Date: Fri 12-Apr-1996

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

library-lawsuit-Baumer

Full Text:

One Library Lawsuit Dismissed, Another Is Filed

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

Following a judge's dismissal of a lawsuit he had pending against the Borough

over land use approvals which were granted to allow Booth Library to expand,

Main Street resident Edwin Baumer again has sued the borough to stop the

library project.

In a lawsuit filed April 4 in Danbury Superior Court, Mr Baumer sues the

Borough Zoning Commission headed by Chairman Robert Connor; Town Clerk Cynthia

Curtis; Borough Clerk Darlene Spencer; The Town of Newtown; and the Booth

Library Board of Trustees.

Mr Baumer of 23 Main Street lives next door to the library. He claims an

expanded library will damage his quality of life through increased activity at

the library. The library recently broke ground for its expansion project.

In the lawsuit, Mr Baumer states many of the same claims made in the lawsuit

that was dismissed by Judge Sandra Leheny in Danbury Superior Court.

Mr Baumer filed two lawsuits against the borough in 1995. The first suit

objected to zoning rule amendments, concerning building heights and parking

areas, which were approved by the Borough Zoning Commission to enable the

library to seek a site plan approval for the expansion project. The second

suit objected to the commission's later approval of the site plan. Both suits

were then consolidated as one lawsuit in court.

In her dismissal of the lawsuit, Judge Leheny wrote "Upon exhaustive review of

all the pertinent provisions of the statutes governing zoning appeals, the

court concludes that the plaintiff's case is tainted by a fatal jurisdictional

defect which cannot be cured or saved by any of the foregoing statutory

provisions. Accordingly... the court dismisses this appeal for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction."

In Mr Baumer's new lawsuit filed April 4, he alleges the Borough Zoning

Commission acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of the discretion vested

in it in that: the approvals for library expansion amounted to "spot zoning";

the approvals were not uniform for each kind of building in the zone; the

expansion of a non-conforming building was allowed; the amended zoning

regulations didn't meet standards to protect the public health, safety,

convenience and property values; the amended regulations promoted street

congestion, compromised light and air quality, overcrowded the land, and

failed to conserve the value of buildings; the amended regulations, in effect,

amounted to an illegally granted a zoning variance by the Borough Zoning

Commission; and a traffic study should have been performed for the project.

In the latest lawsuit, Mr Baumer seeks: that the court sustain his appeal to

the library expansion project; that the court order the Borough Zoning

Commission to rescind its amended regulations pertaining to the library; and

that the court grant other relief it deems fit.

Mr Baumer is represented by Attorney Randall Carreira of Bridgewater.

The borough has a May 28 court answer date on the lawsuit.

Related Matter

In a related matter, a state Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) hearing

officer has recommended that the full FOIC dismiss a complaint filed last year

by Mr Baumer concerning a public hearing held by the Borough Zoning

Commission.

In his FOIC complaint, Mr Baumer alleges that a June 13, 1995 hearing held by

the commission on the library's site plan application violated aspects of the

state's right-to-know law. Mr Baumer alleges the commission: reconvened a

closed public hearing without proper public notice; failed to record the votes

of members; and improperly convened in executive session.

After a review of the complaint, FOIC hearing officer Carolle Andrews

determined that the Borough Zoning Commission didn't violate the Freedom of

Information Act. Ms Andrews' is recommending that the full FOIC dismiss Mr

Baumer's complaint at an April 24 FOIC meeting in Hartford.

Next HRRA Household Hazardous Waste Drop-Off Event Scheduled In Newtown

Genealogy Club's Next Program To Dig Into 'Dissecting A Civil War Pension Record'

Choral Society Planning ‘Voices Of America’ Performance

Newtown Earth Day Festival Was A Success

Local Fourth Grader To Host ‘Gaming For Change’ On May 16

The editorial took no position on the budget going up or down so you're reading things into the editorial that simply aren't there. The turnout is tied to the lack of passage, in that people who came out to vote last time did not this time, indicating a lack of support on their part. Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough, but that's what the editorial was driving at, people showing lack of support by not casting a vote. The editorial did address likely concerns among voters that may have led to lack of support and lack of turnout. This lower turnout also follows increasing turnout over the past four referendums in three years (meaning it is an aberration from that), and increased turnout is something that I do push for regularly in editorials. Any disappointment you might be seeing is at the break in that trend, not at whether the budget passed or not. I'd rather see more people come out and vote "no" then not vote at all.

Lower Turnout Results In Two Budget Defeats

Clearly, property owners no longer want to bear the burden of expenses while the state does not meet it’s responsibilities. Rising costs must be addressed by actions that do not include yearly increases of property owners’ taxes. The state of CT must meet its share of the educational costs, and other costs.

Town And School Budgets Fail At Referendum

This feels like an oddly misleading headline and narrative, particularly coming from the Editorial Board. The headline "Lower Turnout Results in Two Budget Defeats" pushes a misleading narrative regarding voter turnout, and then seeks to tie the outcome of the referendum to that misleading narrative. Sure, voter turn out for this year's referendum, 18%, was lower than last year's. However, last year's turnout, 25.4%, represented the highest turnout in the most recent 10 budget referendums. If you take the time to examine turnout percentages between 2017 and 2026 (2017: 19.9, 2018: 15.7, 2019: 17, 2020: 0, 2021: 8.98, 2022: 7.7, 2023: 8.8, 2024: 15.1/17.49, 2025: 25.4, 2026: 18), this year's turnout was actually the third highest in the past 10 cycles. Perhaps the headline of this article should say "Lower Voter Turnout Than Last Year", which is more accurate, rather than creating an impression that this year's turnout is some type of aberration - a narrative that the turnout numbers, in all their binary glory, simply do not support. Further, the headline of this article appears to tie the "lower turnout" to the defeated budgets. Sure, that could be true. But, perhaps, its more likely that Newtown residents are feeling the squeeze of multiple economic influences. In Newtown, we've experienced property revaluations and increased municipal spending. Eversource continues to raise rates. The state legislature gives PURA the authority to impose Public Benefit charges that benefit a tiny percentage of the public (and subsequently burdening the rest of us). At the national level, inflation has run rampant for years and many of those costs remain high to this day. In short, the data tells a far less dramatic—and far more honest—story than the headline suggests. This wasn’t an electorate vanishing in apathy; it was a fairly typical turnout delivering an verdict that, perhaps, some at the Editorial Board didn't like. At some point, it’s worth considering that residents aren’t confused, disengaged, or misled by turnout; they’re simply doing math at their kitchen tables and concluding that “no” is the only responsible answer left.

Enjoyed the forum which only confirmed my support for Brandon Moore as the Democratic candidate to run for the state representative position. Brandon Moore did not waiver about his duty to all the people, if elected, when an issue presents itself that requires that he voice a difference of opinion for the wellbeing of Newtown residents. If Michelle Ku’s 16 years have led to her loyalty being to other elected officials, as she implied, then Newtown is going to continue to witness actions that do not protect its residents. She could not unseat republican, Mitch Bolinsky, during a Blue Wave, and once again, will not do it now. Winning that seat is critical for all. That explains why her previous campaign committee now campaigns for Brandon Moore. It explains all the endorsements he has received from local elected democratic officials. It’s why we need Brandon Moore to be the democratic candidate to run for state representative.

Second Newtown DTC, League Of Women Voters Candidates Event Planned

Appreciated the opportunity to hear from both candidates as we were present for the College Dems forum but only heard from Brandon Moore. It was an opportunity to see who can unseat the Republican incumbent and there is no doubt that Brandon Moore should be the Democratic candidate. One concerned parent posed a question about discrimination unaddressed by the school district and interestingly enough, Michelle Ku, who proudly speaks of her Board membership years, said little, while Brandon Moore passionately addressed the issue along with his experience as an Apache Helicopter Commander. This family is supporting Brandon Moore. We need change and someone who is not afraid to disagree, especially about the rising costs of living in Newtown.

Log In

Date: Fri 12-Apr-1996

Leave a Reply Cancel reply