MINUTES
Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission
Land Use Office Regular Meeting
31 Pecks Lane, Newtown, Connecticut January 3, 2008
Present: Ms. Dean, Mr. Bloom, Ms. Brymer, Mr. Mulholland and Mr. English. Alternate: Mr. Crusen. Also present: Elizabeth Stocker, Director of Planning and Community Development and George Benson, Land Use Director. Clerk: Ms. Wilkin
The meeting was opened at 7:37 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
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued
APPLICATION BY EDWARD MOYLE FOR A TWO LOT RESUBDIVISION, 4.8 ACRES, 18 OSBORN HILL ROAD, SANDY HOOK, CONNECTICUT, AS SHOWN ON A CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED “PROPERTY SURVEY & SUBDIVISION MAP PREPARED FOR EDWARD H, MOYLE, 187 OSBORNE HILL ROAD, NEWTOWN, CT”, DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2007, SCALE 1” = 30’ FOR PROPERTY AT 18 OSBORN HILL ROAD, SANDY HOOK, CONNECTCUT, ASSESSOR’S MAP 50, BLOCK 8-1, LOT 3
Camille Degallen, Esq., 30 Main Street, Danbury, Connecticut made herself to answer any questions.
Corinne Tuizzolli, Project Engineer, DyMar, 325 Main Street south, Southbury, Connecticut submitted revised drawings reflecting requested adjustments.
Robert Sibley, Conservation Department, will give his final comments once he has had a chance to look at the revised maps.
The hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
APPLICATION BY JACK SAMOWITZ FOR A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISIION, #40 AND #50 MILE HILL ROAD SOUTH, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT, ASSESSOR’S MAP 37, BLOCK 8, LOT 5
Ms. Brymer moved the following:
FINDING OF FACT:
The Court issued A Memorandum of Decision dated August 9, 2007 which required that the Commission allow the applicant an opportunity to a public hearing to respond to the issues raised in a May 25, 2006 letter from the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP). In compliance with the Court’s decision, the Planning and Zoning Commission scheduled a public hearing for their regular meeting of November 15, 2007.
The May 25, 2006 letter from the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) informs the Commission that the subject property is impacted by a plume of trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination migrating from the former Noranda facility. The letter states that under present conditions the contaminated groundwater is discharging to the wetland stream at acceptable concentrations with no significant migration beyond the stream. The letter states that the first phases of the bioremediation pilot test has bee4n 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. The letter states that TCE is
not present in the existing domestic wells along Mile Hill Road south. It states that the addition of new domestic wells near the impacted groundwater could alter the current steady-state conditions.
The may 25, 2006 CTDEP letter went on to describe that the drinking wells of neighboring properties at 53 and 57 Mile Hill Road South are contaminated with MTBE, in which a contamination source has not been identified. The CTDEP letter states that, “If MTBE or other contaminants are detected and no other responsible party can be identified, the Department may seek to enter into a Consent Order with the Town to provide a long-term potable water supply to affected residents utilizing the State potable water grant”.
The November 15, 2007 testimony presented by the applicant, Metcalf and Eddy, engineers for the remediation and Noranda, owners of the contaminated site, discussed the presence of the TCE contaminant upon the land but they did not supply any new information and the experts could not state based on their environmental studies that domestic water supply wells were feasible on the Samowitz property. The representatives did not offer advice on whether the construction of homes and drilling of new wells would change the course or speed of the existing plume’s migration. The applicant offered no plan on how future or existing home owners would be protected should TCE contamination be detected in their wells.
The applicants admitted that they do not know what impact the proposed disturbance of land would have on the existing wells in the neighborhood and offered no plan to supply potable water to the proposed home sites should they become contaminated as a result of the disturbance.
The Commission has considered the unknown effect which the proposed land development may have on the subject lots and the surrounding neighborhood, the need to maintain a healthful environment and the potential risk that the development may post to the public health.
BE IT THEREFORE 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. The proposed subdivision does not comply with Article II of the subdivision regulations which sets 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 addition, the Commission is not satisfied that Article IV, Section 4.03.100 of the subdivision regulations has been met due to unknown risk to public health that is present upon the land.
The plume of trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination borders the proposed building lots and it is not under any control. A proposal for controlling the plume has been submitted to the CTDEP but it has not been approved or implemented and the method may or may not be successful. The CTDEP warns that the addition of new domestic wells near the impacted groundwater could alter the current steady-state conditions. The impact on neighboring wells is not known once this land is disturbed.
The Commission deems the land for the proposed subdivision to be unsuitable for private residential development and open space at this time. Potable water is unknown to be available to proposed lots, the contamination upon the land is not under control and may be a threat to future residents of the proposed subdivision lots or residents in the immediate neighborhood and the development may cause a financial burden to the Town as the Town may be held liable for supplying potable water to impacted homes if they approve the proposed subdivision.
2. The applicant proposes to give an area of the land to the Town of Newtown for open space pursuant to Section 4.05.100 of the subdivision regulations. A significant area of the subdivision plat including the proposed open space land is contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE). The potential risk to public health associated with this property due to the contamination is unacceptable. The proposed open space is not appropriate for public use or public ownership and the Commission will not accept this land as satisfying its requirements for open space pursuant to Section 4.05.100 of the subdivision regulations. The proposed open
space is not consistent with the open space objectives set forth in Sections 4.05.210 through 4.05.230.6 of the subdivision regulations.
3. At the hearing of November 15, 2007 the applicant stated that the option for a fee in lieu of open space exists. A map was presented which does not meet the requirement for final subdivision plans pursuant to Section 3.01.535 of the subdivision regulations and the applicant did not offer the name of an appraiser for determining the market value of the land and the offer for a fee in lieu of open space was not discussed by the applicant at any previous meetings. The fee in lieu of open space is not approved pursuant to Section 4.05.710 of the subdivision regulations.
4. Sections 3.09.110 and 4.07 of the subdivision regulations are not satisfied. 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 that it has street frontage for provided the requirements of Sections 8.02.210 and 8.02.260 are met. The proposed subdivision does not meet the requirement of Section 8.02.240 since there is sufficient frontage along Mile Hill Road South for the four lots.
Seconded by Mr. Bloom
Ms. Dean asked for comments from the Commission.
Mr. Mulholland said that due to the unknown potential of contamination he could see no reason why at this point in time development on this piece of land should not be approved.
Ms. Dean agreed adding that the engineers submitted no proof that proposed retention would work. She asked the Commission for a friendly motion deleting Motion #4 (in bold) due to its obsolescence. Seconded by Mr. Bloom. The vote was approved 5-0.
Mr. English said that it is too much of an unknown. Ms. Brymer said there was nothing to protect drinking water on the land shown.
Although at this time the application was not approved, Mr. Mulholland praised the applicants for an excellent presentation. Ms. Dean added that this issue is not closed and it is hoped that the issue can be revisited if the situation improves.
Vote: Ms. Dean Yes
Mr. Bloom Yes
Ms. Brymer Yes
Mr. Muholland Yes
Mr. English Yes
Motion approved
CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS
PRESENTATION CONCERNING PLAZA SOUTH SHOPPIPNG CENTER CONCERNING A WINE TASTING OPERATION.
Paul Scalzo, 6 Stoneyhill Road, Bethel, Connecticut, David Gidwani, 49 Independence Drive, Shelton, Connecticut and Camillle Degallen, Esq., 30 Main Street, Danbury, Connecticut explained the proposed Wine Bar planned for the Plaza South Shopping Center. They wanted to know if it came within regulations. The Commission had no problem with it and will see if any regulations need to be amended or new ones suggested.
Mary Curren, 41 Cold Spring Road, Newtown, Connecticut asked about the proximity of the learning center. She was advised that this does not come under the technical term of school.
MINUTES
Ms. Bryner made a motion to approve the minutes of December 20, 2007 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Bloom. The vote was unanimous.
Mr. English made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Bloom
Vote: Ms. Dean Yes
Mr. Bloom Yes
Ms. Brymer Yes
Mr. Muholland Yes
Mr. English Yes
Motion approved
The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
| 
