Date: Fri 05-Jul-1996

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

Walnut-Tree-Village-porches

Full Text:

Developers Sue Town Over Condo Porches

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

Walnut Tree Developers, Inc, the firm that is building the town's first

condominium complex, is suing the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) because

the commission didn't approve the developers' request to add porches to the

condos.

In a lawsuit filed June 26 at Danbury Superior Court, the developers seek to

have a judge overturn the P&Z's June 6 decision against allowing porches, and

thus let porches be constructed at the 18-acre development site at 26 Walnut

Tree Hill Road in Sandy Hook.

The developers are in the first phase of construction in which the first 35

units of the 80-unit project will be built. The site is east of Walnut Tree

Hill Road, near its intersections with Evergreen Road and Schoolhouse Hill

Road.

The condo complex is being built under the provisions of a special exception

to the zoning regulations granted to the developers by the P&Z in February

1995, which allows high-density, multi-family housing for the elderly in EH-10

zones.

In their application for an amendment to their special exception, the

developers sought P&Z permission for construction of unheated enclosed porches

attached to the condominium units. The developers want to build porches on

areas which the P&Z has designated for patios.

The P&Z heard the developers' request for the porches at a May 16 public

hearing and then rejected it at a June 6 meeting. The denial took effect June

14.

According to the developers, the P&Z gave the following reason for its

disapproval: "The commission considered closed-in porches to be an extension

of living space not suitable to this type of clustered area. The (porch) use

is beyond the original application."

According to the developers, in turning down the application for condo

porches, the P&Z acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of the discretion

vested in it because: it failed to give a proper reason for its denial of the

application; it decided on the application based on factors not contained in

the regulations; it failed to show how adding unheated porches to condos would

violate its decision-making criteria on requests for special exceptions or

amendments to special exceptions; and adding unheated porches to the condos

wouldn't have violated any rules or regulations regarding construction

density, wouldn't have increased traffic, wouldn't have burdened wells or

waste disposal systems, and wouldn't have created safety problems. The

developers further contend that porches would result in only a slight and

architecturally consistent addition to the condo complex.

In the lawsuit, the developers seek to have a judge sustain their appeal and

declare the P&Z's rejection of the condo porch application null and void, thus

approving the requested application for porches.

When the developers sought approval to build porches on the condos, they also

sought P&Z approval to eliminate a zoning requirement which calls for ramps to

allow wheelchair access into the condominiums.

The P&Z also rejected the request that ramps not be required.

Before submitting plans to the P&Z for the 80-unit condo complex, the

developers sought and received a revision of the zoning regulations concerning

who qualifies to live in multifamily housing for the elderly. The regulations

previously had required that property owners be at least 62 years old. After

the revision, the minimum age for condo ownership dropped to 55.

The lawsuit requires the town to answer the claims made on July 30 in Danbury

Superior Court.

C.H. Booth Library Hosted Another Successful Volunteer Fair

COA Welcomes New Alternate, Discusses Senior Alliance

BOE Recognizes 2026 Profiles In Professionalism Honorees

Fire Reports | April 28-May 4, 2026

Just Over The Border: Southeast Kitchen And Bath’s New Showroom

Well that is some spin. The Democrats have a super majority on the LC and passed the Education Budget without serious consideration of if the voters could afford the multi million dollar increase. "Was the request justified?" rather than "is this needed?" and "can the voters shoulder yet another large increase?" The voters rightly sent it back. Then for some reason all the discussion around reductions to the increase seemed to be coming from the classroom, rather than administration and overhead costs. Is this a coercive tactic to manipulate parents into supporting the budget like tacit threat of cutting freshman sports was two years ago? Who believes the Democrats did not caucus privately before the meeting and came in with a number already worked out? This is the Dems budget, they own it.

Education Cuts: Who Voted For What

I think it is important that we do not villainize every black box seen around a home, business, farm, or municipal property. A black exterior station does not always mean rat poison is being used. These stations can hold a number of different products, including monitoring blocks, snap traps, non-toxic bait, anti-tick bait stations, organic salt- or cornmeal-based control products, and newer fertility-control approaches intended to reduce rodent populations without traditional poisons. The better conversation, in my opinion, is not simply “black boxes are bad,” but rather: what is inside them, who is maintaining them, and whether the rodent issue is being managed responsibly. Exclusion, sanitation, trapping, habitat reduction, and careful monitoring should all be part of a responsible IPM strategy. To be fair, on my own property I do use rodenticides, including Bromethalin and Bromadiolone, in secured bait stations. But that is a choice I make for my property, based on my circumstances and the risk I am trying to manage. I also believe property owners should understand the tradeoffs and be encouraged to use the least harmful effective method whenever possible. I support protecting Newtown’s wildlife. I also support giving residents accurate information and not assuming that every black box represents reckless or unsafe pest control. The goal should be responsible rodent management, not fear of the box itself.

Discusses Policy Against Rodenticides

Debora, thank you! I accidentally doubled the project prices by adding the bond to the appropriation. Thank you so much for catching that and pointing it out. With the corrected numbers, the voters approved a combined $1.32 million for a salt shed ($600k) and library pavement ($720k), while rejecting the $1.12 million replacement turf. Regarding the 80s, I truly respect the hurdle of 14% mortgage rates. My point is simply that the math has shifted: in 1980, while the rates were higher, the price of a home relative to earnings was significantly lower. We are facing a different, but equally crushing, financial wall. Ultimately, it is disheartening that voters who recognized safe sidewalks and parking lots as essential, dismissed a playing field in the exact same condition. The turf has passed its life cycle and is just as much of a liability as the library’s pavement, the only difference is that this safety concern affects thousands of children who, coincidentally, cannot vote. These are apples-to-apples needs. I was hopeful our community would agree that all Newtown residents deserve safe conditions, regardless of which facility they utilize. Again, I would be remiss not to mention that when 82% of residents don’t show up, we have to deal with the interests of those who did. Hopefully, the next referendum will have a bigger turnout.

The ‘Me’ Generation

Thanks for the reply. I meant the numbers you presented in your letter. I found one place where other numbers were listed: https://www.newtownbee.com/04232026/get-out-and-vote-on-the-2026-27-proposed-municipal-and-school-budgets/?q=\\\%22advisory%20questions\\\%22. In that article, the numbers were cited as: Treadwell field: $1,125,000 Library: $720,000 Salt Storage: $600,000 As one who started out in the early 80's when inflation was double digits, my 1985 mortgage rate was 14%, and child care costs were comparable (in present value), I shared your grief but never considered the voters ironic or shameful. PS. I agree college tuition is ridiculous. Thankfully, universities are offering (or considering) waiving all or most tuition for middle class families (upwards of $200,000 incomes). Hopefully, they'll also reconsider their need for those funds in the first place.

Sure! Child care costs: https://www.ffyf.org/2022/10/13/data-child-care-prices-continue-to-rise-ahead-of-midterm-elections-outpacing-inflation/ (also from 2021-2025 we had 2 children in a local daycare in Newtown and it cost us $3200 a month, so that's a number I am very familiar with) Home price / median price vs income source: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios Tuition increase vs inflation: https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/noting-a-decline-in-middle-class-students-colleges-provide-more-aid/ Hope this helps :)

Log In

Date: Fri 05-Jul-1996

Leave a Reply Cancel reply