MINUTES
Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission
~
Land Use Office Regular Meeting
31 Pecks Lane, Newtown, CT April 6, 2006
~
Present: Mr. O’Neil, Chair
Ms. Dean, Secretary
Ms. Brymer
Alternates: Mr. Mulholland sat for Mr. Poulin
Mr. Cruz for Mr. Wilson
Mr. Bloom
~
Clerk: Ms. Wilkin
~
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. Notice is made that the entire meeting was taped and can be heard in the Planning and Zoning Office, 31 Pecks Lane, Newtown, Connecticut
~
The Commission went into Executive Session to discuss legal matters. The came out of Executive Session at 7:43 p.m.
~
PUBLIC HEARING
~
APPLICATION BY DAUTI CONSTRUCTION LLC FOR (1) AMENDMENT TO THE NEWTOWN ZONING REGULATIONS; (2) REZONING OF 4.4 ACRES; (3) SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL AND (4) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT/SPECIAL PERMIT FOR INCIDENTAL EXCAVATION, EDONA COMMONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 95 CHURCH HILL ROAD, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT, ASSESSOR’S MAP #39, BLOCK #1, LOTS 10/11
~
Before the hearing proceeded Elizabeth Stocker, Director of Community Development distributed and explained two documents “Chapter 126a Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals” and “2004 Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure List” dated April 1, 2005.
~
Before continuing, Mr. O’Neil explained the public hearing procedures to the members of the public present
~
Ms. Dean read the call for the hearing.
~
Mr. O’Neil read the correspondence in the file.
~
Ryan McKain, Shipman & Goodwin, 1 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut representing the applicant submitted receipts of mailing and briefly explained the application.
~
Steve Trinkaus, P.E. Trinkaus Engineering, 437 Box Hill Road, Southbury, Connecticut went through the engineering aspects of the proposal, addressing staff comments. He explained the storm water control management.
~
Donald Tone, Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc., 41 Ruane Street, Fairfield, Connecticut explained the traffic report, referring to their Traffic Impact Study.
~
Russ Slayback, Chairman, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Professional Ground-water and Environmental Engineering Services, 4 Research Drive, Shelton, Connecticut explained the impact of secondary re-charge on the aquifer.
~
Mr. McKain addressed staff comments except those of Ms. Stocker, that he had just received. He asked if the hearing could be left open to address these and other outstanding issues.
~
The Commission asked various questions about increased density, height of the buildings, the number of units per building, open space, setbacks, removal of earth and prevention of re-contouring of the land, school buses ,traffic and groundwater re-charge
~
Mr. McKain answered the questions and asked if the hearing could be continued on the May 4th meeting.
~
Mr. O’Neil asked to hear from the public.
~
Joseph Borst, Beechwood Drive, Newtown, Connecticut asked if Julia Wasserman could address the Commission first due to another appointment. Mr. O’Neil agreed.
~
Julia Wasserman, 113 Walnut Tree Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut noted the distance between Walnut Tree Hill Road and the egress from this project and the resulting impact on traffic. She stated that the sewer capacity is non-negotiable and asked what effect this would have on the water table.
~
Emily Cassidy, 157 Jennifer Lane, Sandy Hook, Connecticut expressed concern that there was no secondary exit in case of an emergency. School bus stop on the hill. There is no play area in the plan. Wants trees and stone walls kept. Was concerned about blasting.
~
Agnes Jensen, 171 Jennifer Lane, Sandy Hook, Connecticut submitted a letter and expressed concern about the traffic
~
Megan Williams, 82 Church Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut submitted a letter from herself and one from Dean Sasso both dated 4/6/06 and an additional 213 petition letters to be added to the ones in the file. She opposed the application citing long term ramifications. This would be setting a precedent in town. She advised the Commission that Tonia and Mike Oberstadt, 29 Dayton Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut were not notified of the hearing.
~
Morgan McLaughlin, 14 Alberts Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut considered the application for a new zone is the applicants way of circumnavigating affordable housing. This should not meet special exception regulations and a disregard of Newtown’s zoning regulations.
~
Mr. O’Neil called for a recess at 9:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:03 p.m.
~
Bill Jensen, 171 Jennifer Lane, Sandy Hook, Connecticut noted that this would be close to his porch. A former firefighter he explained the need for a second access.
~
Joe Borst, 10 Beechwood Drive, Sandy Hook, Connecticut expressed concern about school buses that would not be allowed into the site and the impact on traffic. He asked about the buildings height noting that they resembled cliff dwellings. He was also concerned about blasting and the effect on local wells. He opposed the application.
~
Christopher Breault, 13 Washington Avenue, Sandy Hook, Connecticut expressed concern about the length of fire hoses required in the event of fire. This project does not fit in with the revitalization of the Sandy Hook Design District.
~
Mary Curren, 41 Cold Spring Road, Newtown, Connecticut noted that this would effect the entire town, not just the site being discussed. She asked why the applicant could not apply under the current regulations.
~
Maryann O’Donnell, 97 Church Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut noted that this was a historic road. Her house value would decrease because the site is right in her back yard.
~
Catherine Adsitt, 24 Jo Mar Drive, Newtown, Connecticut asked how this fit in with existing zoning. Pedestrian safety was an issue and there was no landscape plan. She questioned the traffic report.
~
Julia Nable, 10 Walnut Tree Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut submitted letters from herself and Zoltan Csillag dated 4/6/06 noted that this was the third application for this site.
~
Zoltan Csillag, 10 Walnut Tree Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut considered the application ridiculous and a farce. It has been turned town twice.
~
Mary Fellows, 120 Walnut Tree Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut considered this an inappropriate development. This is the applicant’s third try and is purely for financial reasons.
~
Dwayne Jones, 16 Walnut Tree Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut submitted an undated letter. He noted that there was no place for children to play other than on the rocks, there is no open space and questioned the traffic level of service.
~
Wendy Davidson, 88 Church Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut asked about the water rights to the springs that run under the road. She was concerned about blasting on her shallow well.
~
Lincoln Sander, 211 Walnut Tree Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, Chairman of the Newtown Historic society wants Sandy Hook to come under the historic designation. He considered this an aesthetic holocaust.
~
Morgan McLaughlin said that this does not meet State Statutes and affordable housing.
~
Mary O’Donnell asked why they could not put four houses on the site.
~
Joe Borst asked for a rear elevation and updated traffic study.
~
Kevin Fitzgerald, 24 Old Farm Hill Road, Newtown, Connecticut asked what is actually being proposed.
~
Mr. McKain submitted a letter granting an extension till the first available date.
~
Pat Figlola, 127 Lewis Hill Road, Newtown, Connecticut noted that if the zone is not changed the entire matter is irrelevant.
~
The Commission asked the applicant to supply the following for the next meeting: architectural renderings showing the details of the building, statistics on fire vehicles and hydrant access, water rights, traffic stats, blasting and the issue of school buses.
~
Ms. Dean made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Bloom
~
Vote: Mr. O’Neil Yes
Ms. Dean Yes
Ms. Brymer Yes
Mr. Mulholland Yes
Mr. Cruz Yes
Motion approved.
~
The meeting adjourned at 10:57 p.m.
~
Respectfully submitted,
~
~
~
________________________
Lilla Dean, Secretary
~
| 
