To the Editor:

I’m writing in response to a recent article about what have been described as clarifications of the conditions the Newtown Zoning Commission previously imposed on the Hilario public garage approval for property abutting Route 6.

During the original approval process, the commission was greatly concerned with avoiding a repetition of the scene at Mr Hilario’s current operation and providing adequate visual and sound buffers at the new site.

In the original approval, visual buffering was to be provided by landscaping and by a building occupying the front of the lot, behind which would be wrecked vehicles and those waiting repairs. And there were limitations on the number of vehicles parked outdoors and some order required as to where and how they would be parked on the lot.

Mr Hilario filed an appeal with the superior court with respect to four of those conditions. Because there is a public interest in settlement of disputes, the state encourages negotiations where there is an appeal in order to avoid prolonged litigation. And so it was with Mr Hilario’s approval. At its meeting on August 19th, a majority of the commission approved of the changes sought by Mr Hilario — changes that have been described as simple clarifications.

The results of the “clarifications” that were approved are several-fold, and they are not minor. Their primary effect is to remove any limitation on the number of vehicles allowed on the lot and to allow those vehicles to be arranged in any order — or in no order.

Secondarily, the “front” building that was to act as a primary visual buffer may or may not be built, yet there is no replacement buffer, either temporary or permanent. The absence of a visual buffer, in the author’s view, will make the jumble of vehicles on the lot that much more prominent and much more like what is seen at Mr Hilario’s current public garage.

Don Mitchell

Newtown