Date: Fri 13-Dec-1996

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Whispering-Pines

Full Text:

Third Version Of Whispering Pines Submitted To P&Z

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

Whispering Pines, the controversial residential subdivision proposal that

ignited a string of public protests over the pace of local residential growth

- has been resubmitted in a third version for Planning and Zoning Commission

(P&Z) review.

Developers Thomas Maguire of Newtown and Larry Edwards of Easton, doing

business as PSD Partnership, are seeking approval for a 13-lot subdivision on

26 acres near Pine Street, Cherry Street and Narragansett Trail in Sandy Hook.

Bruce and Robert Biscoe of Hawleyville also are PSD partners.

P&Z Chairman John DeFilippe said Tuesday he expects the P&Z will act on the

latest version of Whispering Pines sometime in January or February. A public

hearing won't be held on the third version of the subdivision plans, he said.

The P&Z's review of the plans will involve gauging how closely the developers

have met the conditions of approval the P&Z placed on the project in

September, he said.

In September, P&Z members had a 16-lot version of Whispering Pines pending

before them. But due to many questions about the project's design, P&Z members

aprroved only 13 of those lots and placed many conditions on that approval.

Following the P&Z's 13-lot approval, PSD Partnership sued the P&Z in Danbury

Superior Court seeking to gain a 16-lot approval. That lawsuit is still

pending.

If the P&Z approves the new 13-lot proposal, the lawsuit would be withdrawn

from court by the developers. But if the P&Z turns down the 13-lot version,

the lawsuit would remain in effect.

In the latest version of Whispering Pines, the applicants have modified their

project to address some concerns raised by the P&Z.

But a sticking point between the P&Z and the developers is the commission's

requirement that PSD not seek to "re-subdivide" sections of the development

site after an initial subdivision plan is approved. P&Z members placed the

resubdivision ban on the property to limit the potential housing density at

the site and prevent more than 13 houses from eventually being built there.

The developers, though, maintain the P&Z is stepping outside its regulatory

bounds in banning any future resubdivision of the land.

Surface mining large amounts of sand and gravel at the site was one of the

most controversial aspects of the development proposal.

PSD's 13-lot construction plans indicate it wants to remove 37,500 cubic yards

of earth materials from the site, approximately the same amount of material as

was proposed under the 16-lot plan.

In an initial 19-lot proposal, which the P&Z rejected in April, PSD wanted to

remove approximately 50,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel.

Flashpoint

Whispering Pines has been one of the most controversial residential

development projects in recent memory. The 26-acre site lies within an

established neighborhood. Unlike some new home construction projects in areas

where there are few, if any, neighbors, the Whispering Pines site is in one of

the most densely-built sections of Newtown, with 85 individually-owned parcels

lying with 500 feet of the edge of the development site.

When initially proposed as a 19-lot development in April, residents of the

neighborhood, under the banner of the Rocky Glen Area Association, organized

and loudly opposed the project. They said new development there would: damage

the environment by the removal of an excessive amount of sand and gravel from

the property; overcrowd the neighborhood; jeopardize already-unreliable well

water supplies; worsen traffic hazards; and overburden the public schools,

among other complaints. P&Z members heeded the residents' concerns and

rejected the 19-lot development project in late April, citing concerns over

drainage, sedimentation, erosion, excavation and grading.

After PSD returned to the P&Z with a scaled-down proposal involving 16 lots,

the P&Z conducted public hearings on the project in June and July. The

developers said the 16-lot proposal addressed the concerns which were raised

by the P&Z in its rejection of the 19-lot plan.

Again, residents near the development site complained loudly.

On September 5, in a 4-to-1 vote, P&Z members reduced the 16-lot project to a

project containing 13 lots.

In its lawsuit, PSD claims that in attaching the many conditions to the

Whispering Pines approval, the P&Z acted illegally, arbitrarily, and in abuse

of the discretion vested in it.

The suit claims the P&Z's ban on any future re-subdivision of land within the

proposed subdivision isn't allowed by state law or the town's subdivision

regulations.

Next HRRA Household Hazardous Waste Drop-Off Event Scheduled In Newtown

Genealogy Club's Next Program To Dig Into 'Dissecting A Civil War Pension Record'

Choral Society Planning ‘Voices Of America’ Performance

Newtown Earth Day Festival Was A Success

Local Fourth Grader To Host ‘Gaming For Change’ On May 16

The editorial took no position on the budget going up or down so you're reading things into the editorial that simply aren't there. The turnout is tied to the lack of passage, in that people who came out to vote last time did not this time, indicating a lack of support on their part. Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough, but that's what the editorial was driving at, people showing lack of support by not casting a vote. The editorial did address likely concerns among voters that may have led to lack of support and lack of turnout. This lower turnout also follows increasing turnout over the past four referendums in three years (meaning it is an aberration from that), and increased turnout is something that I do push for regularly in editorials. Any disappointment you might be seeing is at the break in that trend, not at whether the budget passed or not. I'd rather see more people come out and vote "no" then not vote at all.

Lower Turnout Results In Two Budget Defeats

Clearly, property owners no longer want to bear the burden of expenses while the state does not meet it’s responsibilities. Rising costs must be addressed by actions that do not include yearly increases of property owners’ taxes. The state of CT must meet its share of the educational costs, and other costs.

Town And School Budgets Fail At Referendum

This feels like an oddly misleading headline and narrative, particularly coming from the Editorial Board. The headline "Lower Turnout Results in Two Budget Defeats" pushes a misleading narrative regarding voter turnout, and then seeks to tie the outcome of the referendum to that misleading narrative. Sure, voter turn out for this year's referendum, 18%, was lower than last year's. However, last year's turnout, 25.4%, represented the highest turnout in the most recent 10 budget referendums. If you take the time to examine turnout percentages between 2017 and 2026 (2017: 19.9, 2018: 15.7, 2019: 17, 2020: 0, 2021: 8.98, 2022: 7.7, 2023: 8.8, 2024: 15.1/17.49, 2025: 25.4, 2026: 18), this year's turnout was actually the third highest in the past 10 cycles. Perhaps the headline of this article should say "Lower Voter Turnout Than Last Year", which is more accurate, rather than creating an impression that this year's turnout is some type of aberration - a narrative that the turnout numbers, in all their binary glory, simply do not support. Further, the headline of this article appears to tie the "lower turnout" to the defeated budgets. Sure, that could be true. But, perhaps, its more likely that Newtown residents are feeling the squeeze of multiple economic influences. In Newtown, we've experienced property revaluations and increased municipal spending. Eversource continues to raise rates. The state legislature gives PURA the authority to impose Public Benefit charges that benefit a tiny percentage of the public (and subsequently burdening the rest of us). At the national level, inflation has run rampant for years and many of those costs remain high to this day. In short, the data tells a far less dramatic—and far more honest—story than the headline suggests. This wasn’t an electorate vanishing in apathy; it was a fairly typical turnout delivering an verdict that, perhaps, some at the Editorial Board didn't like. At some point, it’s worth considering that residents aren’t confused, disengaged, or misled by turnout; they’re simply doing math at their kitchen tables and concluding that “no” is the only responsible answer left.

Enjoyed the forum which only confirmed my support for Brandon Moore as the Democratic candidate to run for the state representative position. Brandon Moore did not waiver about his duty to all the people, if elected, when an issue presents itself that requires that he voice a difference of opinion for the wellbeing of Newtown residents. If Michelle Ku’s 16 years have led to her loyalty being to other elected officials, as she implied, then Newtown is going to continue to witness actions that do not protect its residents. She could not unseat republican, Mitch Bolinsky, during a Blue Wave, and once again, will not do it now. Winning that seat is critical for all. That explains why her previous campaign committee now campaigns for Brandon Moore. It explains all the endorsements he has received from local elected democratic officials. It’s why we need Brandon Moore to be the democratic candidate to run for state representative.

Second Newtown DTC, League Of Women Voters Candidates Event Planned

Appreciated the opportunity to hear from both candidates as we were present for the College Dems forum but only heard from Brandon Moore. It was an opportunity to see who can unseat the Republican incumbent and there is no doubt that Brandon Moore should be the Democratic candidate. One concerned parent posed a question about discrimination unaddressed by the school district and interestingly enough, Michelle Ku, who proudly speaks of her Board membership years, said little, while Brandon Moore passionately addressed the issue along with his experience as an Apache Helicopter Commander. This family is supporting Brandon Moore. We need change and someone who is not afraid to disagree, especially about the rising costs of living in Newtown.

Log In

Date: Fri 13-Dec-1996

Leave a Reply Cancel reply