Date: Fri 04-Oct-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-minimum-square-coalition

Full Text:

Proposed Change In House Lot Rules Draws Criticism From Developers

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

The Planning and Zoning Commission's (P&Z) proposal to tighten the rules

concerning house placements on building lots has drawn criticism from

developers but has gained the support of some citizens.

Lawyers representing several developers squared off with members of the

Newtown Neighborhoods Coalition over the issue at a September 26 P&Z public

hearing.

The P&Z has proposed tightening its regulations on the so-called "minimum

square." The minimum square is the area on a building lot within which a house

may be sited.

Currently, the location of that minimum square is determined in relation to

the front building setback of a building lot. The proposal under consideration

by the P&Z would require the minimum square's placement on a property be

determined by also using the lot's rear setback and side setback.

The proposed rules are intended to make the shape of building lots more

regular and more rectilinear. The effect of the change would be to reduce

potential housing densities in areas with smaller minimum lot sizes, such as

one-acre residential zones.

The P&Z is expected to act on the proposed minimum square rules at an upcoming

session.

In a letter to the P&Z, James Wang, executive director of the Greater

Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, writes that the proposed new rules would

effectively prevent residential development in R-« zones and place definite

restrictions on building in R-1 zones.

In some cases, lots in R-1 zones would barely meet the minimum square

requirements, according to Mr Wang. Few lots in R-« zones would meet the new

rules, he adds.

Mr Wang urged the P&Z to thoroughly study the effect that new rules would have

on the ability to construct houses in areas with relatively small minimum lot

sizes.

Attorney Robert Hall had several comments on the minimum square proposal. Mr

Hall represents David Kaufman, the developer of Autumn Ridge, a proposed

10-lot subdivision on 42 acres off Butterfield Road. The attorney also

represents M&E Land Group, the developers of Wedgewood, a proposed 15-lot

subdivision on 27 acres off Taunton Hill Road, and Tamarack Woods, a proposed

10-lot subdivision on 32 acres near Tamarack Road.

Mr Hall said that taking steps to avoid odd-shaped, gerrymandered building

lots is a valid pursuit.

In some cases, the proposed regulations would require building lots that are

much larger than the minimum lot size for a given residential zone, he said.

Such a situation might mean that a building lot would be lost within a

proposed subdivision due to house placement restrictions, he said.

"I do not believe that you have any kind of crisis that needs to be addressed

in this fashion," Mr Hall told P&Z members.

Mr Hall said that when developers anticipate the P&Z is on the verge of

tightening its regulations, they then submit development applications faster

than they normally would.

The attorney said that tightening the minimum square rules amounts to an

improper attempt to decrease potential housing densities.

Attorney Bernard Green of Bridgeport represents M&E Land Group, Bennetts Farm

Associates, Gerald Cavaliere, and High Meadow Farm Associates. Mr Green said

he has held a financial interest in the Bennetts Farm property since 1981. He

argued that while the underlying purpose of the proposed rule changes is to

reduce construction densities and slow down the residential growth rate, the

proposal could actually accelerate land development.

The lawyer said new rules could generate building lots with distorted shapes.

The rule changes would mean no decrease in the number of lots in subdivisions,

in most cases, he said. New rules would result in "gerrymandered" roads with

unusual curves to get the "lot yield" that a developer seeks from a piece of

property, according to the attorney.

Mr Green said Bennetts Farm Associates was compelled to file a subdivision

request seeking 36 lots on 84 acres for the Charter Ridge Road area recently

before any changes in the minimum square rules go into effect. The associates

are proceeding with their plans faster than they had desired, he said.

Mr Green termed the proposed rule changes "counterproductive."

When an agency wants to limit growth, an "upzoning" proposal makes more sense,

he said. Under such schemes, the minimum lot sizes of categories of zones are

increased, such as one-acre residential zones becoming two-acre residential

zones, and two-acre zones becoming three-acre zones.

Mr Green termed the proposed minimum square rule changes a "mischievous

proposal." He predicted that such changes would degrade the design of

neighborhoods. The changes would have little effect on housing densities, he

predicted.

Developer Larry Edwards of Easton said even if the minimum square rules are

changed, subdivisions would have the same number of lots, but lot layouts

would become distorted. He suggested that in some cases, more roads would need

to be built and the town would receive less open space property from

developers. The rule changes would have little or no effect on housing

densities, according to Mr Edwards. The developer illustrated his points with

maps of four proposed subdivisions, showing the effects of the proposed rules

on lot layouts.

Developer Charles Spath, a trustee of High Meadow Farm Associates, said

changing the minimum square rules won't decrease the number of building lots

in future subdivisions. More roadway would need to be built in subdivisions to

keep the number of lots unchanged, he said.

"This apparent `quick fix' I don't think is the answer," Mr Spath said. He

asked the P&Z to further research the issue.

Attorney Stephen Wippermann said a change in the minimum square rules would

make everyone's job more difficult.

Norwalk developer Carmine Renzulli asked the P&Z to leave the minimum square

rules as they stand.

Developer Sir John Papageorge of Trumbull said "Developers aren't evil people

seeking to rape and pillage the community." Choking off local residential

growth would be punitive to many people, he said.

There are older local people who want to sell off their large tracts of land

to generate retirement income, he said, adding the proposed minimum square

rule change would penalize people who want to sell their real estate.

Other Views

Kurt Gillis of Jeremiah Road, a member of the Newtown Neighborhoods Coalition,

told the commission that if people with financial interests in developing land

oppose the minimum square rule changes, the P&Z should then approve the those

changes.

If the proposed rule changes function to slow down growth, the changes should

be approved, he said. He asked P&Z members to view the rule changes as being a

tool in achieving the goal of limiting development.

Jack McGarvey of Fleetwood Drive, a coalition member, also endorsed the

change.

Mary Burnham of Walnut Tree Hill Road, a coalition member, disagreed with

comments of Mr Hall and said "I do think we're in a crisis in this town." She

urged P&Z members to also pursue "upzoning."

Kirsten Fitzgerald-Gelston of Pole Bridge Road said she returned to Newtown

after finishing college because she likes the town.

Newtown is losing its woods, its trees, its wildlife and also losing its

small-town feel, she said. "Newtown is in crisis," she added.

Andrew Paproski of Sugar Street asked P&Z members to study the larger issues

involving local growth and to address the growth question on a broader scale

than the minimum square issue.