On Thursday, October 16, Newtown Planning & Zoning Commission held a regular meeting discussing five applications at length, with many members of the public sharing concern or support, depending on the project.

The first discussion was a continuation of application 25.21 by Cela Builders. This application is a site development plan for 128-130 Mt Pleasant and 1 Hawleyville Roads. The proposal is for a 67-unit rental development community with 21 units “set aside,” per Connecticut General Statue 8-30g. The title for this proposed apartment building is “Kelmendi Apartments.”

Kermit Hua, the traffic engineer on this project, was the first to address the commission. He talked a little bit about the traffic impact from this development. He first addressed access to Route 6 and separation distance between the driveways and Route 6 and Route 25 intersections.

Hua said the main potential conflict in this case is between the exiting traffic from the development and the through traffic on Route 6. The way he tried to calm this issue is by banning a left turn out of the driveway. Hua said there is “more than adequate” sight distance for people to turn right out of the driveway.

Hua added, “Previously, this was a restaurant use, and, in all likelihood, we are essentially improving the previous driveway. In all likelihood, the restaurant [generated] much more traffic than what the 67 units will generate.” Hua noted that CT Department of Transportation (DOT) signed off on the traffic controls and were the ones who suggested making the exit a right turn only.

Hua also addressed the possibility of using Hillcrest as a second access point to this development. He said the road, though it is a little narrower than standard, is capable of handling 1,200-1,400 vehicles per hour. Hua said the peak weekday morning hour would generate 33 trips, and 22 trips during the peak weekday afternoon hour.

“We are talking about even during the busiest hours of a weekday, the traffic is running only about 1/30 or 1/40 of the roadway capacity. So there really is no traffic capacity issue, no possibility of traffic congestion on Hillcrest Road,” Hua told the commission.

Attorney Tim Hollister, who is representing the client, added that there were concerns about using Hillcrest as a cut-through to Route 6. He explained that could be addressed by appropriate signage, but would also be enforceable through trespassing violations, as people who would cut through to Route 6 would be crossing private property to do so.

Hollister then handed the microphone over to Michael Mazzucco, an engineer representing the applicant. He went over a few changes, like adding electric vehicle charging stations, the addition of a patio area for grilling, and sidewalks leading into the development. Mazzucco also went over specifics of the development, like drainage, rainfall distribution, lighting, grading, and the planting plan.

Hollister then addressed the commission again. He went through a list of allowed uses in a B2 zone, which this property is currently in. He said that “in terms of use, intensity, and traffic generation,” he thinks this proposed residential use is appropriate.

“There was a comment last time … it was a criticism of the design of the building saying that ‘Newtown is a rural community, and the proposed building is not a rural looking building.’ My responses are, I don’t disagree that it’s not. It does not speak to the rural setting, but there are multi-family buildings in Newtown … as I mentioned, the underlying zone is B2 which allows uses that could be suburban or urban looking, but more importantly … state law was changed to not allow what the legislature called ‘character of the town’ to be used as a criterion in zoning decisions,” Hollister said to the commission.

He added, “This one building, I don’t believe, is going to change anything about Newtown.”

Joe Versteeg, a fire safety and code compliance consultant, then spoke a little bit about accessibility for the building. He explained that both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Uniform Fair Housing Standard have “outs,” or conditions that do not make these codes applicable. Due to the grading of the site, adding an accessible route is not possible. He described the only way to access the “arrival point,” or where residents would enter the building, is a “vehicular way,” or the driveway. The site would require serious regrading to allow for the proper ramps and accessibility routes. Versteeg said the site would be exempt based on it being “technically infeasible.”

Following Versteeg’s comments, David Rosen, chair of P&Z, asked the other commissioners if they had any questions.

Commissioners’ Questions

Alternate Don Mitchell asked two clarifying questions about parking. He wanted to confirm parallel parking spaces along the driveway and if there was a sidewalk within the development. The applicant’s team responded “yes” to both.

Commissioner Roy Meadows wanted to know how else the applicant will deter residents from making a left turn out of the driveway to head east on Route 6. He wondered about adding a curb or an island to that area. He also asked if this project has gone through the Design Advisory Board, and if not, if it will go to the board.

Alternate David Landau then asked about the possibility of adding a gate to the Hillcrest entrance with a key fob. He said that the applicants would not prevent people getting off Exit 9 from I-84 “not wanting to wait at that long line at the light” cutting through the development to make a right turn onto Route 6 with just a sign.

Commissioner Connie Widmann said that she thinks Hillcrest is a “one and a half lane road.” She wondered about the dimensions of roads and if it varies based on rural roads, roads with cul-de-sacs, etc.

Commissioner Barbara Manville asked about vegetative buffers between the complex and houses on Hillcrest Road and sidewalks around the complex.

Once all the commissioners asked their questions, Rosen passed the mic back to the applicant.

Hollister responded to some of the questions. He first addressed Meadows’ point regarding the Design Advisory Board. Hollister answered “no,” they had not been in front of the board as it is only advisory, but would “certainly be willing to go voluntarily on an advisory basis to see if they have suggested improvements.”

Hollister answered Manville’s inquiry regarding sidewalks, explaining that the only sidewalks on the property are the ones shown in the plan as the grading on Route 25 is “problematic, if not prohibitive.” When answering Manville’s question about a buffer, he said, “We haven’t looked at that, I’m not sure I understand why that would be necessary … We’d be happy to look at that, whether it’s planting or some kind of low fence.”

When addressing the Hillcrest cut-through, Hollister said, “Commissions cannot assume a traffic violation. You have to assume people … are gonna comply.” He added that people who cut through the development would be trespassing and subject to fines and prosecution. He said the “signage will be effective” because it is not “just traffic management, it’s a property right.”

Hollister invited Hua back to answer Widmann’s question.

Hua measured Hillcrest; the roadway is about 19.5 feet. DOT uses 11 foot lanes on state roads. He divided 19.5 by two, which is about nine feet, making the lanes on Hillcrest “a little bit narrow.” He explained that the typical width of a car is six and a half feet, which would allow for two passenger cars to get by each other easily. Hua’s opinion is that people drive slower on a road like Hillcrest anyway, so he does not think 19 feet is a “problem for standard passenger cars.”

When discussing Meadows’ question about deterring a left turn out of the driveway, Hua suggested marking the pavement instead of using a curb because people will hit the curb coming into the development, especially a larger vehicle like a firetruck.

After Hua’s comments, Rosen opened the floor to public comment.

Public Comment

Before any member of the public spoke, Rosen reminded them of a few things. First and foremost, he informed the crowd at a certain point, comments would be cut off due to length of the meeting and how much there was to discuss. He then reminded the crowd that this is an 8-30g application, which means the only grounds for denial would be public health and safety issues. Traffic is not grounds for denial alone.

Julieta England was the first to speak. She had two issues with the development, the first being that Newtown Volunteer Ambulance Association responds to, on average, nine calls a day. She stressed that this is a volunteer organization. Her second issue with the development is that Aquarion wells were taken offline following the historic flooding on August 18 last year. As a result, she said that Newtown does not have a “stable, healthy water system” and water pressure issues persist, which can cause problems when accessing fire hydrants for fighting fires.

Sam Grummons spoke next. He expressed support for the development, saying, “I’m here because the people most affected by your decision, they can’t be here tonight. They’re working second shifts at Danbury Hospital, they’re at home with the kids. They don’t have the luxury to take time off to come here … They’re the nurses, teachers, and police officers who make Newtown run. They’re the customers keeping My Place restaurant and Station 25 in business, and they’re being priced out. I’d like you to understand that for every delay and every denial, the people I just described — they’re the ones who pay the price.”

Grummons continued, saying that P&Z has denied between 300-400 housing units that represent $2-4 million in tax revenue that funds the schools. He urged the commission to “identify legitimate concerns that should become conditions of approval.” He then said to “close the hearings, schedule the votes, make decisions. That is what leadership looks like. Make democracy work for all of us, not just a few of us.”

Janet McKeown was the next commenter. She expressed her opposition, citing concern for children waiting for the school bus. The Covered Bridge apartment complex has a few children living there, and she said that the bus has to make several maneuvers to safely get out of Covered Bridge Road and back out onto Hawleyville Road.

Vern Gaudey also raised concerns about traffic and the narrow nature of Hillcrest Drive. He requested an independent traffic study be done before the commission approves the application. Nichole Coakley also expressed concerns about traffic and the narrowness of Hillcrest.

Michael Ricciardi echoed points made about traffic and noted that the intersection of Mount Pleasant Road and Hawleyville Road was already “rated as an F, a failure” for a previous application in this area. Dave Ackert then spoke, and he wanted to “advocate for the safety of the ten homeowners on Hillcrest.” He agreed with the points made before him that traffic is an issue, and an independent traffic study should be conducted. Braeden Wilson said he has experienced property damage due to semi-trucks going up Hillcrest Drive and not realizing it is a dead-end road.

Linda Nobes expressed concern about pedestrian safety. Now that Covered Bridge is in that area, more people are walking in that area than ever. She also said that people use Hillcrest as a turnaround because of traffic, and tractor trailers have damaged property.

Doreen Trimarchi was the last person to speak during this section of public comment. She raised concerns about Pond Brook and informed the commission that she has contacted CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to investigate potential impacts of this development on Pond Brook, which she said also has wild trout in it, much like Deep Brook. She asked that the hearing be continued so DEEP can investigate her complaint.

Rosen thanked all the speakers for coming and noted that, while traditionally the applicant has an opportunity to respond, the commission would be skipping that aspect of the meeting and continuing to the next application.

Before discussing the next application, Rosen asked the commission for a motion to extend the public hearing to the next meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The next meeting will be Thursday, November 6, 7 pm, at Newtown Community Center.

More coverage of this meeting is to come in next week’s print edition.

=====

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