Newtown Planning & Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on Thursday, August 6 to continue discussions of applications 26.09, 26.10, and 26.13.

Applications 26.09 and 26.10 were by Summit at Newtown LLC. Application 26.09 was for a text amendment to modify the “Elderly Housing Zone (EH-10), Article III — Residential Uses, Section 3.02A — Multiple Family for Elderly Housing — Middle Density, to allow independent living for 55 years of age and older with supporting amenities.”

Application 26.10 was for a zone change for two properties located at 134-136 Mt Pleasant Road for a proposed 110-unit independent living facility under the modified EH-10 regulations. The two parcels of land, combined, total 15 acres.

Attorney Peter Olson represented the applicant. He said, “We made an application for a zone text amendment that was to create a new zoning district that was essentially duplicating the existing EH-10, creating a new regulation that we called the ‘EH-10 Middle Density.’ And that was to facilitate the development that we were working on without having an impact on existing EH-10 zoning districts.”

Summit is an Albany-based company that provides independent living apartments for people aged 55 and up. Proposed amenities include a pool, a pub, free breakfast every morning, rooms for classes/other activities, in-unit kitchens and laundry, and transportation services.

Olson said that following the first meeting, he got the “sense the commission wasn’t necessarily thrilled to the idea of proliferation of zoning districts and regulations.” Olson reworked the proposal to be an amendment to the EH-10 regulations in response.

He explained to the commission that he added a definition of congregate housing for elderly families living independently. His definition allows for in-unit kitchens and laundry. Olson’s other suggested amendments would allow for middle-density based on calculations of “nine times the gross combined lot acreage, or 300 units.”

Under this calculation, Summit would be permitted 117 units. The application was for 110.

There were other minor changes regarding setbacks and landscaping to “make it possible for us to do the development that we want to do,” Olson said.

Olson then explained that this area is currently zoned B-2 and he wanted to see if there were other properties the new EH-10 regulations could apply to. He said none of the properties in the area are large enough as they need ten acres.

“We think that the scope of the community that we’re proposing is kind of a hybrid commercial residential use,” Olson told the commission. “It’s not just a landlord with apartments. It’s much more than that.”

He said that the “benefit of the B-2” zone, which is tax revenue, is met by this proposed community. Olson invited Paul Scalzo, a real estate agent associated with the project, to discuss it more with the commission.

Scalzo said he was asked to assess if the development would be in an area that could continue to be “commercially successful.” He explained that “destination retail works.” Medical and health are types of destination retail, but other retail businesses look for areas of “synergy,” not isolation.

“When it comes to typical retail, it’s shrinking,” Scalzo told the commission. He offered an explanation that online shopping is changing “how people are doing business nowadays.” He also mentioned that there are only so many restaurants that can survive.

Scalzo added that the “land use pattern” has already been established in this area and reiterated that this development is between commercial and residential.

Olson took the floor again and reminded the commission that this application allows control for the commission as it is not an 8-30g or Public Act 25-1.

“I hope that addresses the question of whether or not changing some of the zoning along Route 6 from B-2 to residential type use is number one appropriate and number two is a loss in some way to the town, and we don’t believe it is … We don’t think it is,” Olson said.

Chair David Rosen then asked the commission if there were any questions or comments.

Alternate Commissioner Charlie Gardner thanked the applicant for listening to the commission’s concerns about creating a new zone.

Commissioner Barbara Manville asked, “In a nutshell, without changing the EH-10 zone, what would your development have to do to conform to the current zone?”

Olson replied, “The reason is that the EH-10 allows four units per acre, up to six units per acre, for some types of housing. The financial model for this type of development requires 110 units. And my client has said to me, ‘Actually, not more than that’ … But it needs 110.”

Public Comment

Rosen then invited the public to come and speak.

First to speak was Janet McKeown. She said, “I just wanted to say that I’m against making any kind of zone changes/text amendments to areas that already have a specific zoning for businesses. To me, it seemed to set a dangerous precedent to any developer to just come in and ask for changes so they can put up whatever they would like and then expect it to be passed easily.”

She also cited traffic as a concern and referenced the three crashes over three weeks that have occurred on Mt Pleasant less than a mile away from the proposal.

Heidi Winslow spoke next. She also expressed her objection to the development. “Contrary to what Mr Olson just told you, this is not a site-specific proposal. This proposal would apply to every EH-10 zone in the entire town of Newtown, including existing EH-10 zones.”

Winslow handed out her written response to the application, including an addendum to her third comments. Her comments said that “Nine units per acre is a substantial change from four units per acre.”

Olson was then invited to respond to the public comments. He said that he did not want anyone thinking that proposing text amendments or map amendments is “easy.” He responded to McKeown’s point about traffic, saying that a development of this size would require a “major traffic generator certificate” from the state. The driveway on Route 6 would also require a permit from the Department of Transportation.

Olson also said that this would apply to all EH-10 zones; “That’s why I originally proposed this as a separate district so that you would have this district only apply to this property. But, as noted, the commission doesn’t like that proliferation and zoning district.”

He added that the town’s regulations “do not have to comply” with state or federal definitions. Olson cited the Plan of Conservation and Development, saying that it calls for more diversity of housing for the elderly. He said that the “changing of zoning regulations is a good thing” as they need to be updated with the times.

Commission Deliberates

Rosen said that the commission heard “some compelling arguments” from both the applicant and the public, which he thought were “frankly rational.” Rosen said one of the “hard” things is that there have been a lot of high-density housing applications coming through.

“I think of this as a town, not a city. When we lose control, and 8-30g comes in, it’s much more treated like a city and, frankly, when the density gets too high as an 8-30g, it doesn’t go with a town. It’s something I struggle with,” Rosen said.

Rosen appreciated this not being an 8-30g application, but was still concerned with the density. He added that housing is “cyclical,” saying that interest rates have gone up, people are not moving, and Connecticut is “often having a net loss in population, yet, somehow we don’t have enough housing.”

Rosen has concerns that housing may get to a point “beyond saturation.”

Commissioner Peter Schwarz reminded Rosen that the public hearing had to be closed before the discussion continued. The motion was raised and passed unanimously.

Commissioner Roy Meadows spoke next. He thanked everyone who came and spoke. Meadows analyzed that area of town to see if it was more residential or commercial. He looked at the area between Stony Hill to the Route 7 intersection.

“There’s a total of 43 properties on both sides of the road in this section. Twenty-nine of those properties are zoned business. That’s 67%. I was trying to arrive at whether or not this is a business corridor or a residential corridor,” Meadows said. He added that the people in the past believed it was a commercial corridor.

Meadows pointed out that there are a lot of housing units in this area between Newtown and Bethel. Including proposed units, he counted 577 in Newtown. In Bethel, there is a total of 745 units.

“The conclusion I come to is there’s already a lot of residential,” Meadows said.

Alternate Commissioner Don Mitchell spoke next. He said that there is a comprehensive plan for Newtown, but it “seems to be disappearing piece by piece.” Mitchell also believes that this proposal is a “leap” in density. He also raised the issue of Newtown having little control over its infrastructure, mainly the roads.

Schwarz agreed with Mitchell. He said that changes made from this proposal would be “reactive rather than a function of the planning.” Schwarz wants to see a more comprehensive look at the corridor.

Gardner said that Connecticut’s population has grown by 100,000 since 2020, but also has the one of the “lowest levels of residential inventory.” He added that there is a “rapidly growing” elderly population. Gardner said that the current EH-10 regulations are from 1996.

“We’ve had three POCDs come and go since then. Things have changed. Demographics have changed. Demand has certainly changed. The economy has changed … It’d be great to be in a position of being ahead of things rather than being reactive,” Gardner said.

Manville pointed out that the existing regulations have “worked out quite well” so far.

Rosen then put both applications to a vote. Both the text amendment and zone change were denied unanimously.

=====

Reporter Sam Cross can be reached at sam@thebee.com.