On Thursday, October 16, Newtown Planning & Zoning Commission heard five different applications. Two applications heard that night were for a conceptual design for an apartment complex at 188-190 Mt Pleasant Road.

The first application, 25.22, is a for a text amendment to the zoning regulations to “create a zoning district to modify the affordable housing language by adding Section 9.1 — 9.12 to the text amendment for affordable housing through developing at a greater density.” The second application, 25.23, is for a zone change for 188-190 Mt Pleasant Road. The property is currently in a BPO, or business and professional office zone, and would be rezoned to the proposed “Mount Pleasant Development District.”

Attorney Stephen Bellis represented the applicant and was first to address the commission. Bellis explained that there have been several reports that Connecticut is in a “housing crisis,” and the lack of housing and affordability is “making companies leave Connecticut.” He explained that this application falls under Connecticut General Statute 8-30g, or affordable housing. Bellis then reminded the commission that an 8-30g application can only be denied due to public health and safety concerns.

“The state gives a list of towns that are exempt, you have to have ten percent affordable units in your town to be exempt. According to my research, Newtown is at approximately 2.88 percent, so clearly not an exempt [town],” Bellis said. “What am I here for tonight? I’m here for a zone change and text amendment, that’s why I’m here, under 8-30g.”

Bellis explained that the presentation the commission and crowd were about to see was only a conceptual plan, as that is all that is required of an 8-30g application. These conceptual plans do not have to be as detailed as a final site plan, but must include the number of units, how they are arranged on the property, traffic circulations/patterns, and sewer and water supply.

“So what does that really mean? That means that I have to come back to this commission. If you were to approve this application, and you did grant a zone change and a text amendment, I would certainly have to come back before this group and I would have to give you a detailed final site plan, which you would get to review like you do any site plan,” Bellis said.

The conceptual plan lays out 300 units over two parcels of land, 188 and 190 Mt Pleasant Road. The complex would be rolled out in three phases. Phase one would be 68 units, phase two would be 88 units, and phase three would be 144 units. The plan provides 1.8 parking spaces per unit, which would provide over 500 total parking spaces. The conceptual plan has 124 one-bedroom units and 184 two-bedroom units. The buildings will be stilted, which will allow for parking underneath the building, as well as additional parking throughout the property. There will be amenities for residents of these three buildings, such as a pool, club house, and gym.

There are wetlands on the property, which were marked on the site plan. Bellis said that “no activity is being proposed” in those wetlands or in the “upland regular area.” Bellis also mentioned that in March, he submitted a Water & Sewer Authority application. According to Bellis, Fred Hurley, director of Public Works, said there were “no capacity issues” for this area.

Bellis gave a brief overview of the traffic report, saying that there would be 111 trips generated in the weekday morning peak hour and 117 trips in the weekday evening peak hour.

“The conclusion of the report was that it will not pose any health or safety risks,” Bellis said. He also mentioned that the sight line distances would be “adequate” where the driveway is proposed. Bellis then explained a little bit about how 8-30g would fit into this particular development.

The applicant chose to do a “set aside” development, meaning 90 of the 300 units will be set aside for people who make 80% of the state or area income. Fifteen of the 90 units will be for those making 80% of the area income, the rest will be for those making 60% of the area income. These units will be deed restricted for 40 years.

Jason Edwards then spoke a little bit about site specifics, like sight lines, storm water management, and grading. Kermit Hua, the traffic engineer for this project, also spoke to the commission.

Hua reiterated Bellis’ earlier point about traffic, 111 trips for morning weekday peak hour and 117 for afternoon weekday peak hour. He also explained that due to this site’s location, traffic counts were collected at intersections just over the town line into Bethel. The intersection of the driveway and Route 6 would operate at levels A and C during peak hours; Route 6 and Route 25 intersection would operate between levels D and E during peak hours.

Hua said that there have been “no accident[s]” reported from the Bethel town line down the hill to the intersection of Route 6 and Suzie Drive. He added that he believes there will be “no traffic capacity issue” and “no traffic safety concerns” with this proposed development. Many residents in the crowd started a dull buzz at the end of Hua’s comments.

Bellis then reminded the commission that “the case law is really clear” in Connecticut — traffic inconvenience or additional traffic is not enough to deny an 8-30g application alone.

David Rosen, chair of P&Z, then asked the commissioners if they had any questions.

Commissioner Questions

Greg Rich first asked if Bellis could explain what part would “compel this body to approve the text amendment and zone change.” Bellis said that certain aspects of the 8-30g statute make it acceptable to present a conceptual site plan with a zone change and text amendment application. Bellis asked Rich if he answered his question, and Rich said no.

Rich stated his question again, and added, “You can’t compel us to change our own zoning regulations.”

Bellis replied, “8-30g means your zoning regulations do not apply, right? They don’t apply. It’s a state law, and I’ve created a regulation in it and I called it a text amendment, but it’s a regulation.” Bellis showed the crowd a section of the law that spells out what is expected from developers at local zoning meetings for conceptual site plans, which is previously mentioned. Bellis also explained that the zone change would be from a “corporate development district” to the “newly created housing opportunity development zone.”

Alternate Commissioner Peter Schwarz jumped in on this conversation: “I think what Greg is asking, cause I’m asking it, too, is why the zone change? Because my inference from that is you can’t do an 8-30g in the existing zone.”

Bellis replied saying that 8-30g is allowed “anywhere in town, in any zone, except industrial zones.” Bellis added, “What we’re doing here is judging whether this new zone that I’m creating can be created. And the answer is it can be, anywhere in town, if it doesn’t pose a substantial health/safety problem, or, if there is such a problem, the need is outweighed by the need for affordable housing.”

Schwarz followed up, “But if you could do an 8-30g with the existing zoning, why the change?”

Bellis said, “The existing zone … would not allow 300 units. It would not, under your zoning regulations, clearly no. The answer is no. So, I can’t do it under your regulations because I don’t believe someone has submitted such an application.”

Following this conversation, Rosen opened the meeting for public comment.

Public Comment

Moira TeeKing, a Brookfield resident, spoke first. TeeKing explained that she and her husband own Pleasant Dental, which is next to the proposed development. She said that the current BPO zone was “carefully designed for low-impact professional use.” She said that changing it to allow 300 apartment units would be “completely inconsistent with Newtown’s comprehensive plan” and thinks that it will impact her patients’ ability to access the dental office. She also said that this proposed development is in an aquifer recharge area, and the application “demands a full storm water and aquifer impact study” before rezoning is considered.

Howie Gieger spoke next. He said he has “major safety concerns” regarding the driveway configuration. He expressed concern regarding emergency access all around the site.

Don Lewis shared concern about the building height, wondering if the volunteer fire companies in town have a ladder truck big enough to reach the top of the third story in this proposal. He also shared that water pressure has been low because the well system that supplies the Mt Pleasant area has been running dry.

“Adding 300 additional housing units would most assuredly add to this problem and even raise the question of sufficient water supply in the event of a fire emergency,” Lewis said.

Ross Aronson, a property abutter, explained that he had not received any abutter letters. He believes that the project does not follow Newtown’s plan of conservation and development (POCD) and said that the application needs to be [reviewed] very carefully” due to the wetlands on the property. He asked for a continuance as he was not aware of the application.

Heidi Winslow spoke next. She thinks a zone change is not necessary for this application and asked for bigger setbacks. She believes 15-foot setbacks are not enough for fire departments to properly access the building in case of an emergency. Tulio Lopez agreed with Winslow — a zone change is not necessary for this application.

Frank Scalzo raised concerns about sunlight being in drivers’ eyes when the sight line is cut down, and also criticized Hua’s remarks about there being no reported accidents on Mt Pleasant Road.

“A year ago … three poles were taken down right in front of my house from Suzie [Drive] to the dentist office by one car,” Scalzo said. “There are accidents there, a lot.”

Dave Ackert was the last commenter to speak. He said the application feels “premature” to him because it has not gone through Inland Wetlands. He also mentioned that P&Z Commission is hearing applications that would increase Newtown’s population by five percent, and added that due to the location being near the Bethel town line, the residents will more than likely shop in Bethel, which would not contribute to Newtown’s tax revenue.

Following public comment, Rosen explained that while applicants normally have the opportunity to respond, that would take place at the next meeting for “the interest of time.” The public hearing for the two applications was continued in an unanimous decision by the commission for Thursday, November 6, 7 pm, Newtown Community Center, 8 Simpson Street.

More coverage of this meeting will appear in next week’s print edition of The Newtown Bee.

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