Date: Thu 28-Mar-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-regulation-changes

Full Text:

Zoning Changes Draw Sharp Rebuke From Developers

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

Developers, builders and engineers attending a March 20 public hearing on

proposed development rule changes which would strictly limit residential

growth gave Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members a clear "thumbs down"

signal on the proposals, saying enacting the rules would eliminate most of

their market for future subdivisions.

P&Z members took no action on the proposal after the hearing, which lasted

nearly three hours. P&Z members were scheduled to meet on the night of March

27, after the deadline for this edition of The Bee, to consider comments made

at the public hearing and possibly act on the proposed rule changes.

To beat a deadline for development submissions under the more liberal existing

subdivision rules, developers submitted nine applications totaling 69 lots

before the P&Z acted on its rule change proposals.

(See related story.)

Of the more than 30 people who spoke at the public hearing, more than 25 spoke

in opposition to the rule changes. About 125 people attended the session at

Newtown Middle School auditorium.

Cascella's Views

First Selectman Robert Cascella asked P&Z members not to approve the

regulations in the form proposed at the public hearing.

Regulations are used to "regulate" development, not "confiscate" property, he

said.

"I think these amendments go too far. I think these (regulations) can be

considered a `taking' of property," he said. The proposed rules would severely

limit the amount of earth moving that could be done on residential lots, he

noted. "There's an economy here that needs to be adjusted, depending on the

size of the parcel," he said, calling for the P&Z to be more flexible in its

proposal.

Mr Cascella asked the commission to form a temporary panel composed of P&Z

members, developers, and members of the Newtown Neighborhoods Coalition to

discuss how the land use rules should be changed.

Mr Cascella offered P&Z members the use of the town's technical staff for

assistance in modifying the development rules. The first selectman also

offered to provide town funding for development consultants.

"I'd like to see fairness to everyone," he said, adding the town should

develop a consensus of opinion on regulating development.

Attorney Robert Hall, representing the development company M&E Land Group,

said that the earth-moving limits in the proposed rule changes would leave

very little local land suitable for future development. The maximum grade of

driveways should remain at 15 percent, not the 10 percent proposed in the new

rules, he said.

"Saying you can't cut more than six feet (into the ground) is not rationally

related to anything in your regulations or your powers," Mr Hall told P&Z

members.

What Newtown is proposing to limit residential growth is similar to the rules

the Town of Woodbury has in place, Mr Hall said. But Woodbury allows variances

to its subdivision rules while Newtown does not, he added. Such variances

would provide developers with an "out," he said.

Mr Hall termed the P&Z's proposed regulation changes "Draconian."

Larry Edwards, a partner in M&E Land Group, asked how the P&Z's proposed

earth-moving rule changes affect public safety issues. The proposed rules, if

approved, would mean added grading and tree cutting to develop residential

sites, he said.

Of the 89 new roads built in town during the past 20 years, only eight would

be allowed under the proposed regulations, he said. "This seems pretty close

to confiscation," he said. Virtually no property could be developed under the

rules, he added. Mr Edwards expressed concerns over strictly limiting the

amount of earthen fill that could placed on a building lot, saying such

restrictions would result in the construction of smaller houses in order to

meet the revised rules.

Hiram Peck, a planning consultant representing M&E Land Group, said there are

ways to design subdivisions to get around the proposed rules, but it would be

very expensive. The proposed changes aren't well-conceived or well-written, he

said.

Melissa Pilchard of 6 Poor House Road, a local real estate agent, charged the

purpose of the rule changes is to limit residential growth. Doing so would be

completely discriminatory and isn't a valid function of local government, she

said. "This regulation totally blows my mind," she said. Such rules would

prevent walk-out basements and houses that have views, she said. "Please don't

try to limit development just to limit development," she said.

"Anti-Development Regs"

Developer and builder Kim Danziger of 5 Stonewall Ridge Road said local

builders work as hard as possible to make their products as attractive and

marketable as possible. "I adamantly oppose the regulations you're proposing

here," he said. Mr Danziger said he has cooperated with the P&Z to preserve

natural features at a subdivision he developed on Alberts Hills Road near Lake

Lillinonah. "These regulations should be called `anti-development

regulations,'" he said.

Richard Haas of 11 Plumtrees Road, an engineer, said Newtowners who own land

as an investment would be financially hurt by such rules. Had such rules been

in place in the past, Newtown would have been prevented from developing as it

has, he said.

Attorney Stephen Wippermann said "It appears to be a `stop-development'

regulation." Mr Wippermann said the proposed regulations would encourage the

development of "affordable housing."

Builder Michael Burton of 20 Washington Avenue said the proposed rules would

have precluded him from working on 90 percent of the building lots he's been

involved with.

Builder Neal Berko of Great Ring Road thanked Mr Cascella for his comments on

the development issues. Mr Berko advocated an ad hoc study committee.

Attorney James Ledonne, representing Blakeman Construction, LLC, the developer

of Rollingwood, supported the first selectman's views on the proposed

regulations. The current subdivision rules are reasonable, Mr Ledonne said.

The first phase of Rollingwood couldn't have been built under the proposed

regulations, he said.

Alan Shepard, an engineer who lives at 1 Glover Avenue, said the proposed new

maximum driveway grade of 10 percent would make much local land unbuildable.

Newtown Not Overcrowded

Bob Tendler, a real estate agent who lives at 12 Monitor Hill Road, said

Newtown has changed for the better over the years. Mr Tendler endorsed the

first selectman's proposal for an ad hoc committee. Mr Tendler said he doesn't

believe Newtown is becoming overcrowded.

Jay Keillor, an engineer from Monroe, suggested that the P&Z consider enacting

regulations on cluster housing as a "middle ground" approach which would allow

development, but also would preserve open space.

Attorney Paul Pollock, representing Julia Wasserman of Walnut Tree Hill Road,

said he heard nothing at the public hearing justifying the proposed new rules.

Such rules would confiscate property owners' rights, he said. Mrs Wasserman

owns more than 100 acres off Walnut Tree Hill Road, according to Mr Pollock.

If the proposed rules are passed, his client would unable to develop the

property, the lawyer said. The proposed regulations tell people who own land

that they can't develop it, he added.

Engineer Charles Spath of Spath-Bjorklund Associates said the proposed rules

would mean an 80 percent to 90 percent loss of local land that is potentially

subdividable. Mr Spath endorsed the ad hoc committee proposed by Mr Cascella.

Mr Spath urged that the P&Z not pursue a "quick fix" but make changes in an

orderly way.

Other Views

Claudia Allen of 7 Fleetwood Drive, a member of the Newtown Neighborhoods

Coalition, said the proposed subdivision rules changes restrict residential

development. Restricting development is the whole point of the proposals, she

stressed.

Ms Allen asked if Newtown wants to look like Waterbury, with houses densely

built across hillsides. She also quoted from the 1993 town plan of

development, emphasizing sections of the document calling for the town to

retain its ruralness and protect the quality of its environment.

"We want to protect the natural beauty with which this area has been blessed,"

she said, asserting that it is the P&Z's responsibility to protect the town's

environment, heritage and quality. It is not the P&Z's responsibility to

ensure that developers make money, she added.

"I think the whole town is served in these (proposed) regulations," Ms Allen

said.

She asked the P&Z to protect the interests of 22,000 residents, not just the

interests of 100 business people.

Coalition member Kurt Gillis of 30 Jeremiah Road said, "This regulation, I

know, is really strict." But it is one of the first sets of rule changes

proposed by the P&Z which would place the agency in control of development, he

added.

It is within the P&Z's authority to have such regulations, he said. If the

proposal needs some adjustments, then the P&Z should make them, Mr Gillis

said.

Coalition member Mary Burnham of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road said she believes

the proposed rules would raise property values. She urged P&Z members to enact

the proposals.

The P&Z's impetus for limiting the volume and extent of subdivision earth

moving stems from the concerns of residents living near Whispering Pines, PSD

Partnership's 13-lot residential subdivision now under construction on 26

acres off Pine Street, Cherry Street, and Narragansett Trail in Sandy Hook.

Those residents charged the amount of earth moving involved in Whispering

Pines amounts to a sand and gravel mining operation preceding the construction

of a subdivision.