Date: Fri 12-Jul-1996

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

moratorium-P&Z-development

Full Text:

Neighborhoods Coalition Presses For Subdivision Moratorium

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

An ad hoc group known as the Newtown Neighborhoods Coalition is pressing to

have the town stop receiving new residential subdivision applications for the

next six months.

The drive for a residential development moratorium stems from coalition

members' desire to strengthen the regulations to better protect the town's

environment, according to Jack McGarvey, the president of the Rocky Glen Area

Association and a member of the coalition.

Several neighborhood associations have been formed in recent months in

response to residential development proposals for those areas. The

associations have battled developers over what association members have termed

unacceptable environmental damage stemming from new home construction. The

neighborhood groups specifically have charged that increased development

jeopardizes the quality and quantity of existing domestic well water supplies.

At a May public forum on the pace of local residential growth, neighborhood

association members called for a residential development moratorium.

At that session, Eric Roundy, vice president of the Rocky Glen Area

Association recommended there be a four-month construction moratorium to

reevaluate the town's existing land use regulations and develop new ones keyed

to preserving the local quality of life. The association was formed in

response to the proposed Whispering Pines subdivsion in Sandy Hook.

In response to coalition calls for a moratorium, Stephen Adams, chairman of

the town's Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), said Wednesday that two days

after the May public forum, P&Z members at a P&Z meeting decided against a

moratorium.

"It was the unanimous consensus of the commission that a moratorium isn't

something we're looking to do at this time," he said.

Mr Adams said he is glad that coalition members are developing proposed new

land use rules would like to see what proposed revisions they come up with.

If the coalition presents its changes to the P&Z in the form of proposed

amendments to the regulations, P&Z members would consider making those

changes, he said.

Petition Drive

Coalition members have been circulating a petition they plan to present to the

P&Z, according to Mr McGarvey. Those who sign the petition endorse placing a

180-day moratorium on the P&Z receiving new subdivision proposals for review.

According to the petition "We think Newtown needs a breather, so her citizens

can, through the democratic process, review and revise current zoning

regulations."

According to the petition, local residential growth has resulted in: sharply

higher taxes; overcrowded schools; a strained town infrastructure; strained

municipal services; depressed real estate values; a stagnating market for

existing homes; loss of the town's rural character; problems with domestic

water wells; and groundwater pollution.

Through its petition drive, the coalition wants to educate the public about

the negative results of continuing residential growth, Mr McGarvey said.

The coalition has been quizzing members of the Legislative Council on their

views about residential growth. The ad hoc group wants to bring some political

pressure to bear on the Legislative Council in the coalition's drive for a

moratorium, Mr McGarvey said.

In a recent letter to each member of the Legislative Council, Mr McGarvey

asked council members to: consider the petition's points; review an enclosed

summary of court rulings concerning the legality of moratoriums; and review

planning bulletins on water resources and methods to strengthen the town's

land use regulations.

Legislative Council Chairman Joseph Mahoney said Wednesday "The Legislative

Council doesn't have any jurisdiction over land use other than the acquisition

and disposition of (public) land."

"I don't think a moratorium is the answer," he said. Members of the coalition

should attend P&Z meetings and discuss their concerns over land use regulation

with P&Z members, he said.

There are two sides to the issue, he said. Builders want to keep building

houses, while residents who have moved here don't want any more residential

development, he noted.

A moratorium isn't the answer the problem, he said, urging that coalition

members address the P&Z with their land use concerns.

Mae Schmidle, a member of the Tamarack Woods Association, said "Nobody sees

the moratorium as a permanent, ongoing thing, and neither do I."

The association was formed by Tamarack Road area residents in response to M&E

Land Group's proposal to build a 10-lot subdivision on a 33-acre parcel lying

within the triangle of land bounded by Tamarack Road, Sanford Road and Echo

Valley Road.

The coalition plans to formally present the moratorium petition signatures to

the P&Z at an upcoming P&Z session, she said.

Of the coalition's drive to convince Legislative Council members of the need

for a moratorium, Mrs Schmidle said council members should be made aware of

the public's thinking on developmental questions. "This is an issue that

affects so many people," she said. "This is totally non-political and totally

non-partisan."

How long a moratorium would last would be the P&Z's decision, she said.

Whether a moratorium would ban the submission of subdivision applications or

would ban the approval of such applications would also be a decision for the

P&Z, she added.

Once a moratorium is in place, the land use rules could be rewritten to close

legal loopholes in them to prevent developers from circumventing certain

sections of the rules, Mrs Schmidle said.

Mrs Schmidle also expressed concern about how the Conservation Commission

conducts its business while functioning as the town's Inland Wetlands and

Watercourses Commission.

People who own land next to properties where wetlands construction is proposed

should be formally notified of such construction applications pending before

the Conservation Commission, she said.

The coalition plans to meet July 16 at 7:30 pm in Edmond Town Hall. Membership

in the group is open to people willing to work to improve and protect the

town, according to Mr McGarvey.

The Way We Were

Malcolm Andrew 'Andy' Bryant

Top Of The Mountain

Garden Club Spring Plant Sale Saturday

Full Slate Of May Programs Planned By Flagpole Photographers

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-Jul-1996

Leave a Reply Cancel reply