At the Thursday, June 4 meeting, Newtown Planning & Zoning Commission discussed several text amendments for zoning regulations for the Town of Newtown. This discussion first began at the May 21 meeting.

There are nine total sections that are being discussed right now. Rob Sibley, director of Planning & Land Use, listened to the commissioners’ questions and comments and “placed some notes” on five of them.

Parking, EV Stations

The first discussion regarded Article VIII, for parking, driveway and loading standards. Sibley made a “notes for changes” section to note what the commission discussed at the last meeting. His first note was in reference to Public Act 25-1, which says, “You can no longer require a minimum number of off-street vehicle parking spaces for any residential development.”

Sibley said the change that he is suggesting “allows for on-street parking.” He pointed out that it conforms with the plan of conservation and development section 4.21, which encourages more diverse housing.

Relating to parking as well is 08.03.610 (Article 8 Section 3). Public Act 21-29 no longer requires more than one parking space for any one bedroom or studio unit. Sibley said it was brought up by the applicant for the “Active Adult Conservation Design district” and the applicants for 120 Glen Road.

Commissioner Barbara Manville said it “just doesn’t seem realistic to me that just because you have a one bedroom apartment, doesn’t mean you are only going to have one car.”

Chair David Rosen said that an applicant “could theoretically have more spots."

Then 08.03.711, the section about boats and RVs, was discussed. It states that RVs and boats cannot be parked in the “front lot line,” but another area of the regulations declare it an appropriate use. Sibley added the language “Unless provided for in another section of these regulations” to keep it consistent.

Electric vehicles were next to be discussed. There was not much to discuss as everything in the document about the EV charging station was new. Sibley then acknowledged that someone from the public was there to speak directly on this topic.

Kathy Quinn approached the commission on behalf of the Sustainable Energy Commission. She explained that she has reviewed everything and wanted to ask if there should be more clarification about the “definition of infrastructure because [she was] not sure if everybody has the same idea or the same impression of what the EV charging infrastructure is.”

Quinn asked Sibley if there was a definition. Quinn then offered a definition to the commission: “It means the infrastructure that is capable of supporting the charging station. It would be the conduit wiring, electrical capacity, but not necessarily the installation of the units themselves.” She said that there should be a requirement for new buildings to have the electrical requirements “up front,” otherwise there can be expense issues.

Alternate Commission member Charlie Gardner asked more about the costs to install EV charging stations and said that he was concerned with the costs and wants to “limit it to those applications where it makes sense.” Sibley responded that new construction or redesigns that require more than 30 designated spaces require EV charging stations.

Rosen said, “It may be tough to split that hair” because commercial areas may be a restaurant that becomes a law office.

Sandy Hook Design District

Sibley said this section has to do with accessory dwelling units, or ADUs. Public Act 21-29 allows for an ADU of 1,000 square feet. The original language of 6.05.400 says that an ADU of 600 square feet was allowed and then owners would have to wait seven years to use the space as an ADU.

Sibley called it “asinine.” Rosen agreed and said it was “stupid.”

Sibley then said that an individual was there to speak on this subject, too. Rosen wanted to make a comment on this, as well. He said that he does not want to go beyond 1,000 square feet because “that’s basically putting in another house.”

Gardner then pointed out that it says “existing structure,” and Sibley suggested taking out “existing structure.” The commission agreed it should be “attached or detached,” and not within an existing structure.

Mike Burton, president of Sandy Hook Organization for Prosperity (SHOP), spoke to the commission. Burton said, “SHOP is very proactive as far as developing Sandy Hook in a responsible way and we don’t try to fight applications, obviously, but we just want things to make sense. One of our big issues is always parking.”

Burton said he wanted to know if parking regulations are determined based on affordable housing. He told the commission that he has built over 100 apartments and adhered to the town’s 2.4 parking spots per unit, which has “worked out pretty well.” He pointed out that the new parking requirements are “targeted to the cities like New Haven, Stamford, Norwalk, Bridgeport, and they all have access to public transportation, which we don’t.” He stated his opinion on the subject, which is that it is “a bad change.”

Burton asked if an application that was approved a while back could come and add more buildings because there is less required parking. He added, “I think there’s also other applications that are coming to you in Sandy Hook, and I just hate to see more crowded properties that can’t take care of their own parking. That’s the biggest concern I think we have of all this … I understand you’re bound by the state, but I don’t know if there’s a way to make it work for everyone.”

Rosen said he agreed about the parking issues. “I think when you get stuff from the state, it tends to be one-size-fits-all, and the reality is different towns and different sized towns have different needs.”

Site Development Plans

Sibley explained “for years” the Planning & Land Use department has been trying to reduce the amount of paper in the office. Regulations for site development plans called for 11 copies.

The updated regulations call for one electronic copy, an original hard copy, and three copies of all maps, plans, reports, application forms, and documents. It reduces the amount of copies by seven.

Special Districts

The last topic Sibley brought notes on was regarding special districts, specifically Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse (FHAR).

Sibley said, “We went through the adaptive reuse zone for Fairfield Hills. This spoke to the original creation, the original process, for a master plan to be put out and how this commission would look at it, and how it would be adopted. We can’t do a new one, we can only redo them … but this is a zoning process. It is moving towards the Fairfield Hills Authority process of having and caring for the master plan.”

Sibley’s “notes for changes” included striking all the areas associated with “intent” and “what the campus is all about.”

He included 6.02, “Removal of zoning FHH master plan process, as obsolete, from zoning regulations to keep from conflicting with FHA master plan. Placing of outdoor facilities with other permitted uses. Supports POCD section 7.2.3 which encourages a reexamination of the master plan process.”

Commissioner Peter Schwarz, who is a member of Fairfield Hills Authority, said that he has spoken with the authority and everyone agrees with the changes.

Sibley informed the group that he is going to work on these revisions and will probably have them done by the July 2 meeting. Rosen encouraged all commissioners to look over the regulations and the proposed changes with “as much detail as possible” for the July 2 meeting.

=====

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