On Thursday, December 4, Newtown’s Planning & Zoning Commission held a regular meeting. At this meeting, five applications were discussed and votes were passed.

At the beginning, David Rosen, chair, explained to the crowd that some “administrative” items had to be taken care of before applications were discussed. The first administrative item was the nominations of chair, vice chair, and secretary, as well as appointing a new Republican alternate.

Nominations were heard for the three positions. David Rosen was nominated as chair, and the vote passed unanimously (with Rosen abstaining); Connie Widmann was nominated as vice chair — this vote was also passed unanimously (with Widmann abstaining); and Barbara Manville was nominated as secretary. That vote also passed unanimously.

Following these nominations, Widmann explained that David Landau, the newly reelected Republican alternate, had to step down.

“At this moment, on the agenda, we do not have an item to appoint a new alternate, and per the charter, we, as a whole commission, appoint in the party the person who has resigned. So I would like to request the board to vote to add to the agenda the topic of appointing a new Republican alternate for the next two years,” Widmann said.

This motion passed, and Widmann explained that Newtown Republican Town Committee is presenting Charles Gardner as an alternate. Widmann requested to approve Gardner as the new alternate. That motion also passed unanimously.

Newly elected Democratic commissioner Peter Schwarz said, “[Gardner] is a very smart, capable guy. While I’m very sorry to see David have to go, I think that … Charlie will make the town very happy.”

“On behalf of David Landau, he, as an alternate, was a very large contributor to our discussions. He brought a wealth of knowledge, I really liked to have his viewpoints as an agent and as a businessperson in town. He did a great job and always had the town at heart. He will be sorely missed with the board. Charlie is a great addition, but I wish David all the best,” Rosen said.

Rosen then congratulated Jill Soderholm, the newly elected Democratic alternate, and Schwarz for their new positions.

Following these administrative topics, the meeting officially began.

Discussion Of And Voting On 188-190 Mt Pleasant Road

During the October 16 and November 6 meetings, Newtown Planning & Zoning Commission heard applications 25.22 and 25.23 for a text amendment change and a rezoning for a property located 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.”

The application is a conceptual site plan which includes three buildings, comprised of 300 apartment units, under Connecticut General Statute 8-30g. The complex would be rolled out in three phases: phase one would be one building with 68 units; phase two would be the second building with 88 units; and phase three would be 144 units. The conceptual plan also included different amenities for residents, such as a pool, clubhouse, and gym. The three buildings would be stilted to allow for parking under the buildings and the plan provided 1.8 parking spaces per unit.

During the previous two hearings, Kermit Hua, a traffic engineer, presented a traffic study and answered several questions from both the public and the commissioners. Jason Edwards, an engineer, went over sight lines and drainage plans for the commission and public, too. Attorney Stephen Bellis presented the application and offered his rebuttals to the public and commission. The three men were not present at the December 4 meeting.

At the November 6 meeting, Bellis asked for the hearing to be closed as the public had their opportunity to speak, and he offered his rebuttals to the questions, comments, and concerns. The commission had some discussion as to whether or not they would close it, and Bellis ultimately said he would not grant the commission a 35-day extension, so the hearing was to be closed regardless.

During the December 4 meeting, the commissioners discussed how they felt about this application and held an official vote for the text amendment and rezoning.

Rosen first addressed the public, “This was a hearing that is closed. We wanted to take some time, after being presented all the information and having all the presentations, to think about the application and to mull it over to render a vote today, so that is the goal.”

He then invited the commissioners to discuss the application.

Rosen started the discussion and explained that the “nature of this application” made it “very difficult for the board.” He said that the commission is there to “react” to 8-30g applications, which are usually “concrete.” Due to the conceptual nature, it was hard to understand potential health and safety impacts.

“I’m having a tough time with this one,” Rosen said.

Manville agreed, “I am also having a difficult time.”

Commissioner Roy Meadows admitted he was also having a hard time. He raised concerns about sight lines, saying that the application did not make it easy to understand if the proposed sight lines were adequate enough. He called it a “pig in a coat.”

Schwarz said, “I don’t think that these changes are appropriate,” and he said he does not think it fits in with Newtown Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). He said that the commission should “act with great caution” regarding applications like these.

Widmann agreed with her colleagues.

Manville then read the motion into the record, saying that application 25.22, the text amendment, is “found inconsistent” with the POCD. The language also included reasons for denial: “the lack of a concrete site plan makes it impossible for the commission to determine whether there are public health and safety concerns,” and “the conceptual site plan is merely a suggestion of what might be built and does not reflect what might be permitted under the text amendment.”

The commission voted unanimously in favor of the denial of the text amendment.

Manville then read the motion for denial of application 25.23, the zone change for 188-190 Mt Pleasant Road. The language was similar, saying the application was “found inconsistent” with the POCD.

The commission, again, voted unanimously in favor of the denial of the zone change.

Continued Discussion And A Vote On 128-130 Mt Pleasant Road

Similar to the application for 188-190 Mt Pleasant Road, the applicants for 128-130 Mt Pleasant and 1 Hawleyville Roads have come before Newtown P&Z Commission several times. The application was first discussed during the September 18 meeting, then again at the October 16 meeting, and once more at the November 6 meeting.

Unlike the application for 188-190 Mt Pleasant Road, Attorney Tim Hollister asked for multiple extensions from the board to get as many questions answered for both the commissioners and the public as possible.

The application is for a 67-unit apartment complex under Connecticut’s General Statute 8-30g, with 21 units set aside for the affordability component. The title of this proposed complex is Kelmendi Apartments.

Hollister approached the commission and discussed the water issue. As many readers are aware and probably remember, the historic flooding on August 18 caused a stone culvert that is part of Housatonic Railroad Company’s railways to collapse into an Aquarion wellfield. One of the wells is still offline, and repairs are still waiting to be made. As a result of this, Aquarion has not been able to provide new water hookups for developments.

Hollister said the letter from Aquarion states that repairs needed for the well will be completed by the end of 2026, and that the building will not need a water hook up “well into 2027.”

Rosen thanked Hollister and then invited the public to speak.

Janet McKeown spoke first. She admitted that she was going to repeat herself, despite the commission asking commenters not to. She was firm in her stance that Hillcrest Drive should not be opened up as an accessway for the complex. While she understands that something “will be built there,” she does not think Hillcrest should be opened in that way.

Vern Gaudet spoke next. He agreed with McKeown and does not think Hillcrest Drive should be opened as an accessway for the development. He said, “When you increase traffic tenfold, that is a safety issue.”

Aidan Music was the last to speak. Music raised concerns about water, drawing comparisons between the lot’s previous use, a restaurant, and the proposed use. He said, “A medium-sized restaurant maybe uses a couple thousand gallons per day. If we’re talking about 67 units, and we’re talking 2.2 people per unit, we’re talking approximately 150, maybe 200 people, living in those units, which will mean approximately 9,000 to 12,000 gallons per day?”

He expanded his thoughts, “They’re giving us the bare minimum affordable housing we need. We’re gonna be stuck on a hedonic treadmill of trying to make up the 700 affordable housing we need right now … if they’re going to do the bare minimum in terms of affordable housing, they could do the bare minimum in providing a real traffic study.”

Hearing no other comments, Rosen closed the public hearing.

The commission then discussed the application at length and brainstormed possible conditions of approval.

Manville was the first to comment on the application, “I understand that our hands are tied, but that doesn’t mean that the developers have to be irresponsible to the neighborhood and to the environment.”

Widmann then spoke about her concerns regarding Hillcrest and the failing rating of the intersection of Route 6 (Mt Pleasant) and Route 25 (Hawleyville Road), acknowledging that the developer has been great to work with and agreeable. She also acknowledged that the cul-de-sac on Hillcrest Drive is owned by the developer. She asked how the developer and P&Z could work together to improve traffic in the area.

Meadows also expressed worry about traffic on Hillcrest, saying, “We certainly don’t have an ideal situation here.” He stated he wants the application to include sidewalks from the upper driveway down to Route 6 and along Route 25 so residents can access the open space in the area.

Meadows also wants to see more traffic enforcement to prevent people from turning left out of the front driveway onto Route 25. He requested “substantial curbing” and a traffic island be put in the front driveway that would stop drivers from turning left.

Rosen believed those were “reasonable conditions should [the commission] approve” the application.

Schwarz piggybacked off of Meadows’ comments, saying, “I think, as it stands now without these modifications, we never approve something like this.” He believed that it would be an “example of how taking advantage of the 8-30g program puts developments where they otherwise wouldn’t have been.”

Rosen admitted to the commission and audience that he drove on Hillcrest for the first time recently to check out the location and see what residents have been discussing in public comment.

“I was thinking about the application process here … regardless of how I feel about 8-30g, I have to look at this and say, ‘Okay, the applicant, I think, did a very good job in responding to comments when they didn’t have to,’ which is very much appreciated, and there was a willingness to compromise in many places that I haven’t seen,” Rosen said. “Just note to all applicants out there this is probably the right way to go about this. The thing I’m having a tough time with goes to … Hillcrest. The road itself … there’s hairpin turns, it’s steep … I will tell you that I just picture in the winter, the increased traffic, it’s hard for me not to see a safety hazard here.”

Rob Sibley, director of Planning & Land Use, then chimed in. He noted that the commission could require a gated entrance on Hillcrest to solve the “cut through” issue.

Widmann also wanted to add a condition that the applicant work with the Design Advisory Review Board to “keep the exterior appearance be more in keeping with the community.”

Manville then read the proposed conditions out loud before reading the motion to vote, just to ensure she had it correct. The proposed conditions of approval included: sidewalks from the upper driveway to Route 6, along Route 6, and along Route 25; to create traffic curbing and a traffic island to ensure a right turn only out of the front driveway onto Route 6; a gated entry at the top of Hillcrest into the development, as well as signage on Hillcrest that the road is not a through road; and to work with the Design Advisory Board to keep with the colonial nature of the community to the extent that’s possible.

After the conditions were drafted, Manville read the motion to approve the application into the record.

The motion carried with a vote of 4-1. Widmann, Manville, Meadows, and Schwarz all voted in favor, and Rosen voted in opposition to the development.

Adding A Building To 57-57A Church Hill Road

Many Newtown residents are familiar with the ongoing construction taking place at 57-57A Church Hill Road. This project has been ongoing for a little while, and now the applicant wishes to add another building to the site plan.

Attorney Peter Olson, representing the applicant, said, “At this point, what we would like to do is put the foundation in for the front building. We don’t actually have a tenant yet, but while we have everything mobilized and on the site, doing all the construction work, it makes all the sense in the world for us to put the foundation for the front building.”

Mark Lancor, an engineer with DyMar Inc of Southbury, went through the site plan a little bit for the commission. Following Lancor’s presentation, Rosen then kicked off questioning from the commission.

He wanted to know what the difference in surface area of the building would be between the new plan and original plan. Lancor answered that it was “actually a little less” now.

Widmann wanted to confirm that it would be a single-story retail use, then inquired about the façade along Church Hill Road. She asked if the façade would be “like the side of the building,” and the applicants answered yes. The side of the building would be dressed up because, as Tony Rizzo Jr (the owner of the property) explained, it would be undesirable for the tenants of the bigger building to be looking at the back doors of the new building. Rizzo also said that the side facing Church Hill Road will also have landscaping to ensure it looks aesthetically pleasing.

The commission and the applicants talked a little bit about parking, and the applicants explained that Reverie Brewing and 57-57A Church Hill Road will share a parking lot, which will be staggered between the business hours of the brewery and the retail spaces.

Manville then said, “I have one question … when is the gym gonna open?”

Laughs erupted from the crowd and commission. Rizzo confirmed if she wanted a real answer, to which she replied “yes.” Rizzo explained the gym hopes to be open by January 1.

Rosen then asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak, which no one did. Rosen then closed the public hearing and put the application to a vote. The vote passed unanimously.

=====

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