Date: Fri 13-Dec-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-NNC-regulation-changes

Full Text:

NNC's Proposed Land Use Rule Changes Draw Mixed Reviews

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) heard differing perspectives on the

value of land use rule changes proposed by the Newtown Neighborhood Coalition

(NNC) at a December 5 hearing attended by about 200 people.

The changes to the local land use regulations were proposed by the NNC in an

effort to curb residential growth in Newtown.

Some residents believe the proposals make good sense and should be enacted

swiftly to put a lid on continuing residential development.

Some developers, however, explained that they are in the business of home

building and the proposed new regulations wouldn't slow down the current

growth rate, but would simply create more regulatory obstacles that they would

maneuver around to get construction approvals.

The coalition's basic proposals involve:

Eliminating construction on residential back lots, or interior lots, unless

special permission is granted.

Reducing the number of houses allowed on new dead end streets from the current

15 to 4, and limiting such streets to 750-foot lengths.

Requiring that a minimum 10 percent of "quality" land be set aside as open

space land within new residential subdivisions.

The coalition is an umbrella group consisting of several neighborhood

associations and others who have expressed concern over the rapid pace of

residential growth. Coalition members have expressed fears that increased

residential development and higher housing densities will adversely affect the

town's character.

Before the hearing date, the coalition withdrew from consideration its

proposal known as "upzoning," a sweeping change which would greatly increase

the minimum lot size requirements for most residential zones in town, thus

greatly decreasing potential construction densities. The withdrawal came in

the face of technical complexities posed by upzoning, as well as legal

challenges expected to follow its possible passage.

At the hearing, P&Z Chairman John DeFilippe read a letter in which the Greater

Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency stated the coalition proposals appear to

have been hastily assembled. Implementing the changes in an effective manner

would require a complete rewriting of the town's land use regulations,

according to the Bridgeport-based agency.

Public Comments

Resident Mae Schmidle of Echo Valley Road, a coalition member, reading from a

prepared statement, said "Everyone is acutely aware that Newtown is facing a

critical crossroads in our development and growth. Will Newtown grow and

develop like towns to the south of us, perhaps Monroe, or towns to the north

of us, perhaps like Bridgewater?"

Mrs Schmidle called for measured, reasonable growth in line with the town's

ability to cope with that growth.

"Newtown has an exemplary plan of development that says it best. Just to be

consistent with out own plan of development would be the very best vision of

our town," she said.

Kurt Gillis of Jeremiah Road, a coalition member, said no single land use rule

change would solve the problems of overdevelopment. Summing up the intent of

the coalition's various proposals, he said "The intended effect (is) fewer

houses, period."

"Our way reduces the houses and the (potential) density," he said.

"The goal is to minimize the impact of development... More open space means

fewer houses," he said.

"Change is never easy. It's usually unpleasant and scary," he added. "Land is

limited. We cannot make more of it," he said.

Resident Richard Haas of Plumtrees Road the proposed rule changes are

ill-conceived and won't serve their intended purpose, terming them

"counterproductive." Mr Haas, a builder and developer, said that when stricter

development rules are approved by a town, it usually results in added

development. Eliminating rear lots would result in additional road building,

he said.

Resident Edward Rudisill of Butterfield Road said that approving the proposed

rules would result in lower housing densities and higher-quality housing,

meaning more tax revenue for the town.

Selectman Gary Fetzer of Old Bethel Road spoke in favor of the proposed

changes. Mr Fetzer, who heads the town's Greenways Committee, said that open

space designated by developers must be usable in the town's greenways trail

netowrk. Added residential development would result in more public school

students and higher educational spending, as well as added demands on local

volunteer firefighters, he said.

Resident Jerry Renjilian of Boggs Hill Road, a rear lot owner, said it would

be unfair to change development rules on rear lots. He said he has owned his

rear lot for 20 years and has paid taxes on it, adding he may want to sell it

in the future.

Resident Billie Houeix of Taunton Lake Road asked that P&Z members keep the

presence of trees in mind when granting development approvals. The large-scale

cutting of trees can have very negative effects on the visual quality of a

place, she said. Ms Houeix suggested the passage regulations on tree

protection and tree replacement.

Developers' Views

Attorney Robert Hall of Main Street, representing M&E Land Group, said the

coalition's proposals aren't forward-looking. "This regulation is not going to

stand up in court," he said. People with "interior land" would be deprived of

their right to develop it, he said. The town has allowed rear lots since 1959

and the arrangement has worked well, he said. The only reason the proposals

have been made is to cut potential housing densities, he said.

Developer Larry Edwards of Easton said developers buy land based on its zoning

classification. Based on a particular parcel's "lot yield," property owners

would be financially hurt by such rule changes, not developers, he said. "This

quick fix is going to open up Pandora's box," he said. The proposed changes

wouldn't cut potential densities, he said, adding developers would be able to

maintain current development densities.

The 42-lot Camelot subdivision planned for 110 acres off Hattertown Road could

still hold 42 lots under the proposed rules, but it would involve building an

additional 1,000 to 1,500 feet of roadway there to fit all the lots on the

site, he said. The proposed rules would result in houses being "stacked"

alongside roads, he said. And if some parcel can't be subdivided under the

proposed rules, Mr Edwards suggested the land would then become more

attractive as a site for affordable housing.

Resident Dale Walter of Fairchild Road endorsed the coalition's proposals. He

said the rules would limit development, as well as protect water supplies and

uphold property values. "Only a developer and his cronies believe there's no

problem," he said of opposition to the coalition's rule changes. Residents

have made it clear that there are problems with local development, he said,

adding there's been much public support for rule changes.

Resident Carol Ando of Berkshire Road said "Development is out of control and

that's what I really feel... and a lot of people are affected by it." She

asked the P&Z to maintain the town's natural beauty.

State Representative Julia Wasserman of Walnut Tree Hill Road said the

coalition's proposal on restricting rear lot development could result in the

Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) ruling on such development proposals. The rear

lot restrictions could reduce property values and negatively affect the grand

list, she said. The rear lot rule changes require study, she said. Large

interior areas would essentially be undevelopable, she said. "The impact needs

to be completely defined and evaluated," she said.

Brian Hennessey of Eden Hill Road, a coalition member, suggested that the P&Z

hire its own lawyer for town land use matters. The P&Z's chief task now is to

rewrite its zoning regulations as specified by the 1993 town plan of

development, he said.

Mary Jo Runkle, a Maltbie Road resident who is new to Newtown, said Newtown

isn't a cheap place to live. But, she added "This is the last affordable place

we can afford to move to and still be in Fairfield County. If you want to keep

it rural, move to Litchfield County, go to Montana."

Developer Charles Spath of Trumbull said the coalition's proposed rule changes

have many flaws, terming them "confiscatory." The proposed rules would result

in more tree cutting and road building to get developments in place, he said.

"This proposal will actually accelerate development and lower land values...

There is a lot of potential for improving the regulations, but it cannot be a

quick fix," he said.

Resident Eric Roundy of Buttonball Drive, a coalition member, said the

overriding issue driving the coalition's push for stricter land use rules is

to limit residential construction densities.

Of the criticisms leveled at the coalition's proposed rule changes, Mr Gillis

said "It's evident that this needs some tweaking. The intent of these

regulations, we stand by...This will be the beginning of the end of Newtown's

downslide." It would be much less costly to tighten the land use rules than to

spend public money to buy open space land, he said. "The regulations are a

full-time job. They need to be tweaked and tweaked and retweaked," he said.

Mr DeFilippe said he expects the P&Z will vote on the coalition's proposals in

late January or early February.