Town of Newtown, CT Archive

06/15/06

MINUTES

Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission

Land Use Office Regular Meeting

31 Pecks Lane, Newtown, CT June15, 2006

Present: Mr. O’Neil, Chair

Mr. Wilson, Vice Chair

Ms. Dean, Secretary

Mr. Poulin

Ms. Brymer

Alternates: Mr. Mulholland

Clerk: Ms. Wilkin

The meeting was opened at 7:41 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

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION

APPLICATION BY JACK SAMOWITZ FOR A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION, 40 AND 50 MILE HILL ROAD SOUTH, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT, ASSESSOR’S MAP #37, BLOCK #8, LOT #5

After a brief discussion Ms. Dean moved the following:

BE IT RESOLVED by the Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission that the application by Jack Samowitz for a four lot subdivision of 40.9 acres of land as shown on a certain map entitled “Subdivision Plan prepared for Jack Samowitz, #40 & #50 Mile Hill Road South, Newtown, Connecticut” dated January 4, 2006 and revised 4/18/06, scale 1”=100’, Assessor’s Map #37, Block #8, Lot #5

SHALL BE DISAPPROVED for the following reasons:

1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sections 3.09.110 and 4.07 of the subdivision regulations are not satisfied. The proposed four lot subdivision does not meet the lot sizes and road frontages of the zoning regulations and does not meet the requirements of the open space regulations.

Section 8.02.220 of the zoning regulations allow for the creation of rear lots where such property has an area capable of being divided into more lots than it has street frontage for provided the requirements of Section 8.02.210 through 8.02.260 are met. The proposed subdivision does not meet the requirement of Section 8.02.240 because there is insufficient frontage along Mile Hill Road South for the four lots.

2.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Article ll of the subdivision regulations set forth the general regulations for subdivision of land in Newtown. The first sentence of Section 2.03 states that “The land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it can be used for building purpose without danger to public health, safety or welfare”

In following up on questions raised concerning environmental contamination of the land, the Commission is in receipt of a letter dated May 25, 2006 from the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The letter informs the Commission that the subject property is known to have been impacted by contamination migrating from the former Noranda facility. The letter states that the first phases of the bioremediation pilot test have been completed but that results will not be available for a couple of months. The letter states that it should be expected that impacted groundwater will be present beneath the wetland for over a decade after installation of a full remedial system. It states that the addition of new domestic wells near the impacted groundwater could after the current steady-state conditions.

The applicant proposes to give a significant area of open space to the Town of Newtown which is contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE). The applicant has not provided any evidence to the Commission that the presence of the contamination will not have an impact upon the public health safety and welfare of persons who may utilize the open space. The potential risk is unacceptable.

The Commission has considered the effect which the proposed subdivision may have on the surrounding neighborhood as a result of the elimination of undeveloped land and the need to maintain a healthful environment. Section 4.05.210 of the subdivision regulations has not been met.

In addition, the applicant failed to disclose that the proposed open space is contaminated with TCE. The Commission will not accept this area as satisfying its requirements for open space.

In addition, the plume of the contamination borders the proposed building lots and it is not under any control. A proposal for controlling the plume has been submitted to the DEP but it has not been approved or implemented and the method may or may not be successful. In addition, neighboring properties are contaminated with MTBE and the source of that contamination has not been identified. The applicant made no mention of either contaminant and offered no expert advice on whether the construction of homes and drilling of wells would change the course or speed of the plume’s migration. The applicant offered no plan on how future home owners would be protected from this contamination. The impact on neighboring wells is not known, once this land is disturbed.

The Commission deems the proposed building lots to be unsuitable for private residents until such time as the contamination is shown to be under control and not a threat to future residents on the proposed lots.

Seconded by Ms. Brymer

Vote: Mr. O’Neil Yes

Ms. Dean Yes

Mr. Poulin Yes

Ms. Brymer Yes

Mr. Mulholland Yes

Motion approved.

PUBLIC HEARING (Continued)

APPLICATION BY SEVEN BERKSHIRE LLC FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF 2.5 ACRES AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A 7,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON LOTS A-2, 7 BERKSHIRE ROAD, SANDY HOOK, CONNECTICUT. ASSESSOR’S MAP #38, BLOCK #10, LOT #6

Michael Rizzo, 42 Old Farm Hill Road, Newtown, Connecticut, representing the applicant, submitted a letter from Frederick Clark, traffic consultant, dated 6/8/06 explaining the traffic volume. An appraisal by O’Neil Duffey dated 6/12/06 was submitted.

The hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION BY PHIL BRAUN FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL WAREHOUSE SPACE WITH ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS, 46 BERKSHIRE ROAD, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT, ASSESSOR’S MAP #5, BLOCK #7, LOT #20 – LOT #8

Ms. Dean read the call for the hearing

Mr. O’Neil read the correspondence in the file and asked to hear from the applicant.

Matthew Skully, P.E., CCA, 40 Old New Milford Road, Brookfield, Connecticut, explained the plans for the project that is in an M-1 zone. He addressed staff comments. He asked if the hearing could remain open in order to submit revised drawings reflecting staff comments. There would be no significant impact on traffic.

Phil Braun, 46 Barnabus Road, Newtown, Connecticut explained the proposal.

Mr. O’Neil asked to hear from the public.

Mike Sanchez, 137 Currituck Road, Newtown, Connecticut was concerned about the loss of the trees that would expose the building to neighbors

Mr. Skully stated that part of the Wetland approval is retention of plantings. New trees would take time to mature.

Mary Fellows, 120 Walnut Tree Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut suggested using a sod roof.

Dan Faccenda, 135 Currituck Road, Newtown, Connecticut was also concerned about the loss of trees exposing the building.

The hearing was left open in order for the applicant to submit revised drawings.

PUBLIC HEARING (Continued)

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

Mr. O’Neil noted that the Commission was waiting to hear from the Sewer Commission.

Robert Aldridge, Aldridge & Burns, Architectural Engineers, 13 East Pembroke Road, Danbury, Connecticut submitted a model of the proposed site. He noted that a candle could not be seen through the trees at 9:30 p.m.

Donald Tone, Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc., 41 Ruane Street, Fairfield, Connecticut submitted supplemental traffic analysis, explaining that the methodology followed DEP regulations. He expressed disappointment at the findings of the Police Commission.

Ryan McKain, 1 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut said that the application was in compliance with the POCD.

Mr. O’Neil asked to hear from the public.

Bill Jensen, 171 Jennifer Lane, Sandy Hook, Connecticut was concerned about the impact from lights.

Megan Williams, 82 Church Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut doubted the statement that light from the buildings would not be visible.

Kevin Fitzgerald, 24 Old Farm Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, referring to the applicant’s mention of the POCD would like to maintain the scenic characteristics of the town. This is close to the Sandy Hook revitalization project which is encouraging pedestrian traffic. He wants to see barns protected.

Ray Rukek, 10 Glen Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut thanked the Commission for their time and service to the town. He could not see why this project was being considered.

Morgan McLaughlin, Alberts Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut reminded everyone that there were three parts to the application and nothing was mentioned about the impact this would have on other places in town. She quoted from the Health Department minutes and asked for a denial of the application. She submitted a letter from Jen Rocky, 86 Church Hill Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut dated 6/14/06.

Steve Trinkaus, P.E. Trinkaus Engineering, 437 Box Hill Road, Southbury, Connecticut explained the location and size of the trees. He noted that revised plans were to be submitted to the Sewer Commission.

Ms. Dean noted that there was no common area for children or families to plan.

Mr. Mulholland was concerned that there were no sidewalks.

Mr. McKain addressed issues noting that sidewalks would be impractical.

Ms. Williams submitted an intervention letter dated 6/14/06 stating specific environmental impact.

The hearing was closed at 9:11 p.m. A recess was called.

The meeting reconvened at 9:23 p.m.

CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS

AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 28 CHURCH HILL ROAD, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT

James Pattillo and Anthony Cursio, Bennett Sullivan, 3 Pomperaug Office Park, Southbury, Connecticut distributed revised maps and explained the amendment. The conversation was joined by Elizabeth Stocker, Director of Community Development, after which Mr. O’Neil said he would forward comments to the Borough.

NAGY BROTHERS ANNUAL MINING PERMIT RENEWAL

Ms. Dean made a motion to approve the mining permit for another year. Seconded by Mr. Wilson. The vote was unanimous.

MINUTES

Ms. Dean made a motion to approve the minutes of June 1, 2006 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Wilson. The vote was unanimous.

Mr. Wilson made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Mulholland.

Vote: Mr. O’Neil Yes

Mr. Wilson Yes

Ms. Dean Yes

Mr. Poulin Yes

Ms. Brymer Yes

Motion approved.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________

Lilla Dean, Secretary