Full Text:

P&Z Rejects Curtis Proposal For Industrial Subdivision

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has rejected a 10-lot Berkshire Road

industrial subdivision request from Curtis Corporation, saying the development

proposal from the Sandy Hook container manufacturer involves an excessive

amount of gravel removal from the 49-acre site.

P&Z members voted 3-to-0 September 23 to reject both the subdivision request

and also to reject a zone change request from Curtis from R-1 Residential to

M-4 Industrial covering three of the proposed 10 lots.

Voting against the industrial subdivision and zone change were Chairman Daniel

Fogliano, James Boylan and Robert Taylor.

In discussion before the vote on the subdivision proposal, Mr Fogliano said

"My major concern is the amount of fill to be removed from this site." Curtis

proposes removing 111,504 cubic yards of earth from the property.

"I understand there is a need for industrial property, but we have to look at

the cost," he said. The company wants to remove much fill from the land for

the questionable benefit of lowering the average elevation of the property by

three feet, he said.

"If this is going to be a subdivision application, it should be a subdivision

application. If this is going to be a mining operation, it should be a mining

application," he said.

Mr Fogliano said nearby residents voiced strong opposition to the development

plan at a past public hearing.

Mr Boylan said, "The mining operation seems to be excessive," adding the

property lies in the Aquifer Protection District (APD), which is an

environmentally sensitive area.

Mr Taylor said the town has a need for additional industrial property, but

added he is concerned about the amount of earth that would be removed from the

site. He said he supports rezoning the land, but does not support the

subdivision application. He said he would consider a revised subdivision

application involving less fill removal.

Mr Foglaino said much less fill should come off the lot than proposed by the

applicant. He also questioned the wisdom of the applicant donating the dam

that holds back Curtis Pond to the Newtown Forest Association as part of the

open space on the site, asking whether the association could afford to fix the

dam, if it needs future repairs. Mr Foglaino said that while he opposes the

subdivision application, he could be swayed to support the rezoning request.

But Mr Boylan cautioned that rezoning the property could open the door to a

slightly less extensive mining operation.

Mr Foglaino then suggested that Curtis submit a revised development

application to the P&Z.

At that point, members voted 3-to-0 to reject the subdivision application.

They then considered the rezoning request.

"The scale of gravel removal is excessive," Mr Boylan said. The application

amounts to a gravel mining operation, but the applicant is not calling it

that, he said. Also, gravel mining is not allowed in R-1 and M-4 zones, he

said. The P&Z only allows gravel mining in M-6 zones.

Mr Boylan said questions also remain about the septic waste handling capacity

of the property.

On that note, P&Z members rejected the zone change request in a 3-to-0 vote.

Following the meeting, Mr Fogliano said people who live near areas where

changes are planned are always concerned about the effects that such changes

will have on them. P&Z members must listen to such concerns in considering

development applications.

Issues raised at a past P&Z hearing on the Curtis application included traffic

generation, underground water levels, the effect on the Pootatuck Aquifer,

noise, wildlife and diminished property values.

"Hopefully, a better application will come along," Mr Fogliano said. He asked

why any fill has to be removed from the site to create a subdivision. "They

don't have to take anything [fill] to make this subdivision work," he said.

Curtis representatives have explained that they want to mine to site of gravel

to reduce the development's elevation to make it less visible to nearby

property owners, as well as to make money from selling the fill.

Curtis submitted its development application in May, before the P&Z's new,

stricter APD regulations went into effect. The new regulations greatly expand

and more explicitly state the rules the P&Z uses to protect groundwater

quality in the APD. Those new regulations prohibit gravel mining in the APD.

Following passage of the new aquifer regulations, Curtis was among several

firms which sued the P&Z seeking to nullify the prohibition on gravel mining

in the APD, or at least allow gravel mining with certain restrictions. The

lawsuit claims that gravel mining in the APD does not pose a substantial

threat to water quality in the underlying Pootatuck Aquifer. That suit is

pending in court.