To The Editor:

Borough residents packed Courtroom #6 at Danbury Superior Court last week for a hearing on the proposed settlement that the Borough Zoning Commission approved in a 3-1 vote on August 12th after Castle Hill Real Estate appealed their conditional approval to build 117 luxury cluster homes on one of our most precious undisturbed historical sites in Newtown, if not in all of Connecticut. Before casting their votes for the conditional approval in 2025, two zoning commissioners stated that they were only voting ‘yes’ only because of the conditions, which included: 1) Eliminating the 18 units closest to Rochambeau Trail, bringing the total number to 99 units, and 2) allowing public access to the proposed open space by Taunton Lake. On August 7th, 2026, the BZC Chairman scheduled a special meeting for August 12th, when he knew one of those commissioners couldn’t be there, so he’d have enough votes to eliminate those conditions for the developer.

It was gratifying to hear the judge ask some of the questions residents have been asking, including: 1) Why did the BZC Chairman give only 5 days’ notice for this important meeting? 2) Why did he call a meeting instead of a public hearing, as section 8.04.I of the zoning regulations require when substantial modifications are proposed? 3) Why didn’t he allow public input at the 8/12 meeting? 4) Why didn’t he disclose the proposed settlement details on the meeting agenda for the public to see?

I wonder…..does the judge know that several residents sent emails to the commission, asking to be able to speak at the 8/12 meeting, and that the Chairman never forwarded those emails to the commission, entered them into the public record, or discussed them at the meeting?

Does the judge know that the BZC blocked the entrance to the 8/12 public meeting with a table, in an attempt to keep the public from entering?

Does the judge know that the BZC Chair illegally refused a FOIA request to share public hearing audio recordings and that he refused to accept two protest petitions from property owners within 500 feet of the property, in accordance with section 8.04.H of his own regulations?

Does the judge know that the Chairman never shared an email from the Police Chief expressing NPD’s serious traffic safety concerns about adding all that traffic to the already dangerous intersection at Jonny Cake and Mt. Pleasant with the commission or the public, and instead lied, saying the PD issued a favorable review?

I know the Judge wasn’t present to see the BZC Chairman wink at the applicant from the dais, right before the commission voted to conditionally approve the application in 2025. But the Borough Warden was there and personally witnessed the Chair’s unethical, biased conduct throughout the entire process.

It’s a hopeful sign that the judge is asking the right questions. But why aren’t the Borough Board of Burgesses and its Warden asking any questions and ensuring accountability?

Dave Ackert

Sandy Hook