Date: Fri 15-Nov-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

conservation-Newtown-Village

Full Text:

`Newtown Village' Developers Temporarily Withdraw Controversial Plan

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

In the face of strong opposition to their controversial proposal to build 100

single-family houses in Sandy Hook, the developers of Newtown Village have

withdrawn their application to the Conservation Commission for a wetlands

construction permit and plan to submit a new application.

D&H Homes, LLC, of New Milford, and Fairfield 2000 Homes, Corp, are seeking

Conservation Commission approval to alter wetlands on a 32-acre parcel where

they want to build 100 homes, 25 of which would be designated as "affordable

housing." The former sand-and-gravel mine lies north of Berkshire Road and

south of Bishop Circle.

After a 2«-hour public hearing attended by about 40 people Wednesday night,

the applicants withdrew their "short form" application, saying they will

resubmit a "long form" application as was requested by people living near the

development. Another public hearing on the wetlands work is expected on

December 11.

Engineer Michael Petti and soil scientist Donald Furlough presented detailed

explanations of the wetlands work the applicants want to do on the property.

The work involves building a road crossing over an intermittent wetland and

doing some filling and grading work at the site.

"This is an insignificant activity," Mr Petti said of the scope of the

wetlands work proposed by the developers.

Mr Furlough presented Conservation Commission members with an alternate

wetlands plan involving less disturbance to wetlands than the initial plan.

"Either plan is acceptable to the owner," Mr Furlough said.

Attorney Christopher Smith, who represents several people living in the

neighborhood, submitted a packet of information to Conservation Commission

members, stating that his clients oppose the 100-house development project.

The commission's regulations call for the protection of water quality, he

said, adding the construction proposed for the site would damage underground

water in the area, including the Pootatuck Aquifer which has been designated

as the town's sole source aquifer. The commission is responsible for

regulating construction in wetland areas where wetlands may affect the quality

of groundwater, he said.

The developers' plans call for clearing more than 80 percent of the site and

removing a hillside that separates it from Bishop Circle, he said. More than

20 percent of the site would have impervious surfaces such as pavement and

roofs, he added. Almost all rain hitting those impervious surfaces would run

off them, he said. That runoff carrying contaminants from the developed area

would enter wetlands on the site and eventually get into area groundwater and

the Pootatuck Aquifer, damaging its quality, he said.

Mr Smith termed the construction project "a very aggressive and overdeveloped

proposal." He charged that the application is incomplete and doesn't address

all of the regulated activities needed to develop the site for 100 houses.

"This is 100 lots regardless of whether it's affordable housing," he said,

terming the project "grossly aggressive."

Any development should be limited to the center of the site, he said. Mr Smith

suggested that single-family houses be built on one-acre lots with individual

septic systems, instead of building 100 houses with a community septic system.

Mr Smith called for the developers to reduce the number of residences in the

project. The developers shouldn't build a community septic system uphill of

wetlands on the property, he said.

Barbara Obeda, an environmental analyst hired by the neighbors, said having a

community septic system serving 100 houses on the site would have negative

effects on groundwater quality. She termed the development proposal

"environmentally suicidal." Considering the soil types present at the site,

it's a poor location for high-density development, she said.

Closed Meeting

On Monday, the developers held a private function at a local restaurant for

people living near the development site. At the closed session, the developers

discussed their construction plans for the property.

Vikki Carlson, an Elana Lane resident who lives near the development site and

who attended the Monday meeting, said residents attending expressed much anger

about the 100-house building proposal. The developers didn't provide specific

answers to direct questions about the project, Ms Carlson said. The effect

Newtown Village would have on traffic was a major topic at the meeting, she

said.

When residents said that 100 houses are too many houses, the developers told

them that under the town's affordable housing regulations more than 150

residences could be built at the site, according to Ms Carlson.

John Horton, manager for D&H Homes, said people attending the private function

had many emotional questions about the project. The developers plan to hold

another informational session on the project that will be open to the general

public, he said.

At a Tuesday night meeting of the Newtown Neighborhoods Coalition, Eric Roundy

a coalition member who attended the private function on Monday, said the

presentation the developers made seemed preliminary and short on specific

information.

"I got a real smoke and mirrors impression from it...I got the distinct

impression that we have a development that is `affordable' in name only. I'd

like to know what `affordable' is," Mr Roundy said.