Date: Fri 28-Nov-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Newtown-Village-appeal

Full Text:

Newtown Village Developers To Appeal P&Z Decision

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

Newtown Village, a proposed 96-house condominium complex which was rejected by

the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) earlier this month, will be the

subject of a legal appeal, the applicants' attorney said Monday.

Attorney Timothy Hollister of the law firm Shipman and Goodwin of Hartford

said he expects to file the appeal in the case by the end of this week.

Mr Hollister represents D&H Homes, LLC, of New Milford, and Fairfield 2000

Homes Corporation, of Stamford. Fairfield 2000 would market 24 houses

designated as "affordable" for families with incomes below certain limits.

Mr Hollister said he intends to file the legal appeal in Danbury Superior

Court after which it would be transferred to Hartford. Several judges in the

state court system are designated to preside over such housing appeals.

Of the approximately 25 affordable housing appeals made by applicants whose

projects were rejected by local land use agencies during the past seven years,

about two-thirds of those appeals have been sustained by the courts, Mr

Hollister said.

If the appeal proceeds without delays, the Superior Court may decide on the

appeal in nine to ten months, according to the attorney.

The party which loses that case may petition the Connecticut Appellate Court

to hear an appeal. Beyond the state appellate court level, the matter may

eventually be heard by the Connecticut Supreme Court.

In their appeal to the P&Z's rejection of Newtown Village, the applicants will

seek to show that the P&Z did not prove the development would harm the public

health and safety.

Citing a host of objections to the controversial Newtown Village, P&Z members

unanimously rejected the project early this month, turning down the complex

proposed for 32 acres off Route 34, near the Exit 11 ramps of Interstate 84.

The developers want to build Newtown Village under the provisions of a state

affordable housing law. The law provides developers with a "density bonus,"

allowing them to construct more units in a complex than would be normally

allowed by an area's zoning designation.

If a town fails to demonstrate to a judge that a proposed affordable housing

complex harms the public health and safety, the town can be forced to accept

the project.

In their rejection of Newtown Village, P&Z members concurred the town needs

additional affordable housing, and they have sought to encourage it through

applicable town regulations, but they want to foster affordable housing

complexes that respect other substantial public interests of the town, such as

the WPCA's policy on sewer avoidance and also traffic safety.

Although other affordable housing developers, such as R&G Riverview, LLC, have

submitted development plans which comply with such objectives, the Newtown

Village proposal seeks to undermine or avoid the town's sewer avoidance

policy, impairs traffic/safety conditions, and creates unregulated gravel

mining through extensive regrading of the land, according to the P&Z.

Considering that other affordable housing, such as Riverview, has been

approved for Newtown and its developers have met the town's developmental

concerns, "The commission does not feel compelled to make an exception to its

health and safety regulations in this instance," according to the P&Z.

The negative aspects of the Newtown Village proposal outweigh the need for

affordable housing, the commission concluded.