Greenfield Court,

By ALBERTA GREGUS

Published: Sep 29, 2006 12:00 am

Greenfield Court,

New Milford

Christopher McClenic purchased a home at 3 Greenfield Court in New Milford from GLT New Milford, LLC.

Bob Smith of Century 21 Home Services Scalzo-Gleason Group listed this property and Bob Smith of Century 21 Home Services Scalzo-Gleason Group sold it.

Attorney Chris Donahue represented the sellers and the buyer was represented by attorney Phillip Ricciutti.

Carla Drive,

Danbury

Mike and Debbie Silva purchased a home at 1 Carla Drive in Danbury from Cartus Financial Corporation.

Eileen Brooks of Century 21 Home Services Scalzo-Gleason Group listed this property and Eileen Brooks of Century 21 Home Services Scalzo-Gleason Group sold it.

Levine, Hoffstetter & Frangk represented the sellers and the buyers were represented by attorney Kathy Coppola.

Hall Lane

Kim and Beth Uniacke purchased a home at 21 Hall Lane from Barbara Kolh.

Frank Delvecchio of ReMax Right Choice listed this property, which was sold by Michelle Baier of Century 21 Home Services Scalzo-Gleason Group.

Attorney Hugh Lavery represented the sellers and the buyer was represented by attorney Terry Sachs.

Parmalee Hill Road

Lawrence and Donna Studdiford purchased a home at 35 Parmalee Hill Road from Pamela Newnham.

Liz Newnham of Century 21 Home Services Scalzo-Gleason Group listed this property and Cathi Masi of Flagpole Realty, Inc sold it.

Attorney Anne Ragusa represented the sellers and the buyer was represented by Celia Barnum.

Pleasant Street, Bethel

Roger and Madeline Bellamy purchased 12 Pleasant Street in Bethel from the estate of John J Snopkowski.

Pat MacInnis of William Pitt Sothebyâs International Realty listed the property, which was sold by Josephine Simko of William Raveis Real Estate.

Attorney Mark Korotash of Danbury represented the seller and attorney Anthony Vournazos of Danbury represented the buyers.

Maple Tree Hill Road, Oxford

William and Rebecca Hulford sold their home at 141 Maple Tree Hill Road, Oxford, to Ronald and Judith Benson of Newtown.

Kathi Weller, Realtor, ABR, of Flagpole Realty, Inc sold the property. Pat Blanko of Century 21 Home Services McConnell listed the property.

Attorney Michael Nahoum of Newtown represented the buyers and attorney John Cassidy of Waterbury represented the sellers.

Fire Reports | July 9-15, 2025

Original Student Art Is Expanding The Exhibition Space Of Local Business

Maplewood Hosting Free Summer Concerts

Newtown Middle School Tech Support Specialist Bruce Moulthrop Retires

Police Reports | July 7-July 13, 2025

It’s important to clarify the tone and context of Derek Pisani’s remarks, particularly the satirical line about suing Newtown for "Gross Stupidity." This was clearly a tongue-in-cheek jab at the exhausting culture of legal threats that’s become a staple on the local Facebook Group forums. It was a reflection of frustration over endless regulatory hurdles and obstructionism, and the desire to avoid common sense solutions not an insult aimed at residents. Satire, is meant to provoke thought and highlight the absurdities. If we are unable to distinguish between satire and literal threats, perhaps the comment hit closer to the truth than we’d like to admit. Rather than focusing on Pisanis style, we should be discussing the substance of what he’s pointing out: that Newtown’s progress is being routinely blocked by a small but vocal contingent who seem intent on saying “no” at every turn. They are saying no to any development, no to common sense solutions to crowd control, etc. Newtown deserves leaders who are willing to call things as they see them, even if their language ruffles feathers. That doesn’t mean they lack respect for constituents—it means they care enough to challenge the Mob and push for solutions. Isn't that what we elect people to do? I applaud Pisani's dedication, he certainly has earned my vote. Regardless, let’s not reduce conversation to tone-policing and outrage. Let’s focus on the issues that matter.

Who is Calling Newtowners Stupid?

Thank you for pointing out the trail access provisions included in the BOS motion—it’s an important clarification that deserves more attention in this conversation. If the development is, in fact, required to provide permanent free public access and commit to ongoing maintenance of this section of the Rochambeau Trail, that is a remarkably beneficial outcome for the town. oIt’s not every day that a private project shoulders the long-term burden of preserving and caring for a public historical corridor at no taxpayer cost—especially one that previously had no formal access, upkeep, or visibility. Let’s be honest: the idea that the only way to protect history is by preventing any development nearby is a rigid and unworkable standard. What’s being proposed here appears to strike a rare balance—historic preservation, public access, and smart development all rolled into one. That’s not a loss its a win. So rather than allowing a handful of voices to derail progress under the banner of “historic purity,” maybe it’s time to acknowledge the reality: this trail is better off with structured stewardship and visibility than remaining an overgrown ghost on old maps. Let’s move forward. Bring in the easement, bring in the public access—and yes, bring in the bulldozers!!! Progress and preservation can coexist. Let’s not let the NIMBY use fear or nostalgia keep us stuck in the past.

Discusses Rochambeau Trail And 6 Commerce Road

I've heard that several people are under the impression that the public might be banned from the Rochambeau Trail. Points 2 and 3 from the BOS motion (included in full below) make it clear that public access to the trail is part of the requirements for the developer. From what I understand, it requires free public access to the trail in perpetuity. Technically, this could be argued to be a "payment-in-kind," that attempts to balance public good with overall town growth. We can argue about weather that balance is acceptable and how the trail may be affected, but with the understanding that the trail is expected to be maintained as a publicly accessible trail regardless. July 15, 2024 Board of Selectmen approved motion: Discontinuance of Reservoir Road: Selectman Cruson moved the resolution: Resolved, that the Newtown Board of Selectmen, in accordance with Section 2-115(d)(8) of the Town Charter and Conn. Gen. Stat. §13a-49, and subject to the conditions set forth below, hereby discontinues an unimproved portion of Reservoir Road described as “Portion of Reservoir Road to be Discontinued “on that certain survey map which will be recorded on the Newtown Land Records titled “Map Showing Portion of Reservoir Road to be Discontinued” dated August, 2023 and revised September 15, 2023, and certified substantially correct by Gregory Szyszowski of SLR (the “Survey Map”), said discontinuance contingent and effective only upon the completion of the following: 1. The approval of an application for the development of land in the manner described in a letter from Attorney Thomas W. Beecher to First Selectman A. Jeffrey Capeci and Members of the Board of Selectmen dated May 30, 2024, pursuant to the “Residential Open Space Development” regulations of the Borough of Newtown by the Borough of Newtown Zoning Commission, and construction of that approval project within the timeframes required for special exception approval; 2. The inclusion of the discontinued portion of the road as part of the final Declaration of Conservation Restriction; 3. The conveyance of a mutually agreeable public easement to the Town of Newtown for pedestrian, bicycling, equestrian, and all other passive recreational uses (to exclude the use of motorized vehicles except as may be necessary by the Town or its designee to effectuate the purpose of the easement), and for municipal utility purposes; Be it further resolved, that Castle Hill Real Estate Holdings, LLC., its successors and assigns, shall not use any portion of the discontinued road as a vehicular road or access way to and from any developed portions of the property. Be it further finally resolved, that should any of the foregoing contingencies not occur, then the discontinuance contemplated herein shall not become effective and this resolution will become null and void. From: https://www.newtown-ct.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif12216/f/minutes/bos_7-15-24_min-_att_final.pdf

Is this paper road (roads that only exist on paper map but not in reality) even owned by the Town? Many roads that predate the Town's road standards are privately owned and were never accepted by the Town, such as many of the nonconforming roads around the lake communities where the property owners own right to the center line. That is something we had to deal with when working on the Roads Ordinance a few years back. We also had to deal with a private road to run the utilities to the new SHS.

For anyone who wants to know, I cant post a link here, but Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority has an entire website. Look up "HRRA whats in whats out"

I Get It!

<< Jul 2025 >>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
29	30	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31	1	2

Log In

Greenfield Court,

Leave a Reply Cancel reply