Date: Fri 29-Nov-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-minimum-square

Full Text:

P&Z Drops Proposal That Would Have Restricted Smaller Lots

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has dropped its controversial

proposal to alter how the general shapes of building lots are determined.

P&Z members November 21 unanimously dropped their proposal to change the way

they calculate the "minimum square."

The minimum square is a square area within a building lot used as a guide in

establishing lot outlines.

The site of the minimum square is determined in relation to the front building

setback of a building lot. The proposal which had been under consideration by

the P&Z would have required the minimum square's placement to be based on the

lot's front, rear and side setbacks, thus making the shape of building lots

more regular and more rectilinear.

In making a motion to keep the P&Z's existing minimum square rules, P&Z member

Heidi Winslow said "We listened carefully to the comments that came at the

public hearing."

At a September public hearing, the proposed rule change drew heavy criticism

from developers, but gained the support of some citizens.

"This would be an ill-conceived plan," she said of changing the minimum square

rules. The intention of the proposed rule changes was not to reduce housing

densities but to make building lots as compact as possible, she said.

However, the proposal which the P&Z had offered at the public hearing could

have had the opposite of the intended effect, she said.

Member Thomas Paisley agreed with Ms Winslow's view on the matter.

Chairman John DeFilippe stressed that the commission's intent in proposing

changes to the rules on the minimum square was not to reduce the rate of

development, but to have development take place on evenly shaped lots and on

drier land. The minimum square rules require that no more than 20 percent of

the land within the minimum square have wetland soils.

In a past letter to the P&Z, James Wang, executive director of the Greater

Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, writes that changing the minimum square

rules would effectively prevent residential development in R-« zones and place

definite restrictions on building in R-1 zones.

In some cases, lots in R-1 zones would barely meet the minimum square

requirements, according to Mr Wang. Few lots in R-« zones would meet the new

rules, he adds.

Mr Wang urged the P&Z to thoroughly study the effect that new rules on the

minimum square would have on the ability to construct houses in areas with

relatively small minimum lot sizes.

In some cases, the proposed regulations would require building lots that are

much larger than the minimum lot size for a given residential zone, Attorney

Robert Hall said at the September hearing. Such a situation might mean that

one building lot is lost within a proposed subdivision, he said. The attorney

said that tightening the minimum square rules would amount to an improper

attempt to decrease potential housing densities.

Attorney Bernard Green said that while the underlying purpose of the proposed

rule changes is reducing construction densities and slowing down the

residential growth rate, the proposal could actually accelerate land

development.

The lawyer said new rules could generate building lots with distorted shapes.

The rule changes would mean no decrease in the number of lots in subdivisions,

in most cases, he said. New rules would result in "gerrymandered" roads with

unusual curves to get the "lot yield" that a developer seeks from a piece of

property, he said.

Mr Green said Bennetts Farm Associates was compelled to file a subdivision

request seeking 36 lots on 84 acres for the Charter Ridge Road area recently

before any changes in the minimum square rules could go into effect. The

associates are proceeding with their plans faster than they had desired, he

said. At the hearing, Mr Green termed the proposed rule changes

"counterproductive."

At that session, developer Charles Spath, a trustee of High Meadow Farm

Associates, said changing the minimum square rules won't decrease the number

of building lots in future subdivisions. More roadway would need to be built

in subdivisions to keep the number of lots unchanged, he said.

But not everyone at the September hearing saw the then-proposed minimum square

rule change from the developers' perspective.

Kurt Gillis of Jeremiah Road, a member of the Newtown Neighborhoods Coalition,

said that if people with financial interests in developing land oppose the

minimum square rule changes, the P&Z should then approve the those changes. If

the proposed rule changes function to slow down growth, the changes should be

approved, he said. He asked P&Z members to view the rule changes as being a

tool in achieving the goal of limiting development.

At that session, Kirsten Fitzgerald-Gelston of Pole Bridge Road said she

returned to Newtown after finishing college because she likes the town.

Newtown is losing its woods, its trees, its wildlife and also losing its

small-town feel, she said, concluding "Newtown is in crisis."