Date: Fri 20-Sep-1996

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-hearings-rule-changes

Full Text:

P&Z Slates Hearings On Subdivisions And Rule Changes

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

At its meeting scheduled for September 26, the Planning and Zoning Commission

(P&Z) plans to conduct public hearings on three residential subdivision

proposals, totaling 40 lots.

Also, the P&Z plans public hearings on proposed zoning rule changes

concerning: affordable housing; how building lots are laid out in

subdivisions; and reducing the front setback distance in M-1 Industrial zones.

The meeting is scheduled for 8 pm at the Newtown Middle School auditorium, 11

Queen Street.

M&M Development, a limited liability corporation, is seeking P&Z approval for

its final subdivision plan for Butterfield Field Woods, a proposed 13-lot

development on 40 acres in the vicinity of Butterfield Road and Georges Hill

Road.

In April, M&M Development received Conservation Commission approval for

construction work in a wetland area. The proposed subdivision would involve

new road construction.

Also scheduled for a public hearing is a submission from Raymond-Anderson

Properties, LLC, and the Estate of F. Francis D'Addario for a resubdivision

called Little Brook Knolls involving 12 lots on 20 acres. The land in an R-1

zone is in the vicinity of Turkey Hill Road and Little Brook Lane.

In another development request, Paugussett 34 Partners, a limited partnership,

is seeking approval for a resubdivision known as Forest View Estates,

involving 5 lots on 12 acres. The property is on Paugussett Road, a side

street off Berkshire Road in Sandy Hook.

Regulatory Changes

The P&Z plans to hold a public hearing on its proposal to amend zoning rules

concerning affordable housing developments.

The new rules would require that affordable housing projects be located on

properties that have road "frontage" on an arterial road or major collector

road as defined by the town's plan of development.

The current regulations on affordable housing are not as explicit as those

proposed by the P&Z.

The current rules require that affordable housing projects be located on "land

having direct access to an arterial or major collector roadway."

At another public hearing, the P&Z will air its proposal to make stricter its

rules on the layout of house lots in residential subdivisions.

The P&Z uses a planning device known as the "minimum square" in delineating

the possible locations of houses on building lots in subdivisions.

Currently, where a house is built on a lot is based on the "minimum square" on

that lot in relation to frontal house setback lines. The proposed new rules

would add rear and side setback lines to that house positioning equation.

The proposed changes would give developers less land to work with in

positioning houses on lots, while meeting all applicable regulations.

The revised rules would have the greatest effect on smaller lots, such as

one-acre lots.

The proposed changes would result in subdivision lots that are more regular

and rectilinear in shape.

In effect, the proposed changes would encourage larger building lots, thus

decreasing potential construction densities, especially in one-acre

residential zones.

Local developers were expected to soon submit another wave of residential

subdivision applications so that those applications would be considered under

the current regulations concerning the "minimum square" and not under the

proposed new stricter rules.

In another public hearing, the P&Z will hear a request from John Allen,

president of the Danbury Square Box Company, to change the regulations

concerning front building setback distances in M-1 Industrial zones.

Mr Allen is asking that the minimum front building setback distance be reduced

from the current 200 feet to 100 feet.

The box company plans to build a new factory in the M-1 zone which fronts the

north side of Barnabas Road in Hawleyville, just to the west of Northeast

Utilities' Newtown Service Center.

Reducing the front setback distance at the box company property is being

requested in light of possible future expansion at the site.

Malcolm Andrew 'Andy' Bryant

Top Of The Mountain

Garden Club Spring Plant Sale Saturday

Full Slate Of May Programs Planned By Flagpole Photographers

Girls' Golfers Take On Notre Dame, Immaculate, And Masuk

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 20-Sep-1996

Leave a Reply Cancel reply