(Editor’s Note: This letter originally appeared in the June 28, 2024 print edition of The Newtown Bee. It was missed when that week’s letters were uploaded to this website.)

* * * * *

To the Editor:

Land conservation and the protection of Newtown's agricultural heritage are vitally important to many residents. With a new Plan of Conservation and Development in the works and proposed housing developments again making news and spurring letters to the editor, it’s worth reflecting on how Newtown's forests and farmlands reached the condition they are in today.

In 1959, as development pressures had begun to overtake Newtown, the Bee Editorial Board wrote that "we hope the time will never come when dense population will destroy that open feeling of space to breathe and room to move about, which we have always taken for granted." To reconcile demand for housing with desire for conservation, the Bee suggested a variation in development densities, with Newtown establishing large lot size minimums in what it characterized as the "corners" of the town and minimums below one acre in the center. In other words: a distinct town, and a distinct countryside.

This sensible idea was not adopted by the town or the Borough. Instead, that same year Newtown was zoned from top to bottom with minimum lot sizes that were mostly of one, two and three acres. The Borough, which had initially had a minimum lot size of one-half acre, increased this to one acre. As a result, even our beloved Main Street does not conform to Borough zoning, since most lots are too small or have too little street frontage to meet zoning regulations. Having made it illegal to build at the density of a traditional, walkable New England village, the town also failed to establish any agricultural greenbelt to conserve farms and guide development of the large-lot homes it had mandated.

The 1959 plan, intended to slow growth and keep taxes low, has been modified and improved many times over the years but is still in large part the same one the town has on the books today. It has promoted a voracious consumption of our farms and fields for large houses while preventing development on smaller lots near the center of town. It has failed to keep taxes low while stretching our infrastructure thin. And it has left conservationists fighting a valiant but desperate rearguard action.

The good news is that the decisions made 65 years ago aren’t binding on us today. Zoning can be changed to reflect different priorities, many of which are already written into our POCD but not yet into our ordinances. We have a chance to refine those priorities this year and have our zoning reflect what we want, not what we fear. It will require acknowledging that development and conservation can and should be complementary, that walkability is a worthy and achievable goal, and that quality of life can benefit immensely from good physical planning. It’s my hope that we can work together to make it happen.

Charlie Gardner

Sandy Hook