In a little bit of an unorthodox Newtown Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, November 6, the continuation of applications 25.22 and 25.23 commenced.

The two applications are for the same plot of land, 188-190 Mt Pleasant Road. The first application, 25.22, is for a text amendment to Newtown’s 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.” Application 25.23 is for a zone change for 188-190 Mt Pleasant Road from BPO, or business and professional office, to the proposed “Mount Pleasant Development District.”

Stephen Bellis, the attorney representing the applicant, walked the commission through a conceptual site plan at the last meeting. The conceptual site plan, which was filed under Connecticut General Statute 8-30g, detailed 300 apartments spread out between three stilted buildings, which would allow for parking underneath. The build would take place over three phases: phase one would be 69 units; phase two would be 88 units; and phase three would be 144 units. The plan provided 1.8 parking spaces per unit, which would provide over 500 parking spaces. Bellis explained that there would be 124 one-bedroom apartments and 184 two-bedroom units. There are proposed amenities for residents as well, including a pool, club house, and gym.

After Commissioner Barbara Manville read the applications into the record, chair David Rosen asked Bellis if there was new information to be presented. Bellis answered “no,” and that what he had prepared for the meeting were “rebuttal exhibits.”

Hearing Bellis’ request to respond to public comment, Rosen moved the meeting right along and asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Commissioner Don Mitchell was the first to speak.

Mitchell asked about mortgagees and legalities for the current property owners, to which Bellis explained that his client is a contract purchaser. If the application is approved, then the client would purchase the property, and the mortgage would be paid off.

Mitchell then asked a second question: “If the commission denies this application to amend the regulations … how will that impair your affordability plan?”

Bellis answered, “This application is for a text amendment and a zone change under 8-30g. If that is denied, I have the right to do two things. I could modify my plan … or I could go to court and sue the town … and then a court would decide.” Bellis then reminded the commission that it would not be “the final time” the commission would see this application, as the applications are for a text amendment and zone change. The plans are only conceptual right now, and Bellis would have to bring the final site plans back to Newtown Planning & Zoning to get final approval.

“You can do this project under 8-30g without a text amendment,” Mitchell said.

Bellis agreed, “Yeah. I agree.” Bellis then went over a Supreme Court case of 131 Beach Road. In this court case, the court declared that the applicant “shall” submit draft zoning regulations, which is what the text amendment is.

After this example, Rosen invited the public to speak.

Public Comments, Questions, And Concerns

Andrew Gallagher was the first to speak. He raised concerns over sight lines for the property and does not think they are adequate as is.

Sammuel Grummons spoke next. Grummons explained that he considers himself “very fortunate” to be able to have found an area to live in town, and is “all about enabling others to have the same opportunities that [he] did.” Grummons thinks Newtown is a great town, and has known several people who have had to move away because there has been “no room for them.” While he supports rezoning 188-190 Mt Pleasant Road to residential, he does not think the proposed development is the way to go.

“Right now, it feels like we’re being tugged between two extremes … We desperately, desperately need … starter homes, downsizer homes, condos. Homes for families who want to start here, and for seniors who want to stay here,” Grummons said. He suggested the commission rezone this property for 8,000 square foot lots.

Christine Updegraff stated her perplexity on the situation. She stated there is a “growing gap” between what it costs to live in town and what “ordinary people” can afford. She said that Newtown does need some “smaller unit housing done right in the right place.” Updegraff thinks Mt Pleasant Road makes sense for housing because it is near resources and near I-84.

Joy Brewster raised concerns about sight lines and trees needing to come down. She reminded the commission that when the trees are cut, “the trees are gone.”

Don Leonard spoke next. Leonard put together a brief presentation about traffic in the area and also raised concerns about sight lines. He explained that when the sun reaches a certain point in the sky, drivers are blinded and are not able to see. At the end of his presentation, he said, “This is what they have to deal with,” while playing a video of car after car driving up and down Mt Pleasant Road.

Moira TeeKing, owner of Pleasant Dental of Newtown, shared three concerns of hers to the commission. The first was sight lines and elevation, creating a “limit” to the sight lines. She wants the proposed development’s driveway to be moved to a flatter, straighter section of Mt Pleasant. TeeKing’s driveway is a “State of Connecticut right-of-way,” and she expects current access rights to stay the same. She also raised concerns for a property close to this proposed development and wondered if the owner had been notified about the project, any blasting that will be done, and how drainage may affect that parcel.

Heidi Winslow then approached the podium. Winslow handed each commissioner a folder with three documents in it. The three documents were an annotated version of the applicant’s text amendment for “Mount Pleasant Development District,” a sample mixed-income zone for Mt Pleasant Road, and “Key Reasons for Denial of the Applicant’s Proposed 188-190 Mt Pleasant Road Text Amendment.”

Winslow said to the commission, “The most important thing that is wrong with [the applicant’s text amendment] is that his definition of site plan is very different from that which you are accustomed to in Newtown.”

In Winslow’s document, she went through the proposed regulations of Section 9 and responded to every article. Winslow pointed out that provisions left out of the proposed text amendments include underground utility lines, sight lines at the highway intersection, a plan for sight line maintenance, a blasting plan (if being contemplated), and aquifer protections, including aquifer recharge areas and watershed protection areas.

Winslow’s sample of a mixed-income development district included a maximum building height of 70 feet. In her annotations of the applicant’s text amendment, she responded to the 80 foot building height, “Newtown has volunteer fire companies. The closest Newtown fire company to Mt Pleasant Road is the Hawleyville Volunteer Fire Company. The tallest ladder they have is 75 feet. Firefighters would not be able to access the roof of an 80-foot building … The building height provision is also deficient in that it fails to state from what point on the ground the building height is to be measured.”

In Winslow’s “Key Reasons for Denial” document, the last two sections she wrote regard water and sewer access. She noted Aquarion’s inability to connect new developments to water lines due to the August 18 flood last year. She also notes that the sewer pipe on Mt Pleasant does not flow into Newtown, it flows into Danbury’s water treatment plant. Due to this, the sewer pipe has limited capacity for Newtown. The capacity is 150,000 gallons.

Winslow writes, “After the approval of the 67-unit Kelmendi Apartments project at 128-130 Mt Pleasant Road, the remaining capacity will be about 93,000 gallons. Three hundred additional residential units will use thirty-five (35%) percent of the remaining capacity.” She also noted that the developer would have to pay about $1.5 million up front to secure that much sewer capacity.

After Winslow spoke, Linda Haske, president of Liberty of Newtown Homeowners Association, approached the commission. She asked them to look out and see her fellow neighbors who attended because they are concerned about this project.

Tulio Lopez spoke next. He expressed worry over water capacity due to the water restrictions that were in place over the summer. He also said the 300 units will consume around 22 million gallons of water a year, and the proposed complex down the hill (128-130 Mt Pleasant Road) would consume about 5 million a year. He begged the commission to “not … sign a blank check” and not to approve the text amendment. He then thanked State Representative Mitch Bolinsky, whom Lopez invited personally and attended, for coming to see “how 8-30g has been weaponized in many directions.”

Mary Louise Rekart spoke last. She asked how many developments like this are being built in Newtown, and Rosen informed her he could not speak to that. She carried on her comments, saying that she is concerned for EMTs and Hawleyville Fire Company volunteers. She urged the commission to think of the overload on Newtown’s volunteer EMTs as a safety concern.

Bellis’ Rebuttal, Edwards Goes Over Plan Specs

Bellis returned to the podium and went through several exhibits he compiled after listening to public comment at the last meeting. One of the exhibits was a report from a soil scientist who confirms no building will be done in or around a “regulated area, meaning in the wetlands that have been flagged,” Bellis said.

Kermit Hua, the traffic engineer on this project, included one accident that was brought up by Frank Scalzo at the last meeting. Bellis said he “just wanted to make sure everyone knew that we had recognized that.” Hua also included a slide in Bellis’ presentation that went over sight lines explicitly as that has been a major point of concern from the public.

Bellis explained a little bit about Aquarion and what is happening with the “will-serve” letters. He said that Aquarion has struck a deal with “Pootatuck Club to obtain more water and once they do that, there will be sufficient water for these projects.”

“I recognize that you may be familiar with your own regulations, and there’s some frustration because we’re not following those regulations, but I didn’t write the state law, I’m just following it. This is not my first rodeo in doing this … Whether some of the commissions have approved on their own, others we go to court, and I win in court,” Bellis said. “The judges feel that the legislature wanted affordability in these 8-30g applications, and therefore they shift the burden to the commission to give substantial reasons as to why the application should have been approved.”

Bellis informed the commission that he and his team have given the commission enough information to make a decision regarding the text amendment and zone change, and that, if approved, Bellis would return to the commission with a fully detailed site plan that includes soil tests, drainage report, a lighting plan, etc.

After Bellis explained that the commission can request “reasonable changes” and Bellis could agree with them or not, Jason Edwards, principal engineer at J. Edwards Associates, approached the podium and gave a brief overview of the site plan again.

Edwards explained that he and his team have created more access around the building for first responders. Edwards also talked about sight lines and admitted that while they are not adequate right now, construction will “improve” the conditions. The proposed development will need to go to OSTA, or the Office of State Traffic Administration, due to both its size and proximity to a state highway. OSTA will have a lot of input on the final site plan and may require a light to be placed in front of the development.

Edwards ended his comments, and Bellis returned saying, “I ask that the public hearing be closed.”

Bellis And Commissioners Debate Leaving Public Hearing Open

Bellis said that if this project is approved, he will have to go to Inland Wetlands Commission to get the proper reports and appear before the commission again with a final site plan.

Rosen thanked him and then asked if the commissioners had any further questions. Commissioner Roy Meadows spoke first. He asked if Edwards could “talk a little bit more” about the sight lines. Edwards explained that the area has been surveyed and that the shoulder will be re-graded.

After Meadows’ question, Rosen took the floor again, “At this point, I’ve heard your request to close the public hearing. I’m inclined to grant that. I will say, from my perspective, without a site plan here, this is a lot to absorb, and I’m not prepared to vote on this tonight. We don’t have to vote on this tonight, and I would suggest to the commission that we take to the next meeting, at least to vote.”

He added that it is hard to think about “health and safety” when an application is only a text amendment and zone change and thinks that it puts the commission “in a difficult position, which I don’t like.”

Meadows said that he “would propose that we keep the public hearing open.” He thinks that people may have more things to say after Bellis’ rebuttal.

Rosen looked over to Patricia Sullivan, the town’s attorney, and asked if the commission was up against a timeline. Sullivan shook her head yes. Rosen asked if Bellis would grant another 35 day extension. Bellis replied, “I am not.”

Bellis said the public has had its opportunity to speak twice and he offered his rebuttal, “That’s just the way things work.”

Commissioner Connie Widmann asked if closing the public hearing meant closing the commission’s comment period as well. Rosen replied no, that it would only affect the public. Meadows asked if the commission had a choice to close the public hearing. Sullivan said no because Bellis would not grant them another 35-day period.

Sullivan explained that closing the public hearing is not an “automatic approval,” and that the commission can discuss whether or not they have enough information to approve or deny this application at the next meeting. Meadows and Sullivan continued to go back and forth, with Meadows asking what does a “nay” vote mean in this context. Sullivan said that no matter what, Bellis is not granting an extension, “So, ergo the public hearing.”

After a brief exchange between the two, Rosen continued with the motions on the floor. Both motions passed, and Rosen said at the next meeting, the commissioners will “hopefully … be able to render a decision.”

While the public hearing is now closed, the commissioners’ discussion of the applications will continue to Thursday, December 4, 7 pm, at Newtown Municipal’s Council Chambers.

=====

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