Date: Fri 29-Aug-1997

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-firefighting-water

Full Text:

P&Z Reviews Rules On Firefighting Water Supplies

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members fine-tuned zoning regulations

August 21 on the placement of firefighting water supplies at development sites

in an effort to make the rules more workable.

The P&Z had approved zoning rules requiring the installation of underground

water storage tanks for firefighting at new industrial, commercial and

residential developments in September 1996. Fire officials had sought the

promulgation of such rules for several years, first from the Legislative

Council and then from the P&Z.

After the regulations were in effect for several months, Fire Marshal George

Lockwood last April made suggestions to the P&Z on how the rules could be made

more workable.

The changes made by the P&Z August 21 eliminate some ambiguities in the

original regulations, more clearly stating the fire protection requirements.

Elizabeth Stocker, the P&Z's planning aide, told P&Z members the revised

regulations require that the stored water be kept only on the development

site. The earlier version of the regulations had allowed water to be stored

off the site, but near to it.

The regulations require non-metallic underground water storage tanks for fire

protection. The water tanks may be fed from a stream or river, roof drains,

parking lot drains or any other reliable water source. Tanks must be kept at

least 80 percent full.

Commercial complexes of less than 5,000 square feet may be exempted from the

water supply regulations, if the fire marshal and district fire chief

determine the nature of the business doesn't pose a high fire risk.

New residential subdivisions, resubdivisions and multifamily complexes will be

required to store water for firefighting.

The regulations allow a surface water supply for firefighting, such as a pond,

provided that it is maintained and accessible throughout the year. The fire

pond must be within 1,000 feet of each industrial building, commercial

building, or each feasible home site in a residential subdivision,

resubdivision or multifamily complex.

The revised rules specify the amount of water that must be stored for

firefighting, based on the type of development and its size.

The revised rules allow the fire marshal and district fire chief to review the

site proposed for a surface water supply to ensure that it's practical in

terms of the fire apparatus that's available for firefighting there.

The new rules require that applications for a natural or man-made on-site

surface water supply be accompanied by a drainage analysis prepared by a

licensed professional engineer. Such a report must state the minimum amount of

water available during the dry season and must also indicate the source and

amount of water available during all weather conditions.

The regulations require that developers install firefighting water storage

supplies within two years as guaranteed by the terms of a construction

performance bond.

Town fire officials pursued getting water storage regulations in light of

ongoing local development.

Sandy Hook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company Chief Bill Halstead has said the

availability of stored water tanks will help firefighters prevent losses when

they arrive at the scene of fires. Water storage on a site is expected to cost

roughly $1 to $1.50 per gallon of water stored, he said. The costs of such

water storage could be spread by developers among the owners of houses in new

subdivisions, he said, noting that the presence of water storage tanks will

decrease fire insurance rates.

At a rate of $1.25 per stored gallon of water, the water storage regulations

would add about $50,000 to the cost of an industrial development where there's

the need to store 40,000 gallons of water.

‘Color Our World With Hope’ Filled Newtown With Music, Meaning, And Community Impact

Nighthawk Baseball Team Beats Conference Opponents

Late Goal By Ruddy Lifts Nighthawk Lacrosse Team To Victory, Showcases Chemistry In Midfield

Reed Intermediate Presents Sold-Out Performances Of 'Willy Wonka Jr'

Draw Dominance, Transition Game Lift Boys' Lacrosse Team To Lopsided Wins

Well that is some spin. The Democrats have a super majority on the LC and passed the Education Budget without serious consideration of if the voters could afford the multi million dollar increase. "Was the request justified?" rather than "is this needed?" and "can the voters shoulder yet another large increase?" The voters rightly sent it back. Then for some reason all the discussion around reductions to the increase seemed to be coming from the classroom, rather than administration and overhead costs. Is this a coercive tactic to manipulate parents into supporting the budget like tacit threat of cutting freshman sports was two years ago? Who believes the Democrats did not caucus privately before the meeting and came in with a number already worked out? This is the Dems budget, they own it.

Education Cuts: Who Voted For What

I think it is important that we do not villainize every black box seen around a home, business, farm, or municipal property. A black exterior station does not always mean rat poison is being used. These stations can hold a number of different products, including monitoring blocks, snap traps, non-toxic bait, anti-tick bait stations, organic salt- or cornmeal-based control products, and newer fertility-control approaches intended to reduce rodent populations without traditional poisons. The better conversation, in my opinion, is not simply “black boxes are bad,” but rather: what is inside them, who is maintaining them, and whether the rodent issue is being managed responsibly. Exclusion, sanitation, trapping, habitat reduction, and careful monitoring should all be part of a responsible IPM strategy. To be fair, on my own property I do use rodenticides, including Bromethalin and Bromadiolone, in secured bait stations. But that is a choice I make for my property, based on my circumstances and the risk I am trying to manage. I also believe property owners should understand the tradeoffs and be encouraged to use the least harmful effective method whenever possible. I support protecting Newtown’s wildlife. I also support giving residents accurate information and not assuming that every black box represents reckless or unsafe pest control. The goal should be responsible rodent management, not fear of the box itself.

Discusses Policy Against Rodenticides

Debora, thank you! I accidentally doubled the project prices by adding the bond to the appropriation. Thank you so much for catching that and pointing it out. With the corrected numbers, the voters approved a combined $1.32 million for a salt shed ($600k) and library pavement ($720k), while rejecting the $1.12 million replacement turf. Regarding the 80s, I truly respect the hurdle of 14% mortgage rates. My point is simply that the math has shifted: in 1980, while the rates were higher, the price of a home relative to earnings was significantly lower. We are facing a different, but equally crushing, financial wall. Ultimately, it is disheartening that voters who recognized safe sidewalks and parking lots as essential, dismissed a playing field in the exact same condition. The turf has passed its life cycle and is just as much of a liability as the library’s pavement, the only difference is that this safety concern affects thousands of children who, coincidentally, cannot vote. These are apples-to-apples needs. I was hopeful our community would agree that all Newtown residents deserve safe conditions, regardless of which facility they utilize. Again, I would be remiss not to mention that when 82% of residents don’t show up, we have to deal with the interests of those who did. Hopefully, the next referendum will have a bigger turnout.

The ‘Me’ Generation

Thanks for the reply. I meant the numbers you presented in your letter. I found one place where other numbers were listed: https://www.newtownbee.com/04232026/get-out-and-vote-on-the-2026-27-proposed-municipal-and-school-budgets/?q=\\\%22advisory%20questions\\\%22. In that article, the numbers were cited as: Treadwell field: $1,125,000 Library: $720,000 Salt Storage: $600,000 As one who started out in the early 80's when inflation was double digits, my 1985 mortgage rate was 14%, and child care costs were comparable (in present value), I shared your grief but never considered the voters ironic or shameful. PS. I agree college tuition is ridiculous. Thankfully, universities are offering (or considering) waiving all or most tuition for middle class families (upwards of $200,000 incomes). Hopefully, they'll also reconsider their need for those funds in the first place.

Sure! Child care costs: https://www.ffyf.org/2022/10/13/data-child-care-prices-continue-to-rise-ahead-of-midterm-elections-outpacing-inflation/ (also from 2021-2025 we had 2 children in a local daycare in Newtown and it cost us $3200 a month, so that's a number I am very familiar with) Home price / median price vs income source: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios Tuition increase vs inflation: https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/noting-a-decline-in-middle-class-students-colleges-provide-more-aid/ Hope this helps :)

<< May 2026 >>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
26	27	28	29	30	1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	1	2	3	4	5	6

Log In

Date: Fri 29-Aug-1997

Leave a Reply Cancel reply