As the Planning & Zoning Commission closed a public hearing June 2 regarding a proposed warehouse in Hawleyville, boos and jeers erupted from numerous attendees, some saying they wanted to present further rebuttal to assertions made by representatives of the developer.

Wharton Equity Partners, LLC, is applying for a Special Exception to the M-2A Zoning of property at 10 Hawleyville Road and 1 Sedor Lane, so as to permit the construction of a 344,880-square-foot warehouse with truck docks, trailer, and vehicle parking, along with associated site work. According to P&Z minutes from the initial application session in early April, the proposed use is permitted in the M-2A zone if that special exception is granted. The Planning & Zoning Commission is expected to deliberate on the application and possibly make its final decision at its Thursday, June 16, meeting, in the Newtown Middle School auditorium. The public will not have a chance to speak on the application at that meeting.

Dozens of attendees June 2, including intervenors who were speaking against the application, were upset when the hearing was closed by a majority vote of commissioners. Some said “new information” had been presented during the course of that hearing continuation, and opponents’ representatives deserved a chance to address it.

While no opponents or intervenors were permitted to speak during the June 2 hearing continuation, more than 50 people spoke at a session on May 19. Several opponents also had an opportunity to speak when the hearing opened May 5.

Intervenors also made presentations during the April 7, May 5, and May 19 hearings.

According to the minutes of the previous public hearing, Attorney Tom Cody, representing Wharton, asked if everything from the intervenors had been heard and the proceedings by the intervenors and public was over, to which P&Z Commission Chairman Dennis Bloom agreed.

Land Use Director George Benson told attendees at the June 2 hearing, many who stood up in protest when the hearing was ended, that by law the applicant had to be the last right to speak, as “closing arguments.” Benson had to shout over cries of the assemblage who were upset that the hearing was closed.

The following day, Benson told The Newtown Bee that is how the P&Z Commission has always conducted public hearings. He said a public hearing would normally happen in a single evening, but after the process stretched out over multiple evenings to accommodate opponents, he did not feel that there was justification for multiple periods of public input.

“What we do every hearing, is the applicant presents the project, then the public, commission, and intervenors have a chance to respond,” said Benson. “Then the applicant comes back and answers any questions. The applicant speaks last. The public and intervenors had plenty of chances to speak.”

Benson said that the staff and commission then review the information to see if their questions and concerns were “answered adequately.”

“That’s what the commission is there for,” said Benson. “The commission makes a judgement on what they feel the truth is, and whether the applicant’s answers were adequate or not.”

In separate correspondence with The Newtown Bee, both Benson and Bloom said they were yelled and screamed at by opponents, as well as being subject to threats. Benson said he heard at least one attendee say, “Watch your back,” and Bloom said he also heard threats.

Addressing concerns that “new information” had been presented at the meeting worthy of rebuttal, Benson pointed out it was not new information but answers to existing questions and concerns. Benson noted that if the public or intervenors had a chance to speak to those answers, the applicant would then be entitled to respond creating a “cycle of back-and-forth” between the applicant and public.

Additionally, the commission only had until June 6 to conduct hearings unless the applicants were willing to grant another extension. The applicants previously granted a 30-day extension at the commission’s May 5 meeting.

Benson said that the hearing “has to be fair for both sides.”

“We have to go by protocol and that’s what we did,” said Benson.

Addressing Commissioners’ Concerns

As the hearing concluded, numerous attendees remained unswayed by Benson’s points, some charging commissioners with being “on the take,” inferring they were being bribed by the applicants. Others saying their right to speak were being denied.

Resident Beth Holland said she felt the commission had “shut the door in the face” of John Parks, an attorney hired as an intervenor against the application.

“This is shoddy behavior,” said Holland. “If it were up to me it would go to the Ethics Commission.”

Following the adjournment of the meeting, Parks said the fact that intervenors did not have a chance to speak was “ridiculous.”

“We’re supposed to have the same access to the applicant,” said Parks.

Earlier in the meeting, Wharton representatives gave an hour-long presentation answering questions and criticisms from commission members and members of the public.

Cody said that “point by point,” the application “complies with all technical requirements in the regulations.”

“I believe we have successfully addressed all the decisional criteria for a special exception,” said Cody. On traffic, Cody noted that two professional traffic engineering firms, BL Companies hired by the applicant, and Solli Engineering hired by the town to review the traffic study, agree with the study’s traffic modeling and results.

Cody said that “no professional engineer is on record for disagreeing with traffic report findings.” While intervenor and research scientist Azeez Bhavnagarwala presented his personally drafted traffic study, Cody said at a previous meeting that Bhavnagarwala was not a professional traffic engineer — and his report should “be given no consideration.”

Cody again responded to criticism that the warehouse would be a high-volume truck terminal.

“The application proposes a warehouse distribution center, which is permitted by the zoning regulations with special exception approval,” said Cody. “A truck terminal or depot are different uses that the application does not propose. Additionally, building and site design do not accommodate such uses.”

Cody addressed a criticism by Parks that the warehouse would have 600 trucks per day on the site.

“This is false,” said Cody. “The traffic study submitted with the application stated that the ITE data, which is a compilation of nationwide data from many different facilities, would predict approximately 100 inbound truck trips and 100 outbound truck trips.”

Cody also responded to an assertion by Parks that trucks entering the site would get backed up waiting to unload.

“This is false,” said Cody. “The traffic study submitted with the application included an hourly distribution of traffic coming to the site. Inbound trucks would be spread out throughout the day and will not get backed up. The building has sufficient dock space for all incoming trucks to onload and, in the unlikely event that overflow space is needed, the site includes areas for trailer parking and ample queuing space around the building.

On concerns about light pollution, Cody said that “all lighting will use cutoff fixtures, LED lights, and will be Dark Sky compliant.”

Intervenor Petitions

Regarding environmental intervenor petitions, of which six were submitted to the commission regarding the application, Cody said that Section 22a-19 of the zoning regulations “do not transform the commission into a mini environmental protection agency.” He also said intervenors bear the burden of providing proof of negative environmental impacts and had “failed to do so.”

“There are no specific allegations of environmental harm,” said Cody. “There is no proof of environmental harm.”

The Wharton proposal had previously passed Newtown Inland Wetlands Commission review, and was approved on a 6-1 vote.

Cody contested a protest petition from intervenors who they said had 20% of neighboring property owners as signatories. Cody said that in a review of the petition, they found petitioners overstated the amount of acreage within 500 feet of the warehouse property, and had failed to obtain the 20% of signatories needed. Cody said with the current signatories, the land they own only covers 8.8% of the area surrounding the property — not 20%.

If the petition accurately meets or exceeds that 20% benchmark, it would require a supermajority approval vote of four out of five sitting commissioners for it to pass. If the petition represents fewer than the 20% signatory benchmark, as asserted by Cody, then only three out of five commissioners would need to vote yes for the special exception to be granted.

Cody also reiterated proposed concessions by the developers, which include reducing the amount of loading dock doors on the site from the proposed 76 to 55, and making 54 out of 104.5 acres of the site a conservation easement, meaning it will be maintained as open space which could never be developed, even by future owners.

Members of the commission continued to grill Wharton representatives over specifics of the proposal.

Commissioner Gregory Rich said that he was “unconvinced” that 100 inbound truck trips and 100 outbound truck trips was a “reasonable expectation.”

“What if a tenant decides to use this as a fulfillment center?” asked Rich. “The commission needs to look at the total capacity of the proposed building because that’s what we’ll be saddled with. It seems like this can handle much more than 100 in and 100 out.”

Commission alternate Brian Leonardi asked Wharton representatives “one more time” if they had done a sound study on the property with a comparison to current ambient noise in the area. He said it was a “reasonable ask” that Wharton representatives had declined at previous hearings.

“Seeing it with a percentage change will help us understand what neighbors will be hearing,” said Leonardi.

Rich said he was also “concerned with the refusal to conduct a sound study despite repeated requests.”

Now that the hearing has been closed, Benson said commissioners have 65 days to make its decision on the fate of the application. The commission will meet at least one more time to deliberate the pros and cons of the application.

Town staff may be involved to answer questions, but the primary participants will be commission members. Commissioners will first take a vote on whether it believes the intervenors proved its case on environmental issues; and then take a vote on whether to approve the application.

The two votes do not have to be the same, said Benson — the commission could decide that the intervenors did not prove their case on environmental issues but still deny the application on other grounds.

“It’s all up to the commission,” said Benson.

If the special exception is denied, the applicants can appeal the decision, and intervenors or other members of the public can appeal if the application is approved. Intervenors are allowed to be fully involved participants in any court proceedings during an appeal.

Associate Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.