Date: Fri 10-Jan-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

Newtown-Village-Conservation

Full Text:

Neighbors Want Newtown Village Plan Scaled Back

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

The Sandy Hook Neighborhood Coalition has urged the developers of the Newtown

Village housing complex to scale down their 102-house proposal to 30 houses,

or no houses at all.

Representatives of the ad hoc coalition spoke at a Conservation Commission

public hearing Wednesday night on the developers' application for a wetlands

construction license. The session marked the fifth time in recent months the

commission has held a meeting to consider wetland aspects of the controversial

project.

In their application, D&H Homes, LLC, of New Milford, and Fairfield 2000

Homes, Corp, of Stamford, seek approval for wetlands construction work in

connection with building 102 houses, 25 of which would be designated as

"affordable." The development site is a former sand-and-gravel mine in the

area bounded by Berkshire Road, Bishop Circle, Philo Curtis Road, and the

eastbound on-ramp at Interchange-11 of Interstate-84.

Attorney Francis Collins, representing the coalition and some intervenors to

the development application, said Newtown Village would have negative

environmental effects on Curtis Brook, the Pootatuck Aquifer, area groundwater

and domestic well water quality. The development site lies within the town's

sole source aquifer protection area, he said.

Mr Collins argued that the scope of wetlands construction activities regulated

by the Conservation Commission is much broader than the applicant has

portrayed. The applicant hasn't addressed those broader issues, Mr Collins

said.

What is proposed for the site far exceeds the maximum practical use of the

32-acre site, according to the attorney. The alternatives to 102 houses are

fewer houses, or no houses at all, he said.

"Less density is the obvious alternative," he said, claiming the applicant

hasn't provided any feasible and prudent alternatives to the 102-house

proposal.

The property has R-1 zoning which allows one house per one-acre lot. Town and

state affordable housing regulations, however, allow "density bonuses" to

developers who designate a fraction of their development as "affordable

housing." Affordable housing is reserved for families whose incomes are less

than 80 percent of the region's annual median income.

Environmental analyst Barbara Obeda, representing the coalition, said the

developers propose much clear cutting of trees which would hurt nearby

property values. The soils on the site are too porous to provide for

sufficient wastewater cleansing in a community septic system, she said.

"Excessive (soil) permeability may cause groundwater pollution," she said.

The site is along the upper edges of the Pootatuck Aquifer and treated

wastewater from it will flow down toward the major water source, she said. If

the community septic system should fail, there would be a negative effect on

aquifer water quality downslope of the development, Ms Obeda said.

Ms Obeda termed the construction density of project "environmentally

suicidal."

"We don't believe it's appropriate," she said.

If only 30 houses served by conventional individual septic systems were to be

built on the site, there would be much less wastewater discharged, she said.

Besides a property owner's right to develop his property, the property values

of people living near such a development also are important, Ms Obeda said.

Resident Michael Gorski of 8 Bishop Circle told Conservation Commission

members of his concerns.

Mr Gorski asked commission members to deny the application. The proposed

community septic system poses significant environmental risks to the area, he

said. A community septic system failure would pose contamination risks to the

Pootatuck Aquifer and the town as a whole, he said.

He termed the proposal "massive overdevelopment," suggesting the construction

of up to 30 homes as an alternative, or allowing the property segments

combined for the affordable housing proposal to revert back to their owners so

those properties could developed separately across time.

In response to the coalition's presentation, Attorney Timothy Hollister,

representing the developers, said that neither Ms Obeda nor Mr Gorski is an

engineer, and the applicant's proposal has been prepared by professional

engineers. The opponents didn't present any engineer-supported evidence to

substantiate their claims, Mr Hollister said.

The proposed construction won't have any negative effects on wetlands on the

site, the lawyer said. The applicants stand by the information their engineers

have presented to the Conservation Commission at past sessions on Newtown

Village, he said.

The developers want to build detached housing ranging in sizes from 1,300 to

2,200 square feet to be marketed in the $140,000 to $200,000 price range. The

"market value homes" priced nearer $200,000 would subsidize the "affordable

homes" priced nearer $140,000, thus giving the developers a financial

incentive to build the "affordable housing." A state law encourages developers

to build housing complexes in which at least 25 percent of the homes are

designated for moderate-income families.

The development project also would need a site plan approval from the Planning

and Zoning Commission (P&Z). Such site plan reviews raise broader issues than

those considered by the Conservation Commission.

Conservation Commission Chairman Donald Lawrenson said commission members will

discuss the development application at an upcoming session before acting on

it.