Date: Fri 14-Nov-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Newtown-Village-affordable

Full Text:

P&Z Rejects Controversial Newtown Village Plan

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

Listing a host of objections to Newtown Village, a controversial high-density

96-house condominium development proposed for Sandy Hook, Planning and Zoning

Commission (P&Z) members have unanimously rejected the project.

P&Z members turned down the complex proposed for 32 acres near the Exit 11

on-ramp of Interstate 84 at a November 6 session. The developers have proposed

that 24 of the houses be designated as affordable housing.

Shortly after the rejection, John Horton of D&H Homes, LLC, of New Milford,

which is one of the applicants for Newtown Village, said he hadn't yet read

the P&Z's 11-page rationale for turning down the condo complex. Mr Horton said

the developers will analyze the document, adding he expects that they will

file a court appeal in seeking the construction of Newtown Village.

"We'll be pursuing this," Mr Horton said as Michael Petti, the project's

engineering supervisor, looked on.

Lawyers representing affected parties have followed every phase of the

application process since D&H Homes and Fairfield 2000 Homes Corporation

submitted a wetlands construction application to the Conservation Commission

in September 1996.

The developers want to build Newtown Village under the provisions of a state

affordable housing law. The law provides developers with a "density bonus,"

allowing them to construct more units in a complex than would be normally

allowed by an area's zoning designation. The site eyed for development has R-

1 Acre zoning, requiring at least one acre of land to build a single-family

home.

The state law provides developers with certain leverage in the state court

system to get affordable housing projects approved. Legal appeals to rejected

affordable housing projects are handled by a special state court.

If a town fails to demonstrate to a judge that a proposed affordable housing

complex harms the public health and safety, the town can be forced to accept

the project.

Newtown Village has been the most protracted and controversial residential

development proposal in Newtown in the past several years.

P&Z members conducted an October session at which they discussed their

concerns about Newtown Village. Those concerns formed the content of the

11-page motion in which P&Z members unanimously rejected two requests from the

developers. The developers sought an amendment to the zoning regulations to

allow construction of a small-scale sewer system to treat wastewater from the

proposed houses. The developers also sought a special exception to the zoning

regulations to build the complex.

"We certainly have had a lot of hours spent on this application," said P&Z

chairman Stephen Koch of the many meetings which were held to discuss the

matter.

P&Z member Heidi Winslow said the 11-page motion written by attorney Timothy

Bates, the town's special counsel on the Newtown Village application, reflects

the publicly expressed sentiments of the P&Z.

Ms Winslow made a motion to deny the developers' requested zoning amendment to

allow small sewer systems in multi-family housing complexes.

Amending those regulations would have far-reaching negative effects on the

town, she said. Such an amended zoning regulation would run counter to the

Water Pollution Control Authority's (WPCA) sewer avoidance policy, she said.

Last March, the developers sought but did not receive WPCA approval to extend

the town sewer system to the Newtown Village site.

P&Z member James Boylan voiced his opposition to Newtown Village, noting that

development there could potentially harm the Pootatuck Aquifer, worsen

existing traffic congestion problems on Route 34, and create a mining

operation for the excavation of more than 186,000 cubic yards of earth

material at the site.

The motion to reject the requested amendment incorporates the contents of Mr

Bates' legal opinion.

Sewer Amendment

In his legal opinion summarizing P&Z members' views on the application, Mr

Bates wrote that allowing small sewer systems would reverse the WPCA's and

P&Z's positions which call for sewer avoidance in rural areas and

environmentally sensitive sections of town. P&Z members believe the town will

be better served if the WPCA's policies and objectives are in accord with the

zoning regulations, according to the attorney.

Also, a major purpose of the sewer avoidance policy is preventing the

possibility of a sewer system failure resulting in groundwater being exposed

to large quantities of untreated wastewater, according to Mr Bates. The

developers had proposed discharging treated wastewater from the small sewer

system into the ground.

The town's sewer avoidance policy is in accord with the Connecticut

Conservation and Development Policies Plan which supports sewer avoidance in

designated conservation areas and rural areas, according to the lawyer.

If the town allows small sewer systems to be installed, the town would be

exposed to significant environmental risks when such systems fail, according

to the P&Z motion.

The P&Z's environmental concerns over the Newtown Village proposal outweigh

the need for affordable housing at the site, according to the motion.

In an apparent reference to the recently-approved Riverview Condominiums

affordable housing complex planned for Washbrook Road, the motion states that

affordable housing will be built here in accordance with the zoning

regulations and the town's sewer avoidance policies. Riverview will employ a

conventional community septic system for wastewater disposal, not a small

sewer system.

"Both affordable housing and sewer avoidance constitute important public

policies of the town... and each policy can be fulfilled without negating the

other," P&Z members voted.

Special Exception

Ms Winslow then moved that the P&Z deny the applicants' request for a special

exception to the zoning regulations to build the complex.

P&Z member Daniel Fogliano said P&Z members understand the local need for

affordable housing, but said of Newtown Village, "This is not the right plan

for the right place."

"When the right (plan) comes along, we're behind it 100 percent," he said of

developments such as Riverview Condominiums.

Ms Winslow said she hopes other developers will propose other affordable

housing developments which are responsible and safe proposals.

In the motion, P&Z members agreed that without WPCA approval to install a

small sewer system at the Newtown Village site, the P&Z cannot grant the

requested special permit.

In the past, the applicants have argued that they are caught in a regulatory

tangle or "Catch-22" situation between the P&Z and the WPCA.

The applicants propose having all traffic enter and exit the site from the

area where Interstate 84's Exit 11 on-ramps and off-ramps cross over Route 34.

According to the P&Z motion, such a traffic flow arrangement will create

additional congestion and traffic hazards on existing streets. The traffic

design would pose collision hazards to vehicles entering and exiting the site

and traffic in the area would increase due to the presence of the Fairfield

Hills bypass road now under construction, according to the P&Z.

The presence of a 96-house development would worsen traffic congestion in the

vicinity of the intersections of Toddy Hill Road and Route 34, and Pole Bridge

Road and Route 34, the P&Z concluded.

The development plan does not provide an adequate school bus stop along Route

34, nor does there appear to be room for such a bus stop, according to the

P&Z. Newtown Village students attending Newtown High School would be expected

to walk to and from the high school, but no sidewalk has been or will be

provided to do so, creating a very dangerous pedestrian situation, the P&Z

states. There is no apparent room for a sidewalk in the area, it adds.

School and police officials do not endorse the applicants' traffic plan,

according to P&Z members.

Concerning the internal private roads in the proposed Newtown Village, P&Z

members find: the proposal lacks enough visitor parking spaces; the visitor

parking spaces which are provided are not as close as they should be to the

houses in the complex; turns by large vehicles on two streets would be

difficult due to street design flaws; the intersection of the complex's

driveway with Route 34 is inadequate for large vehicles; and the private roads

do not meet town road ordinance standards.

Mining Operation

Of the proposal to mine more than 186,000 cubic yards of earth materials from

the site to ready it for home construction, the P&Z members ruled: "While the

site requires extensive landscaping, the proposed scale of gravel removal in

this instance is excessive and bears no relationship to the 200 cubic yards

per (dwelling) permitted under the regulations without (a) special permit...

The proposal constitutes a mining operation for gravel, but the applicant has

not requested a permit for such an operation, nor could such a permit be

issued in a residential zone such as this... The regulations for affordable

housing require that the applicants maintain existing vegetation and

topography to the extent possible, and the application fails to fulfill either

of these objectives... The number of trucks and the length of time required to

remove gravel from the site is especially of concern in light of the (poor)

level of service of the surrounding intersections along Route 34."

Summation

In their motion turning down Newtown Village, P&Z members concur that the town

needs additional affordable housing and they have sought to encourage it

through applicable town regulations, but they want to foster affordable

housing complexes that respect other substantial public interests of the town.

The negative aspects of the Newtown Village proposal outweigh the need for

affordable housing, they add.

"The developer could not even tell the commission what (housing) density could

be supported by the site, if mechanical septic treatment were not utilized,"

according to the P&Z.

"The positioning of the exit and entrance adjacent to poorly functioning

intersections along Route 34 poses a health and safety concern to students,

the general driving public and future residents...and it is not apparent to

this commission how the exit and entrance could be realigned to meet these

concerns," it adds. "The commission finds that the public interests...cannot

be protected by reasonable changes to the proposed affordable housing

development."