What’s Going On In The Borough?
To The Editor:
The Castle Hill appeals are not the only major legal expenses that Borough taxpayers paid for, as Warden Maher incorrectly stated at the recent Burgesses meeting. The Chair of the Borough Zoning Commission spent more than $21,000 to pay lawyers to defend undefendable violations of the Freedom of Information Act, where he refused to share audio recordings of zoning public hearings upon request (without notifying the Zoning commission of the request or his illegal denial of it).
Taken together with the appeals that resulted from Mr. Nelson’s ‘leadership’ of the BZC, his actions have cost Borough residents $58,000 in legal fees, thru 3/31/26 alone.
Next, under Connecticut General Statutes, Zoning Commissioners are strictly prohibited from discussing pending or active applications outside of official meetings. A pre-application review is the proper, legal avenue to get feedback before an application is officially filed. In Newtown, pre-applicants must contact the Planning & Zoning Department directly to schedule time on the commission's agenda or consult with land use staff to schedule a ‘pre-application’ meeting with staff.
So, why is the Chair of the BZC having private hearings with developers and stating his opinions about their pre- application projects? “Because that’s how he’s always done it” is not acceptable justification (did he do this for Castle Hill too?). The Borough has its own Land Use staff, the Zoning Enforcement Officer. The Chairman should refer potential applicants to the ZEO, not inserting himself and his biases into the process before there has been a public hearing.
The optics are terrible….and telling. And to announce his opinion about a pre-application project at a Burgess meeting, with a reporter present….well, that’s either really poor judgement, or total arrogance of authority…or both. Haven’t his actions cost taxpayers enough money already?
Dave Ackert
Sandy Hook
Mr. Ackert’s letter leaves out an important point: many of the legal expenses he references exist because of the legal challenges and complaints he and his facebook group has chosen to pursue.
It is not fair to blame the Borough Zoning Commission Chair for costs that were driven, in large part, by Mr. Ackert’s own actions. Taxpayers should understand that litigation and FOIA complaints do not appear out of nowhere. They are initiated by individuals who decide to take those matters forward.
Public officials should absolutely be held accountable, and the Borough should follow proper procedures at all times. But accountability should run both ways. If someone repeatedly challenges the Borough through legal channels, then points to the resulting legal bills as proof of poor leadership, the public deserves that context.
Reasonable people can disagree about zoning decisions, development, and procedure. However, turning every disagreement into a legal fight has consequences, and those consequences are paid for by Borough taxpayers.
Before assigning blame for legal expenses, Mr. Ackert should acknowledge his own role in creating them.
To add a bit more context: the adopted Borough budget was for just under $300,000 [https://boroughofnewtownct.gov/borough-of-newtown-budget-approved/]. $58,000 in legal fees (to date) means a significant cost must be shouldered by Borough residents and businesses, increasing taxes noticeably. Many of those pushing the lawsuits were not subject to the added costs because they do not reside nor do business in the Borough.
Can you name a single person involved in one of the lawsuits who does not reside in the Borough? I’ll wait……
My “actions” were a single request for audio recordings of public meetings. It would have cost the Borough ZERO dollars to turn those over, as required by law. Instead, the Chair of the Borough Zoning commission decided, unilaterally, without informing the rest of his commission, to fight that Freedom of Information request. Mr. Johnson attempt to deflect blame falls flat on its face here. Facts matter.
my concern is not limited to this single FOIA request or this one case. It is the broader pattern of obstructionism, fear-mongering, and personal nastiness reflected in your Facebook page and other public commentary.
You routinely call people to action by presenting only one side of complicated issues, assigning the worst possible motives to those who disagree with you, and giving little consideration to the legitimate concerns or perspectives on the other side. That may generate outrage and attention, but it does not make you a constructive participant in Newtown’s civic affairs.
You are entitled to question public officials and pursue whatever legal remedies are available to you. But you should not pretend that your own conduct, rhetoric, and repeated escalation of disputes have played no role in the hostility and expense surrounding these matters.
Newtown would be a nicer and more productive community with less of this kind of divisive behavior.
Dave, you are right that only those in the Borough signed onto the law suits, as it was made clear during the Borough meetings that signers had to be residents of the Borough. However, as you know, there was a concerted effort by the Newtown Conservation Coalition to organize people (throughout town) and to orchestrate actions intended to foil the overall development.
If one searches the Bee for “Newtown Conservation Coalition” one will find many articles and editorials that cite the coalition. More that 18 of those articles and editorials, from March 2024 through February 2025, are about the Castle Hill Development and include direct quotes from the NCC head/founder including, e.g.,:
1) Newtown Conservation Coalition founder Dave Ackert has sagely urged his fellow NCC members to “stick to the relevant regulations issues and concerns in your testimony,” as “general opinions and concerns will not be considered when making their decision.” [https://www.newtownbee.com/08292024/borough-zoning-to-begin-20-60-castle-hill-public-hearing.” [https://www.newtownbee.com/08292024/borough-zoning-to-begin-20-60-castle-hill-public-hearing]
2) “We’re being sold a lot of things,” said Ackert. “The developer said he is going above and beyond in preserving open space, but the only part [of the plan] that doesn’t have houses are the steep slopes. He’s not avoiding buildable land, he’s using every buildable inch.” [https://www.newtownbee.com/09272024/borough-zoning-hears-perspectives-on-castle-hill-development]
In addition to the articles and editorials, you (Dave) also wrote over 8 letters related to the development, in essence speaking for the residents, e.g., saying “On behalf of hundreds of concerned residents living within 500 feet who signed protest petitions, and residents downstream who’s property and finances could also be negatively impacted, I ask the BOS to rescind the discontinuance decision now.” [https://www.newtownbee.com/07102025/discusses-rochambeau-trail-and-6-commerce-road]
The main tools for the Newtown Conservation Coalition are FOI complaints and legal action. These actions have increased the amount both the Town and the Borough have had to pay for legal counsel over the last few years. The cost is shared by all households and businesses for Town actions. Unfortunately, it is shared by very few, relatively speaking, for Borough actions. This year’s Borough costs are $58,000 to date. There were FOIA/legal actions in 2024 and 2025 too. Eventually, we will all see if that was money well spent. My sense is that the answer is no.