

He added that the Housing for Older Persons Act allows for two types of housing: 100% of the people in the community are 62 years old or older, or “active adult communities” where 80% of the community is 55 and older, 20% can be younger than 55.

Olson explained that the Senior Living Residential District, if approved, would only be applicable to R-one, R-two, and R-three zones. Olson added that density calculations must be done for the parcel of land; wetlands, watercourse, land located within special flood hazard, or land consisting of slopes in excess of 25% have to be deducted from the gross acres of the parcel.

“You don’t get to have a piece of property that’s all wetland, 10 acres of wetland, but one small area of development and then apply the full density calculation to that,” Olson said.

Greg Carnrick, owner of GRC Construction LLC, said that he is looking to put a 21-unit community on five acres of land at 120 Glen Road.

He said, “If we’re serious about addressing the shortage of senior housing, which was specifically outlined in the POCD, it’s not unreasonable to ask the commission to approve medium density housing in appropriate locations … I believe the state roads are the best place for this kind of development instead of the remote rural areas of our town where it would be out of character and harder to support.”

Carnrick also stated that there “was just over 19,000 residents in Newtown that were age 25 and older … Of these 19,000 residents, 9,500 of them are age 55 and older, which means that 50% of Newtown’s adult home eligible population is 55 and older. Yet of the 20 zoning districts that are currently approved in Newtown, there is only one that’s in use and dedicated to seniors. It seems like a stunning mismatch between the zoning regulations and the demographic reality of the town.”

Olson and Carnrick both explained that before they can come to the commission with a site plan, the text amendment and zone change would need to be approved first.

Olson said to the commission, “In a future application, we would come back to you and apply for approval of a site development plan under the new zone to construct the actual development that we propose on the property … we have not designed those plans in detail at this point.”

Olson also explained that the development would use septic technology, not city sewer. “With modern septic systems, they can serve smaller parcels of land and smaller number of units in a much more efficient way. We think that’s an appropriate change so that you don’t have to provide municipal services to allow these housing developments on our particular site.”

Following the presentation, the commissioners asked some questions before opening up for public comment.

Commissioner Connie Widmann asked about the 25-foot setback Olson and Carnrick proposed for the zone district. She said that she thinks it may not be suitable for all situations.

Commissioner Peter Schwarz wanted to know if there would be an affordable component. Olson said “no” as it would make the “project unviable.”

Carnrick said, “They’re not technically gonna be designated as ‘affordable,’ but in the grand scheme of things, they’re much more affordable than what’s offered now … We’re trying to make the whole community reasonably priced.”

Commissioner Greg Rich then asked how much the units would be, to which Carnrick answered in the $400,000 range.

Rich said he has a serious concern of septic use vs sewer use, and said to the applicant, “you’re gonna have to convince me.”

Carnrick explained, “Current regulations [for septic tanks] allow for up to 50 bedrooms. That’s changing to 66 in July … we’re proposing 21 units, so a significantly less amount than what’s approved … If the soil is not suitable, it can’t be approved.”

Rich said, “This strikes me as spot zoning. I, for one, would not be willing to entertain this application without a specific site plan and having all these questions answered.”

Rob Sibley, director of Land Use, then read a memo from the Newtown Health District to the commission before the floor was opened for public comment. “The Newtown Health District is not in favor, nor will issue, any blanket approval to remove sewer connection requirements lowering the required acreage, nor will increasing unit density as part of the text amendment.”

Public Comment

Many, many residents from the surrounding area came to the meeting. Dave Ackert, head of the grassroots group the Newtown Conservation Coalition, said there were about 100 people in attendance, and that people were in the hallway of the municipal center in his address to the commission.

Ackert noted that the site has been clear-cut to the stream. “I’m not sure how responsible this plan is if we’re getting off on that foot … it sounds like spot zoning to me.”

Resident Ed Friedman said, “There’s absolutely no need for the zoning change, period … There’s no reason [to have] seniors there. There’s no sidewalks.”

Resident Mary Sireci said, “I’m urging [the] commission to reconsider any zoning changes to allow for the development and reflect on the larger implications of this type of construction has in our neighborhood and our town infrastructure … I feel that our infrastructure is insecure.

She continued, “When I first moved here, I heard that ‘Sandy Hook is dumped on,’ I never believed it, but now I see it because what’s happening in Sandy Hook than what’s happening in the rest of Newtown. The infrastructure isn’t as good, it’s getting overcrowded, and it’s taking away from the beauty and the historical spots in Newtown.”

Resident Kate Striano said, “If we’re losing young people, we need to build for the future! Put four family houses on that property, bring some children into the area. Revive our schools. Don’t make Newtown a graveyard.” The public agreed with applause.

Other neighbors to the site raised concerns about the environmental impact and noted, like Ackert, that the site has been clear-cut.

Resident Thomas Orourke raised concerns about the aquifer in the area and how the demand for water might impact the neighborhood’s personal well systems. A few residents said that they had to have their wells re-dug or fracked because they have run out of water.

Patricia Lowell asked a simple question of the commission, “If the zoning isn’t approved, what in the world are they gonna do with that property?”

Following the public comment, the chair, David Rosen, made a motion to continue the public hearing to the next meeting on June 5. Olson requested to address the public comments and concerns, but Rosen said no as there were several other applications to get through that night.

Olson said he wanted “to place [his] objection on that record that [he is] not being permitted to present testimony in response to public comments.” Rosen said that it was fine, and that minutes will be issued, and Olson will have an opportunity to address the public at the next meeting.

The commission then voted to continue the public hearing. The vote carried 4-1, with Rich voting “no.”

Aquila’s Nest Special Event Venue

Ardian Lomi, owner of Aquila’s Nest Vineyard, wants to add a special event venue, increase number of events from 15 to 30 a year, and wants to obtain a beer & liquor permit.

Sibley said there are a lot of items missing that are needed before the commission can vote. Rosen asked what the need is for a new separate building.

Lomi said, “The existing building, the space is too tight. We don’t have [a] kitchen. We get so many requests for weddings or events, like bigger ones, and we turn them [away] because we are so busy with the public all the time on the weekends, so we want to build like a private space for them so they can enjoy their time and create their own memories on the property.”

Rich said, “It seems redundant to discuss events until the concerns of the town have been addressed.”

Manville and Rosen agreed. After the brief discussion, Rosen opened the floor to public comment.

A lot of neighbors came and expressed support for the winery, but also noted that the music is loud, the lights are bright, and traffic is a serious issue.

Vito Uva said this application is a “blatant commercialization of a residential neighborhood,” and also raised concerns about traffic.

Marianne Pote has concerns about the possibility of a liquor license being issued to the winery for this special event venue. She said, “Pole Bridge Road is a speedway. It terrifies me to think what will happen [if the license is approved].”

Anna Ruggiero said that the lights coming from the property in the wintertime are “the worst,” and she raised concerns about her property value if she decides to sell her house.

Rosen made a motion to close the public hearing on this application, which was unanimously approved. He addressed the applicant saying, “My point to the applicant is as you think about this, think very hard because this is a residential area. We heard the proposal, I was part of this in the beginning when you came forward, and it was awesome. It’s something that we as a commission supported and was in the spirit of the town. [This] feels like to me that this is going a bit too far. I usually don’t comment like that, but I’m just going to give it to you straight.”

Rich added, “This really doesn’t strike me as being a good neighbor. I like the winery, I like the limited events, but when it becomes a burden on the quiet enjoyment of your neighbors, it becomes a problem.”

The commission was ready to take a vote, but did not have the verbiage prepared. The commission will vote on the applications by Lomi at the next scheduled meeting, which is June 5, 7 pm, Newtown Municipal Center Council Chamber.

=====

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