Borough ZBA Rejects Variance For

Proposed Hook & Ladder Firehouse

By Andrew Gorosko

The Borough Zoning Board of Appeals (BZBA) this week unanimously rejected the Newtown Hook and Ladder Fire Company’s request for a zoning variance. The action came amid stiff neighborhood opposition to granting a zoning variance to allow the fire company to build a firehouse closer to the street at 12 Sugar Street (Route 302) than the zoning regulations would normally allow.

That rejection appears to end the fire company’s attempts to build a firehouse on the Sugar Street site to replace its existing deteriorated firehouse at 45 Main Street (Route 25), behind Edmond Town Hall.

BZBA members rejected the zoning request following discussion after a Wednesday night public hearing at which nearby residents spoke against the variance proposal. Voting in opposition were BZBA Chairman John Madzula, Janet Woycik, Bea Gellert, Robert Taylor, and Kathy Geckle.

Contacted Thursday morning for comment on the BZBA’s rejection of the zoning request, Bill McCarthy, the fire company’s building committee chairman, said, “I haven’t been [formally] notified of the vote and I have no comment.”

Hook & Ladder members have been considering the prospects for a new firehouse for years, in view of the decayed condition of the existing firehouse. The masonry firehouse has been internally braced with steel beams to stabilize the structure.

The fire company sought a zoning variance from the BZBA to allow it to construct a firehouse that would be set back 20 feet from 12 Sugar Street property’s front boundary line. The normal minimum setback distance in that area is 50 feet.

The site is on the north side of Sugar Street, northwest of Sugar Street’s intersection with Elm Drive.

Under the firehouse construction proposal, the Borough of Newtown Land Trust, Inc, and the R. Scudder Smith Family Partnership would donate land to create an approximately 9.4-acre site for the firehouse. The site has extensive wetlands.

In its motion to reject the requested zoning variance, BZBA members cited three basic reasons for turning down the application.

They decided that a firehouse would not be in harmony with the general character of the residential neighborhood; the presence of a firehouse and its related fire vehicle traffic would create traffic hazards in the congested area; and that a firehouse’s presence would damage property values in the neighborhood.

Engineer Richard Contois, representing the fire company, had presented only a plot plan of the 9.4-acre site at the public hearing. No elevation drawing or architectural rendering was presented.

Mr Contois explained that a majority of the site is designated as wetlands, with only the land near Sugar Street being a usable area for firehouse construction. Thus, the fire company sought to build the structure closer to the street than would normally be allowed. He termed the variance request “an environmental hardship for which a waiver is justified.”

Mr Contois said the fire company’s construction proposal is in the “conceptual” stage with no specific plans yet available for review.

Mr Madzula pointed out that zoning rules would require such a structure to be in visual harmony with the surrounding area, adding that the fire company had not described the appearance of the structure’s façade.

“This is a pig in the poke,” he said, adding that BZBA members should be able to review some definite design before acting on a zoning variance request.

Mr Contois explained that the fire company was seeking to save money by getting a variance approval from the BZBA before going through the expense of having architectural plans drawn.

Mr McCarthy said the fire company was simply seeking a zoning setback variance for its project.

But Mr Madzula responded that the BZBA wants to know what the building façade would look like before possibly approving such a variance.

The fire company’s efforts on the project to date have focused on the wetlands aspects of the site, Mr McCarthy said.

The fire company would build a “Colonial-style” structure, he added. It would Colonial in style with clapboards included as a design element, he said.

Broadly, such a structure would be set back only 20 feet from the street, would have a 120-foot-wide façade, and would be 35 feet tall, Mr Madzula said. “It’s a pretty large façade…close to the property line,” he said.

Ms Geckle pointed out that Sugar Street area is prone to traffic backups with eastbound traffic waiting for the traffic signal to change at the intersection of Sugar Street, South Main Street, Glover Avenue, and Main Street.

But Mr McCarthy said that having a firehouse on Sugar Street would be a major improvement over the traffic conditions that the fire company now faces at it firehouse adjacent to the rear parking at the busy Edmond Town Hall, which generates vehicular traffic from its movie theater.

Public Comment

Karen Banks of 43 West Street said the proposed firehouse would be “far too close to the road” amid an area known for its heavy traffic. Ms Banks urged that the fire company pursue having a firehouse at the town-owned Fairfield Hills core campus.

It would be unwise to build a firehouse so close to a wetland, she said.

Ellen Parrella of 15 Roosevelt Drive said that building a firehouse near the troublesome intersection of Sugar Street and Elm Drive would be a bad idea.

Robert Olah of 34 Sugar Street said the 12 Sugar Street site is a poor location for a firehouse due to the presence of wetlands. Such a structure would “devastate” the Sugar Street and Elm Drive neighborhoods, he added, saying that it would amount to an “eyesore.”

“The location is not good,” he said. Eastbound Sugar Street often becomes congested with traffic, with vehicles getting backed up a great distance, he said. Having fire trucks traverse such an area would prove difficult, he said.

“It’s just not suitable…We object to it…This land should not be used [for firehouse construction] simply because it’s available,” he said.

An attorney representing Francois and Nathalie Debrantes of 13 Sugar Street told the BZBA that 12 Sugar Street is not a suitable place for a firehouse.

Catherine Summ of 25 Sugar Street said asked about the presence of a firehouse in terms of the safety nearby pedestrians, joggers, and bicyclists. She noted that children walking to and from school travel through the area, sometimes in darkness.

Michael Burton of 107 Glen Road urged the BZBA to grant the requested zoning variance, suggesting that an architectural review of the proposed structure be done by the Borough Zoning Commission.

Mr Burton acknowledged that the area has traffic congestion, but said that fire officials could deal with that situation.