Date: Fri 26-Apr-1996

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

Whispering-Pines-development

Full Text:

P&Z Rejects Controversial `Whispering Pines' Development Plan

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

A controversial home-building proposal that would have seen 19 houses built in

a densely developed section of Sandy Hook has been rejected by Planning and

Zoning Commission (P&Z) members who voiced concerns over excavation, drainage,

erosion, sedimentation and grading.

P&Z members April 18 unanimously rejected PHD Partnership's proposal to build

19 homes on 26 acres on Cherry Street, Pine Street and Narragansett Trail in a

development named Whispering Pines. The proposal called for construction of a

new street.

The construction proposal drew heavy protests from neighborhood residents at

an April 4 public hearing. Those residents said the project would worsen

traffic hazards, overdevelop the already heavily-developed area, jeopardize

their well water supplies, and strain the public school system.

Each of the five P&Z members voting on the proposal, voiced objections to the

plans.

P&Z member Heidi Winslow said "I'm really very concerned." It wouldn't be safe

to create a new road extending from the intersection of Pine Street and Cherry

Street, she said. A drainage problem that already exists in the area would be

worsened by new construction, she added, pointing out that a storm drain on

Cherry Street already is clogged with sediment. Drainage from new construction

would travel toward the intersection of Pine Street and Cherry Street, she

said.

The property has extremely steep slopes and wetlands, Ms Winslow said. She

asked why the developers would build driveways across wetlands, except to

increase the number of lots for the project. The developers should have

presented more detailed information to the P&Z on the proposed grading for the

property, she said.

P&Z member John DeFilippe said the developers' plans to remove 50,000 to

60,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel from the site represents "an excessive

amount to remove." Slopes on the land are too steep to allow the removal of

that much material, he said.

P&Z member John Deegan said the proposed construction isn't good land use

planning or a sensible use of the property. Mr Deegan expressed concern over

the large number of proposed lots in light of wetlands and steep slopes on the

land. He said the P&Z was reviewing what amounted to a proposal for too many

building lots on land of questionable quality.

P&Z member Thomas Paisley said the development as proposed would create

problems with erosion and water runoff. Property owners living the development

would have to contend with gigantic slopes in their backyards, he added.

Ms Winslow asked how four driveways can be built along Narragansett Trail,

noting that they would slope steeply downward. "It looks dangerous to me," she

said.

After hearing the P&Z members' comments, P&Z Chairman Stephen Adams said he

concurs with their viewpoints.

P&Z Members then unanimously voted down the development proposal while the

developers and their representatives sat and watched.

Those with 10 percent or larger shares in PSD Partnership include Bruce

Biscoe, Robert Biscoe, Larry Edwards and Thomas Maguire.

After the P&Z vote, the developers and their representatives quickly filed out

of the Town Hall South meeting room, left the building, and gathered in a

circle outside in a parking lot.

Asked to comment on the P&Z's rejection of the home building proposal, Mr

Edwards said "No comment."

Jack McGarvey of 8 Fleetwood Drive, who heads the Rocky Glen Area Association,

an ad hoc residents' group concerned about the negative effects of local

residential development, said "I would like to see Newtown maintain its

character."

"We take our inspiration from the (town) plan of development," he said. The

association isn't a radical group, but one that wants local development to

proceed responsibly, according to Mr McGarvey.

Mr McGarvey was among Sandy Hook residents who spoke against the Whispering

Pines proposal at the April 4 P&Z public hearing.

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 26-Apr-1996

Leave a Reply Cancel reply