On Thursday, May 21, Newtown Planning & Zoning Commission held a regular meeting to discuss a possible settlement with Vessel Technologies regarding its application for 22 Oakview and 4 Berkshire Roads.

The application was initially denied on February 20, 2025. Vessel Technologies swiftly filed an appeal to the decision, which launched a year-long legal battle. Four intervenors from the original public hearings were granted an intervenor status in the legal proceedings. The four men, Paul Paquette, Ben Viola, Ned Simpson, and John O’Malley, talked with The Newtown Bee in November of 2025 to further discuss their opinions and perspectives on the application.

The original application was for two apartment buildings that would have consisted of 114 one-bedroom, six two-bedroom, and 16 three-bedroom apartments. The buildings were “set-aside” developments under Connecticut general statute 8-30g, or affordable housing. The developer planned to set aside 30% of the apartments, or 41 units, for 40 years at 60-80% of the median income.

Attorney Meaghan Miles, representing Vessel Technologies, was at the May 21 meeting to further discuss the settlement reached outside of court. Acting chair Connie Widmann said that, as commissioners, “we’re a little bit confused” regarding the stipulations submitted by the attorneys on the case. While trying to get set up for the meeting, the attorney representing the intervenors called Miles on her phone, which was then handed to Paquette and Simpson, both of whom were in attendance.

Miles then turned everyone’s attention to the stipulation for agreement. There was a lot of “clean-up” language to make it agreeable for all parties. Miles went through the document for the commissioners and members of the public who were in attendance.

Miles clarified that there needs to be a will-serve letter that does not rely on the emergency connection with Fairfield Hills water supply currently in place, and that a building permit will not be issued until this document is provided.

The biggest change and the most discussed aspect of the stipulation was paragraph 11 (formerly 12 before the changes were made). Paragraph 11 details that “A payment of three hundred and fifty thousand ($350,000) dollars shall be made by Vessel to the Town of Newtown to be used exclusively by the Town of Newtown to construct and/or reconstruct sidewalks and/or trails and related costs.” The language continues and details that the payment will be made in installments.

Widmann said that she thought it should say “Sandy Hook” exclusively: “We don’t want those dollars to go outside of Sandy Hook.” Widmann also shared that lighting is a big aspect of sidewalks in Sandy Hook and wondered if “related costs” would cover the lighting.

Town Attorney Pat Sullivan, Commissioner Barbara Manville, and Miles all suggested language for the clause. Commissioner Peter Schwarz also added some suggestions, but ultimately, the clause was left alone.

Miles then discussed how many units will be deed restricted at 80% of the area median income, which is now 36 rather than 41. Widmann read the new plan, “The north building shall be three stories, the south building shall be four stories. There will be a total of 120 dwelling units on the property. North building shall contain 48 dwelling units, consisting of 40 one-bedroom and two two-bedroom units and six three-bedroom units, and the south building shall contain 72 dwelling units consisting of 60 one-bedroom, three two-bedroom, and eight three-bedroom units.”

Commissioner Roy Meadows then addressed something he has been passionate about since the application first came to P&Z in 2024. He wanted to know if there would be an internal sidewalk between the two buildings.

“Initially, they said that they couldn’t do that. Then after discussions and they were challenged on it, they said it could be done, and my recollection is they agreed to do it, but it’s not shown on this site plan. And so, if this is the current site plan, it seems to me like the interconnecting walkway between the buildings should be there. And I think this is a huge safety issue,” Meadows said.

Miles looked over the plan and said that she did not see a walkway. Her recollection is that due to the changes in grade between the two buildings, a walkway would not be safe nor compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act. Miles said she “just texted” her client about this to see where they officially landed.

Meadows said he is “going to have trouble with this.” Miles informed the commission that her client confirmed that the elevation differences made it infeasible to include a walkway between the two buildings.

Alternate Commissioner Charlie Gardner asked about sidewalks outside of the development that might connect the two buildings externally rather than internally. Director of Planning & Land Use Rob Sibley explained the landscaping plan a bit more for the commission which would make putting a sidewalk along Oakview Road impossible. The intervenors requested landscaping along Oakview.

Widmann asked if there were any other questions or comments from the commission, and Meadows again repeated that he has a “safety concern here, plain and simple.”

Sullivan said that there was a back and forth about the acreage, but a surveyor has confirmed the property is 5.21 acres. Sullivan then reminded Widmann that there were other parties in attendance, and that Miles had attended the meeting without confirmation that the intervenors “were on board for all of this.”

Intervenors Approach

Paquette and Simpson approached the commission and apologized for disrupting the meeting earlier by talking on the phone with their attorney, Joel Green.

Simpson said, “We are very favorable about the progress and all that’s been going on, but we do need to have a moment to go over with Joel where we stand. We also forwarded four questions to the town that we have not gotten answers to.”

Widmann asked if it was possible to address the questions tonight because she wanted to “close the loop.” Widmann pointed out that everyone has had last minute communications on this.

The questions, according to Simpson, included topics like what the commission envisioned when it said “sidewalks and walkways”; town criteria issuing building permits; guardrails; acreage, which was already answered by Sullivan during the meeting; and the planting plan.

“It’s not our intent to delay this,” Paquette said. “We want to get this resolved as soon as possible, as much as y’all do.”

Widmann replied to the sidewalk question, noting that the town will receive money from Vessel to “enhance, you heard us specifically say, the Sandy Hook area.” There are no pictures of what it will look like, but there is a goal to connect the sidewalk systems in Sandy Hook.

There was a debate regarding sidewalk plans in the plan of conservation and development (POCD). Sullivan was able to locate the questions sent to her by Green during this debate, and was able to address them, in part, during the meeting.

Sullivan said that it was her “understanding” that the intervenors “were all set,” but Schwarz pointed out that the intervenors were there “saying it’s not resolved.”

Simpson wanted to find a way to expedite this process, and Schwarz asked where his lawyer was. Simpson was not sure.

Miles joined the conversation again, wondering if the commission could vote tonight and revise it depending on what the intervenors had to say, with proper representation.

“I just don’t want to delay this any further,” Miles said, defeated.

Schwarz and Sullivan both agreed that they could not vote “conditioned on the intervenors agreeing.”

Widmann tabled the discussion for the moment, and Miles, Paquette, and Simpson all attempted to contact Green via phone.

Other Zoning Discussions

The public meeting had two items on the agenda, the first being the Vessel Technologies settlement, and the second being “discussion and possible vote for withdrawal of litigation Friedman v Town of Newtown Zoning Commission matter, (JD Danbury, DBD-CV-25-6055883-S).”

Sullivan explained that there was a case filed by a neighboring property that she filed a motion to dismiss because she did not think it had been “properly filed.” The motion was withdrawn, but a new case was filed. Sullivan filed a motion to dismiss the second case, and ultimately the plaintiff withdrew their own application.

“In an abundance of caution, I wanted to be able to say to [the judge], ‘The commission has voted to accept the withdrawal of this case,’” Sullivan said to the commissioners.

The vote to accept the withdrawal was accepted unanimously.

Widmann asked if the intervenors heard from their attorney, which they had not yet. Widmann reminded the group that the Vessel discussion had been tabled and moved to discuss the next item on the agenda.

The next item was “Application 26.08 by Town of Newtown — P&Z Commission, for a Text Amendment to the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Newtown, to modify text language.” Sibley was presenting several items that needed to be updated, like excavation and earth work, height limitations, buffer requirements, and more, because state statutes have changed and now conflict with town regulations.

Sibley went through each point and answered questions from commissioners. Each of these items is reflected in the meeting minutes for those who want to read more about them.

Following Sibley’s presentation, Simpson rejoined the floor as a public commenter on the changes. He asked the public hearing not be closed, an explanatory text be provided, and wanted to review the suggestions further.

The application will be continued at the next P&Z meeting on Thursday, June 4, 7 pm at Newtown Municipal Center’s Council Chambers.

Back To Vessel Technologies’ Settlement

Manville read the language from the agenda back into the record. Sullivan explained that she, the intervenors, counsel for the intervenors, and Miles discussed by phone and have finally come to an agreement regarding the settlement.

Sullivan explained that the intervenors want the guardrail removed, and all parties have agreed to it. Green planned to meet with his clients virtually to wrap up the settlement and have the intervenors sign it, and Miles would circulate a document for them all to sign. Sullivan added that if the commission votes in favor, they give her permission to sign it on the commission’s behalf.

Sullivan suggested this motion, “Motion to resolve the appeal in accord with the stipulation for judgment as settlement of the appeal, Vessel Technologies Inc and Vessel RE Holding LLC versus Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Newtown … to have the stipulation of judgment entered by the court in accord with the Connecticut General Statute Section 8-8N.”

Before a vote was cast, Meadows asked about the internal sidewalk and if it was discussed in the hallway. Sullivan said it was not discussed and is not part of the plan.

Schwarz said that 8-30g applications put “towns in a very awkward position.” He acknowledged that the commission, intervenors, and developers worked very hard on the settlement, and he thanked everyone for their cooperation.

Widmann asked if there were any other comments. Hearing none, the motion was put to a vote. The settlement passed in a 4-1 vote, with Widmann, Manville, Schwarz, and Jill Soderholm voting in favor and Meadows voting against.

=====

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