Several applications were up for discussion at the November 6 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. One of the applications discussed is for 25.25 by Civil 1 for a special exception at 90 Mt Pleasant Road. Majority property owner Peter D’Amico wants to build two soccer fields, an associated clubhouse, and parking for his soccer club AC Connecticut. AC Connecticut is a traveling soccer team with several Newtown youths on the team.

Chris Pawlowski, the engineer on the project, began by going over the revisions made on his original application. He informed the commission that an approval has been received from Inland Wetlands Commission and he included a copy of the resolution. He also mentioned that changes had been made to the drainage and that the turf he and his applicant plan to use has no added P-FAS, or “forever chemicals.” “Forever chemicals” are chemicals that cannot be broken down in the environment and can build up in the human body.

Additional curtain drains have been added to the plans, and Inland Wetlands made a request to route the drains through hydrodynamic separators, which Pawlowski did. The planting plan has been done in collaboration with Darryl Newman of Planter’s Choice. The plan now features all native species, including silky willows, “which are known for their filtration techniques and abilities,” as Pawlowski said.

Pawlowski also talked briefly about lighting. The original plan detailed four 40-foot light posts, but those were not allowed by Newtown’s regulations. Pawlowski edited the plans to feature eight 24-foot-tall lampposts per field, so 16 in total. The lights are also dark-sky compliant.

Pawlowski then talked about noise a bit, as a few neighbors were concerned about noise at the first meeting. Pawlowski noted that the fields are lower in elevation than the nearest house, and in most places, a 75-foot natural buffer will remain in place. He noted that the other houses on Whippoorwill Hill Road are at least 350 feet away, and most are even farther than that.

“We’re doing our best to keep it as far away from the neighbors as possible. I do believe there is more than adequate distance and buffer to those existing residences and neighbors,” Pawlowski told the commission.

The proposed development will use a septic system, which Pawlowski said he has been working with Newtown Health District to figure out. He mentioned “adequate soils” on the site, so he does not think a septic system would cause issue.

Regarding water, which has been a major talking point for all applications coming through Planning & Zoning since last year’s August 18 flood, Pawlowski said that he has “re-engaged Aquarion.” There will not be a sprinkler system in the clubhouse, so the applicant is requesting domestic water service only. Pawlowski also reminded the commission that the application does meet the sight lines.

“We do believe this application is a great fit for this site, we believe it will be great for the community,” Pawlowski said.

Following Pawlowski’s brief presentation, chair David Rosen opened the conversation up to fellow commissioners.

Don Mitchell spoke. He shared that he believes there is an “over reliance” on the ITE chart for traffic calculations. He suggested that more steps be taken so Pawlowski can “generate [his] own numbers,” like looking at other soccer clubs’ traffic patterns. Mitchell added that he “assume[s]” that the operational peak hours for the development would not match peak hours of commuting traffic.

Pawlowski said Mitchell was correct, and the peak hours for the site would be on weekends. Pawlowski said he and the applicant do not anticipate traffic during the week. He added that the games would be staggered so traffic would not back up at the entrance/exit at once. He noted that the clubhouse will also help with the flow of traffic as people will not be running out immediately after a game.

“We don’t anticipate any traffic issues here,” Pawlowski said.

Mitchell said that he heard someone’s estimates of 24 matches a day per field, which Pawlowski said would not be the case due to operational hour limits imposed by Newtown.

Rosen joked, “I think you’d have to tear a hole in the time space continuum [to have 24 games a day].”

Rosen then invited the public to speak.

Public Comment And An Intervenor

Newman, of Planters Choice, was the first to speak. He said that he is an AC Connecticut parent.

“There’s a need for this field. There’s very limited field space in the greater Newtown area,” Newman said. He added that he believes the current field athletes play on is “not adequately maintained.”

Newman noted that this use of athletic fields at 90 Mt Pleasant is not as environmentally impactful as other industrial uses. He said that he does not believe this development will be “impactful whatsoever” to the neighbors.

Dylan Mehri spoke next. He acknowledged his gratitude towards the applicant as they “made a lot of improvement on this plan.” While Mehri expressed his gratitude, he shared that he has a few concerns about the proposal as well. He stated that there are a lot of other fields in Newtown for athletes to use and practice on and is worried about idling vehicles at the entrance/exit of the development.

Mehri also raised concerns about microplastics leeching into the environment. He mentioned that the company that the applicant plans to use, Field Turf USA, has several lawsuits “because of their defective fields,” he said. He also raised concerns about the stormwater management plan, citing the August 18 flood as a reason of concern for the 100-year stormwater management plan.

After Mehri’s comments, Attorney Joseph Mortelliti from Cramer & Anderson LLP in Danbury approached the podium. Mortelliti explained he was retained recently to represent proposed intervenors in this application.

Mortelliti said, “There’s a super majority petition that was filed with the Land Use Agency to present to the commissioners this evening. It does required a super majority vote based on signatures obtained by property owners within 500 feet of the subject property … Under your regulations, there’s a requirement that the commission vote, and if they decide to approve it, by a super majority.” He added that he wanted to ensure that the petition was acted on that night by the commission.

The second item Mortelliti explained is that an intervention petition was also filed with Land Use. The petition was filed by Pat Napolitano and Whippoorwill Hill Road LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company that owns the abutting property. Mortelliti said he wanted to make sure the commission saw both of those documents and would “defer the commission on how they want to handle those two items.”

Rosen looked at Rob Sibley, director of Land Use & Planning, and informed Sibley he had not seen these two items.

Mortelliti said that he did file it that week (November 5 at 4 pm), and was retained recently, so he tried to file as fast as he could with Land Use. He said he was happy to allow the commission time to review the documents.

Sibley looked over some documents and said, “I’m looking at this and it says you intend to file an intervention petition?”

“You’re looking at a super majority petition, which is a separate item from [the other petition],” Mortelliti said. “And again, I know that it’s a lot for the commission to absorb at once, but they are two distinct items. So, the super majority petition is an item that is to be dealt with irregardless of how you want to vote on the intervention petition.”

Sibley replied saying that this is “a bit out of order,” and “it would have been nice to have been able to reply … I think we need time to read through this.”

Mortelliti said, “I don’t like filing at the eleventh hour, just for the record. I have represented applicants … I do apologize to the commission.”

Rosen thanked Mortelliti for his time and said to the applicant that they will have time to respond to this. He then asked other members of the public to speak.

Napolitano then approached the podium. His comments included, in part, “I am here tonight to protect my family, my neighbors’ rights, to a reasonable and equitable quality of life … Many of us have lived here for 40 or 50 years and to be able to have a normal environment and relative peace and quiet.”

Rosen interrupted Napolitano and requested he make new points, as his points from the last meeting have already been included in public record.

Napolitano said that this proposal “stands to foul the air” with toxic fumes due to idling cars. He added that another application for a soccer field was denied due to traffic concerns and he thinks that traffic has increased “threefold.” He also raised concerns regarding noise levels, believing that these fields would not comply with the noise ordinances in town.

“My wife and I would like to live our lives in the normal time we have left, not shortened by outside sources that could cause a variety of medical issues,” Napolitano said. He then asked the commission to study the effects of carbon monoxide and “incessant” noise on a neighborhood. He also asked if there was going to be a “public address,” or more commonly known as a PA system at this development.

Rosen thanked Napolitano for his comments and asked the developer to address the PA system question — he thought it was “a good one.”

Pawlowski answered that there will be a speaker for public announcements and a score board on the upper field. A speaker will be part of that board.

Developers And Commission Discuss Next Steps

Before Pawlowski answered the PA system question, he said, “For starters, I’m not a lawyer, but I do believe that there needs to be a reason for filing an intervention petition. This application has already started a public hearing, it seems extremely last hour, and also for the super majority vote, again, it’s extremely last hour. We don’t believe there’s any reason for either, and we believe it’s up to the commission’s discretion whether to accept that intervention petition or not.” Pawlowski asked that the commission “confer” with the town council regarding these issues.

Rosen said, “We will.”

Rosen then said that he would like some time to review the petitions in order to make a decision on it, and was not prepared to make a decision at that time. He said he would like to extend the public hearing to the next meeting.

Pawlowski asked Sibley if he needed to be the one to grant an extension. He asked if they did not grant the extension, if the public hearing would be closed. Rosen said that they could close the public hearing.

Patricia Sullivan, the town’s attorney, grabbed the mic and explained that the letter states the intervenor wants to “provide testimony evidence from Steven Trinkaus.”

“I don’t see him here. He could have testified today, and he could have testified without an intervention petition, but I do think we need some time to review this,” Sullivan said. Rosen thanked her for her explanation.

There were murmurs from the commission, and then Meadows asked if they could close the hearing.

Sullivan said, “You can, but I think the safer course, you have a motion for intervention, you’re not looking to create any appellant issues with regards to motions of intervention with regard to a petition. The petition, if it’s valid, would require you to vote by a super majority for an approval, so those are two considerations you have to make before you decide. And obviously, if he’s not going to grant you the extension, then you would close the public hearing.”

Pawlowski asked for a moment to speak with D’Amico and Phil Clark, two other people involved with this application. When their huddle broke, Rosen apologized to them and said that they were “as caught off guard,” too.

Pawlowski said, “If the commission is prepared tonight to vote on the majority petition … and the intervention petition, then we ask that you close the public hearing. If the commission is not prepared to do that, just to avoid the potential legal situation, we will grant the extension to the next meeting. The points made by [Sullivan] are appropriate though. If Mr Trinkaus intended to submit public comment, there has been two public hearings to do so, which he has not attended.”

Rosen thought it was a “reasonable approach,” and asked the commission their thoughts. Sullivan provided the commission with more advice, and explained if they granted the petition to intervene, they would have to provide evidence right now. Rosen said they could grant the petitions now, without reviewing it, but he said he was “not comfortable with that.” He suggested the public hearing be continued.

Meadows made a motion to continue the public hearing to Thursday, December 4. The motion passed with four affirmative votes, and one negative vote from Connie Widmann.

Rosen said, “For the second time tonight, I am not happy about the timing of this. I’m sure the applicant is not happy either. This puts us in a difficult position once again … For future reference, I want these things to be timely. We need to function as a commission. It’s not in the public interest to be continuing meetings all the time.”

Sullivan told Mortelliti that in terms of the petition to intervene, he needs to be prepared to move forward with whatever evidence he has so there is no further delay.

=====

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