Newtown’s Planning & Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on Thursday, July 16 to continue discussions about a subdivision at 9 Beechwood Drive and an application by Town of Newtown to update Newtown’s zoning regulations.

The first application discussed was 26.13 by GRC Construction for a subdivision at 9 Beechwood Drive to split the property into three single-family building lots. Greg Carnrick is the applicant, and owner of GRC Construction.

Carnrick offered a brief overview of the project. The parcel at 9 Beechwood Drive is about 4.5 acres and has a house that is under construction currently. Carnick said, at the time of the meeting, that it should be completed in about 30 days. The subdivision he is seeking would create an additional house to the left and one “at the bottom of the hill, accessed off Fairview.” There are encroachments from the neighbors that Carnrick hopes to solve by getting the “slivers” of property transferred to the neighbors. That is subject to approval of the application by the commission. At the last meeting Carnrick attended, he was still waiting for a review from Newtown Health District. Carnrick shared there was no objection to the subdivision as proposed.

Chair David Rosen thanked Carnrick for his brief overview and invited members of the public to speak.

Robert Kraus, an abutting property owner, was the first to speak. He explained that behind his property is a containment pond, which is “abating the water from 9 Beechwood” and is “catching the runoff” from behind his property as well. Kraus shared that the pool “just keeps getting bigger.” He thinks there has been some erosion already and is concerned about possible erosion at the edge of his property.

“I would propose that [Carnrick] put forth an engineering plan and get it approved by this committee, the town, to make sure everything is in order and that that containment area is adequate for the runoff that’s coming off 9 Beechwood,” Kraus said to the commission.

Rosen then asked Rob Sibley, director of Planning & Land Use, if Town Engineer John Curtis had commented on this specific application.

Sibley responded, “Yeah, he added to the file correspondence with this applicant this afternoon saying that he’s not satisfied and he needs proper reports for his review at this time.” He added to his point that Curtis is asking for some “very specific things,” and after that he can give an endorsement.

Marylou Vayan spoke next. She shared that the property is very wet. Vayan also pointed out that Carnrick has brought “so much fill” onto the property. She also thinks that whoever buys a house in that area is “going to be underwater the first rainstorm,” and that the property should “not be built under any circumstances.”

Carnrick Responds

After the public comment, Rosen invited Carnrick back to respond. Carnrick said that the drainage at the site is catching the “neighborhood’s water.” The subdivision was created in the mid-50s, and the water is not “created by the subdivision.” He said he has had a lot of discussions with the town engineer because it is “essentially the town’s water.”

“It’s not water created by the subdivision. The town has supplied some of the materials and paid the cost of some of the drainage. I’ve done the site work, an engineering plan was submitted. A stormwater plan was submitted. [Curtis] did have some feedback,” Carnrick told the commission.

Curtis wants the stormwater management system designed for a 100-year storm, but the state requires a 50-year storm design. Carnrick read some of Curtis’ comments into the record; that Carnrick’s plan to replace the natural basin with two new basins is “adequate.” Carnrick explained that Curtis is okay with the design, believing it to be “adequate,” but was not going to issue a building permit until the design height and elevations for the plan were finalized.

Carnrick said that while he has not “alleviated” Curtis’ concern for the building permit, he is not opposed to the subdivision itself. Carnrick also pointed out that there are not wetlands on the property. He said that it rained six inches recently and that there are two detention ponds on the property.

“That’s what they’re designed to do, is retain the water,” Carnrick said. He told the commission if the engineer’s comments are a concern, he would not mind continuing the application, but reiterated that Curtis said the plan is “adequate.”

There was then some discussion about the application process and the wait times between receiving feedback from different departments. Carnrick again stated he is fine with continuing the public hearing and hopes to get feedback and a review from Curtis. The application was continued to the next meeting on Thursday, August 6, 7:30 pm at Newtown Community Center.

Text Amendments

Application 26.08 by Town of Newtown — P&Z Commission is for a text amendment to the zoning regulations to modify language across several sections. This has been an ongoing discussion for a few meetings, and Rosen expressed interest in wrapping it up if at all possible.

Rosen explained that he wanted to put the smaller text amendments aside and focus on the larger, more confusing ones. Sibley went over the text amendments that were previously discussed and agreed upon at past meetings.

This included the Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse Zone, which was looked at by Fairfield Hills Authority; Sandy Hook Design District; site development plan requirements; parking standards; and storage associated with the M-5 industrial zone.

Sibley revisited electric vehicle charging stations, as Rosen received an e-mail from the Sustainable Energy Commission looking to add a definition of charging infrastructure. There was some discussion about what the Sustainable Energy Commission was asking for versus what the commissioners wanted to include in the definition.

Sibley explained he wanted to include the definition within the section, but not at the beginning of the paragraph like the Sustainable Energy Commission asked for. There was some debate about Bluetooth access and if it was a common practice for electric vehicle charging stations.

Rosen admitted that it was “beyond [his expertise],” and he would have to rely on experts. Rosen suggested bringing Kathy Quinn, a member of the Sustainable Energy Commission, into a meeting to discuss this more. Rosen said the commissioners could also amend the definitions again later. Rosen suggested leaving the definition out for the vote and to vote with more education on the topic.

Sibley then told the commission that the Active Adult Housing Conservation Design District would be removed from the regulations. Then the commission discussed building height. Commissioner Roy Meadows assisted the Land Use department in creating the language.

Sibley then moved to discuss the remaining items: excavation, earth work, and mining regulations; prohibited uses; and buffer landscaping.

Sibley explained that for excavation, earth work, and mining regulations, there was conflicting information as to who was getting a mining permit, those who are doing excavation, and no clarification to permitted activity.

“We got to a point so that we could understand the fact that the general construction permit, which was not applicable under most circumstances, redesigned it into what is described in these regulations as the earthwork permit, which clearly designed what is necessary for the ZEO to make a decision,” Sibley said.

The changes remove the “antiquated mining permit.” Only one property in town has permission to mine. Sibley also shared that the earthwork permit is much simpler now and is similar to other permit applications.

Sibley then jumped to prohibited uses. He explained that rock crushers, excavation removal, quarrying, processing soil, and other such activities are now spelled out in the prohibited uses.

Rosen complimented Sibley on the simplified form and regulations.

Sibley then discussed the last section: buffer landscaping. The proposed changes Sibley presented are a direct response to Public Act 21-19. The reason these changes are needed relates to the health and restoration of the Long Island Sound, as well as related waterways like the Housatonic River, Deep Brook, Pootatuck River, and Halfway River. Vegetative and riparian buffers help mitigate pollution, debris, and toxic contaminants.

Alternate Commissioner Charlie Gardner asked Sibley how many properties would be impacted by the new buffer regulations. Sibley responded and explained that only the properties that touch the mentioned bodies of water would be impacted.

Rosen then made a motion to close the public hearing, which was approved unanimously. Rosen made a motion to accept application 26.08. The motion passed with a four-one vote, with Commissioner Barbara Manville, Rosen, Meadows, and Commissioner Peter Schwarz in favor. Commission Connie Widmann voted against the application.

=====

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