Up/Zoning Inequity

To the Editor:

The recent approval of the Curtis Packaging application for an industrial property subdivision is obviously good for Newtown. It will help build the tax base and bring jobs to our area.

What bothers me is that the reason the P&Z up/zoned 2,315 residential properties, which included 2,000 homes, was supposed to be for protection of the aquifer. Most of these Newtown homeowners are now prevented from expanding their homes as the expansion would be perceived as a potential harm from septic contamination and runoff of impervious surfaces.

Now the P&Z has approved buildings directly over the primary aquifer recharge area that is totally contrary to their reasoning for the residential restrictions. Why is the threat to the aquifer from a small residential house more serious than from a larger industrial building, especially if they are built on the same sized lot?

I have water, sewer and gas available on a piece of land I own that is located in the same up/zoned area, but in a “secondary” aquifer recharge area. I went from ½ acre to 2 acre zoning (from 4 building lots to 1 building lot) which has reduced the value of my property significantly. I don’t need to dig a well or put in a septic system. Why was I discriminated against by Newtown’s P&Z where they have now approved some industrial lots as small as slightly over one acre?

Carmine Renzulli

505 Westport Avenue, Norwalk                              January 23, 2001