On Thursday, January 15, Newtown Planning & Zoning Commission heard the applicant’s rebuttal to the intervenor’s testimony for 90 Mt Pleasant Road. Application 25.25 by Civil 1 is for the construction of two athletic fields, a proposed clubhouse building, and associated parking. The plan also details landscaping, drainage, and utility improvements. The clubhouse, while used for storage, will also feature locker rooms, restrooms, and concessions. The roof will also have a patio area for viewing the two athletic fields.

At the December 4 meeting, intervenor Steven Trinkaus presented his testimony. Parts of his testimony included that there are “many engineering issues,” such as the stormwater management system falling “woefully short” and the turf fields posing environmental issues due to microplastics from the infill material breaking down over time.

Trinkaus also noted in his testimony that turf can reach 120-140 degrees, causing burns to athletes who slide on the fields. He also shared an anecdote that a colleague’s son received a staph infection from sliding on a turf field.

David Rosen, chair of P&Z, welcomed the applicant, Chris Pawlowksi, an engineer from Civil 1, as well as his attorney, John Knuff, and traffic engineer Brian Dempsey. Before any of them were able to speak, Joseph Mortelliti, the attorney representing the intervenors, interrupted the meeting with a “point of order.”

“Before the applicant starts, the intervenors received these documents that you have before you minutes ago. Minutes ago. We have not had an opportunity to review the documents, to respond in the record to the documents. As a party to the proceeding, just like the applicant’s a party, the intervenor has the right to comment and respond. It’s appropriate for timing to be allotted, Mr Chairman, [for the] intervenors’ experts to look at the documents submitted, which again, I received minutes ago,” Mortelliti said.

He continued, “As a matter of decorum and procedure, the commission also just got these documents apparently yesterday and today, so I’m not sure who’s had a chance to review these today prior to the presentation … I was criticized as well for a late filing, but I at least provided them not the day of the proceeding.” He ended his comments saying that the applicants should speak and make a rebuttal, but that the intervenors should get time to review it as well.

Rosen acknowledged his comments, saying, “Noted for the record, we can discuss as a commission how we want to proceed.”

Knuff then took the floor. He mentioned that this is the fourth night of meetings for the applicant. There have been two extensions granted by the applicant so far, and the application was on day 91 at this time — under Connecticut statutes, there is a maximum of 100 days. He also added that while yes, they did just hand the intervenors their rebuttals, he and his applicant are “under no obligation to provide them previously or earlier than that.”

“We are simply providing an answer to the comments that they’re made. We have not changed our plans. There’s nothing new. They say X, we say not X, and we explain why,” Knuff said to the commission. He added that while he understands the commission may not be ready to vote on the application tonight so the commissioners can properly review the rebuttal, there is “no obligation and no right for the intervenor to have a second bite at the apple.”

As Knuff continued, he mentioned the requirement for a supermajority vote filed by the intervenors. The intervenors said they have 20% of the owners of land within 500 feet of 90 Mt Pleasant Road, but Knuff submitted a map that shows the intervenors do not have the signatures of 20% of the owners — the intervenors only have a petition with 18.8% of owners’ signatures. Knuff also mentioned that under Connecticut law, if a parcel is owned by two owners and only one owner signs the petition, it does not count. The petition must be signed by both property owners to count.

“There is an utter lack of specificity in the verified petition. So, to the extent that there is a matter, such as stormwater, that is within your jurisdiction, it is the intervenor’s burden to prove that there is a likelihood of unreasonable pollution. It is their burden. They haven’t carried it, and they haven’t carried it because the materials that they have provided to you are utterly lacking in substantial evidence,” Knuff told the commission.

As he wrapped up his comments, he mentioned that the commission must determine who is “credible” in terms of Pawlowski and Trinkaus’ comments. Knuff also submitted an excerpt from a case regarding New Canaan’s Planning & Zoning Commission where Trinkaus was the expert, and the judge presiding over the case rejects Trinkaus’ testimony due to the “repetitive nature of Mr Trinkaus’ testimony from town to town to town,” Knuff said.

Knuff then turned the floor over to Pawlowski.

Pawlowski’s Rebuttal

Pawlowski is a licensed civil engineer representing the applicant. Pawlowski’s rebuttal was extensive and went line by line replying to each of Trinkaus’ comments. For those who wish to review the full rebuttal, it is included in the January 15 meeting minutes. His response is also co-signed by Curtis Jones, the owner of Civil 1.

Pawlowski began his rebuttal by saying, “Many of the comments submitted by the opposing reviewer are incorrect based on misinterpretation or inconsistent with governing codes and standard engineering practice … When the regulations are read in their entirety and applied in the proper context, the project is shown to comply with all the applicable standards and approval processes. This selective application of criteria does not reflect a comprehensive or objective engineering review and leads to conclusions that are not technically or procedurally supported.”

Pawlowski continued, saying that Trinkaus’ comments are “simply incorrect.” He also mentioned that minor typographical errors have been corrected and did not impact the overall site plan. He added that the plans have been reviewed by Town Engineer John Curtis and approved, as well as Newtown Inland Wetlands Commission and Town of Newtown Health Department.

Trinkaus’ comments focus a lot on the stormwater design, and Pawlowski said that “extreme care was taken to provide sustainable and effective grading, stormwater, and erosion control” for the application, complying with all recommendations from Connecticut DEEP Stormwater Quality Manual, the Connecticut DEEP Erosion and Sediment Control guidelines, and Newtown regulations.

Pawlowski then went over some key responses in his rebuttal to Trinkaus. First, Trinkaus claimed that the applicants did not do infiltration tests in the proposed area for the stormwater infiltration basin. Pawloski said this was “false,” and that the applicant did, “in fact,” conduct these tests. Pawlowski also went through Trinkaus’ extensive comments regarding stormwater management and highlighted his response to each one.

Trinkaus also claimed that the 50-foot construction entrance is “inadequate” for this project, but Pawlowski notes that “no justification is given for this statement.” Trinkaus also stated in his testimony that stacked hay bales are “the most ineffective erosion control barrier,” but Pawloski said that the “above opinion … is false and not rooted in any factual evidence.”

Pawlowski told the commission, “Stacked hay bales are widely used across many construction sites and listed as an appropriate erosion sediment control measure in the 2024 Connecticut guidelines for soil erosion and sediment control.”

Pawlowski’s final comment he mentioned during the meeting is that Trinkaus claimed the leaching system for the septic system is “set too deep into original grade,” and therefore the 18-inch separation required between septic systems and groundwater tables would not be met. Pawlowski pointed out that Newtown Health District, which is the regulating authority responsible for review and approval of septic systems, has signed off and approved this system.

Dempsey Speaks On Traffic, Memo Regarding Air And Noise Pollution

Dempsey, an engineer with Providence Design Engineering, is certified to practice in Connecticut, as well as five other states. He is a certified professional traffic operations engineer and a certified roadway safety professional. Like Pawlowski, he wanted to touch on just the highlights of his rebuttal.

Dempsey performed another traffic study, which found that peak parking would be on Saturday afternoons during a tournament, which would result in 36 vehicles entering for the peak hour, and 39 exiting, based on the ITE. Dempsey shared that there would be 75 total vehicles going in and out during that hour, with parking peaking at 142 spaces, a “conservative 85th percentile amount of parking.” The site will have 149 parking spaces, so it does meet peak demands. This traffic analysis was based on 11 different studies of other soccer complexes across the country, and parking generation was based on nine studies.

Dempsey noted that due to there being two fields, the organizers would be able to play with the gap between games scheduled on the fields. Teams would most likely only play one game on one field a day, leaving before the second game for that field starts. Dempsey added that there is “not a traffic impact” caused by the application.

“The site is easy to get to from I-84, the driveway is properly designed, meets standards, and it’s on a state road. And, as I said, we meet all the Connecticut DOT standards for sight distance, levels of service, and traffic volumes,” Dempsey told the commission.

Dempsey also noted that the intervenor’s testimony talked to two other soccer complexes in New York, which both have significantly more amenities than what is being proposed. Dempsey also mentioned that he talked to several parents of athletes who mentioned carpooling is quite common for younger kids, which would reduce the number of trips and parking cars for the site.

Following Dempsey’s points, Knuff then read a letter from Marc Wallace, vice president of Tech Environmental, who did an air and noise pollution study for the site. Wallace’s letter read, in part, “The HMMH memorandum does not provide substantial evidence demonstrating that significant noise or air quality impacts are likely to occur as a result of the proposed project. Accordingly, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project is unlikely to result in noise or air quality impacts and that additional noise or air quality studies are neither warranted nor necessary for approval.”

Wallace’s full comments and line-by-line response to Trinkaus’ comments are included in the meeting minutes as well.

Rosen then asked if the commission had any questions. Hearing none, he opened the floor up to public comment.

Public Comment

Michael Riccardi was the first to speak. He spent 40 years as an excavator, and he raised concerns about groundwater in the area. He installed both his septic system and driveway, and mentioned that while others say there is no water in the area, after digging about a foot into the ground, water will start to run.

“That’s my concern there. I think there’s so much water in the ground that when you go to even drive on it, your truck will sink when you’re even trying to distribute your sand,” Riccardi told the commission. He also mentioned that no one has addressed wells in the area, and wants to ensure that there will be enough water for the neighbors in the area. Grading the site might free drain too much water out of the area and Whippoorwill Hill Road neighbors would no longer have working wells

Mary Gaudet Wilson commented on traffic, and said she finds it “curious” that no one has mentioned the intersection of Route 6 and Route 25, which is a failing intersection as is. She also raised concerns about the driveway not being wide enough to fit emergency vehicles and noted that taking left-hand turns into and out of the development will be difficult as traffic on Mt Pleasant Road builds up throughout the day.

Karen Martin spoke next. She said that she has done some research on the application and mentioned that it is not an athletic field for children — it is a semi-pro field. According to her research, semi-pro teams can have up to 30 players per one team, thus increasing the amount of players on one field at a time to 60, for a total of 120 players on both fields at a time. She mentioned coaches, talent scouts, recruiters, family members, and concession stand workers will all attend these games, too.

Martin raised concerns of traffic backing up while trying to exit the development. Building on Gaudet Wilson’s point on emergency services, Martin thinks this development could further stress the volunteer emergency response organizations in town. She also built off of Riccardi’s point, saying that in her past experience as a Planning & Zoning commissioner in other towns, she would be concerned about wells in the area.

Patrick Napolitano spoke next. He kept his comments brief and talked about carbon monoxide emissions. He believes this can cause added medical problems for many of the elderly living in the area. He also shared that wildlife, vegetation, and wetlands will also “experience serious, negative impacts. Who should take responsibility for the medical bills?”

Kira Dineen approached the commission next. She said that she recently bought her house, and the reason why she picked the area is due to the lovely pond in the neighborhood. One of her concerns is the noise impact as she works in broadcast and podcasting. She raised points of music, live music, commentators, crowds, whistles, and more noisy aspects of games.

Dineen said, “Part of Newtown’s noise ordinance is to promote peace, quality of life, and property values. All three components, I think, are not being respected for myself and my neighbors. I think about being able to relax on our properties, enjoy our families … I mentioned I’m a podcaster, so a quiet environment is very key for my success and to be able to be an active member of the Newtown community.”

Cyrus Mehri was next to comment. He said that if someone comes forward with a plan, it must align with the surrounding neighborhood. He thinks this is an application that “clashes” with the surrounding area, and that it will decrease property values.

He also believes there are overflow parking issues for this complex, and that it must be pedestrian friendly, and have public transit access. He thinks people will park on Mt Pleasant Road, and therefore pedestrians will be put in harm’s way. Mehri asked the commission to reject the plan. He shared that in his letter, he has a solution. After the rejection, he would sit down with the applicant and find a better location for this minor league soccer complex.

Dave Chaloux was the last member of the public to speak, “I’m not gonna take up your time to reiterate what my neighbors have just said, but I’m here to oppose the application and I think all their concerns are completely valid … I just wanted to be on the record for that.”

Commission’s Deliberations

Rosen shared with his fellow commissioners that he is hearing “two different interpretations, surprise, surprise,” about the supermajority petition. He said that he wanted to understand it before making a decision. He also briefly discussed the last-minute nature of the intervention and the rebuttals.

Commissioner Barbara Manville asked how much time they had left.

Rob Sibley, director of Land Use and Planning, said that the application has been extended to this particular meeting on January 15.

Knuff jumped in and explained further, “Under Connecticut statutes, you have 35 days within which you have to close a hearing. There’s an extra 65 days, per statute, that can be utilized for the hearing, to close it, to vote. So, the maximum time a hearing can be opened is 100 days. We’re on day 91.”

After hearing this, Commissioner Roy Meadows said they should close the hearing. Rosen agreed that they could close the hearing and deliberate further as the commission does not have to render a decision right away. While the last-minute nature of the filings was unfortunate, Rosen does not believe any new information has been submitted and thinks the commission can vote once some “outstanding items … have [been] clarified.” The outstanding item, of course, being the supermajority petition and its validity.

Rosen then made a motion to close the public hearing, which passed unanimously.

Sibley informed the commission he will provide written comments at the next meeting regarding the petition.

Rosen said experts often present “diametrically opposed opinions,” and it is up to the commission to render a decision they think is in the best interest of the town and the Plan of Conservation and Development. He thanked the applicant for repeatedly providing extra time, and members of the neighborhood for expressing their opinions, many of them very well thought out.

Rosen hopes to vote on this matter at the next P&Z meeting on Thursday, February 5, 7 pm, in the Council Chambers of Newtown Municipal Center.

=====

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