EDIT: This article has been edited to include the correct date of the Borough Zoning Commission meeting on Wednesday, August 21, clarify some wording, and provide the correct spelling of a name. It should be noted to those interested in attending that meeting that the correct date is August 21, not August 14 as currently presented on the town calendar.

With fears over what may happen to the Rochambeau Trail area of 20-60 Castle Hill Road following the discontinuation of Reservoir Road by the Board of Selectmen, Newtown Conservation Coalition founder Dave Ackert submitted a potential amendment to the zoning regulations of the Borough of Newtown to strengthen protections for historic areas.

While the amendment to Borough zoning regulation 4.02 will not be applicable to the 20-60 Castle Hill Road application, since the application for 20-60 Castle Hill Road has already been submitted, Ackert hopes to protect other historic areas in the Borough and make sure situations like Reservoir Road can not happen in the future.

Additionally, if the 20-60 Castle Hill Road subdivision is rejected by the Borough of Newtown, if Ackert’s proposed amendment is accepted it would apply to any future developments on the Castle Hill Road property. In that scenario, since the conditions applied to that discontinuation require that the development application be approved by Borough Zoning and that the development be built within five years, a theoretical future developer would not be able to take advantage of the road discontinuation since it never would have gone into effect.

Approximately 45 people attended the hearing on the amendment by the Borough Zoning Commission on July 24. The hearing was continued until the next regular meeting on Wednesday, August 21, since Borough Zoning had not yet received an answer to the referral it sent to the town Planning & Zoning Commission. By town regulation, the Borough has its own zoning office but not its own planning office, which means it utilizes the town Land Use Department and town Planning & Zoning Commission for planning functions. The purpose of the referral is to review the proposed amendment for possible impact to the town’s planning.

Ackert, in his presentation on the amendment, said it would help the Borough meet the objectives of the 2014 Plan of Conservation and Development that speaks about protecting the town’s historic sites and archaeological resources, the “links to Newtown’s past.” Ackert noted that the Borough and town regulations don’t “have a lot of meat there,” and in the town’s zoning regulations, the section referring to historic preservation is a “blank page.”

“The Borough has a lot of rules about signs, and ... has strict regulations on structures, particularly in the village,” said Ackert. “But there is not a lot to protect sites that are not a building or a sign.”

Ackert said the intent is to encourage, enhance, and perpetuate preservation of historic sites. He told the commission he utilized zoning regulations from Southbury in formulating his proposed amendment.

“This amendment will ensure you’re making the most informed decision possible,” said Ackert.

The amendment requires the identification of presence of historic sites by a third-party expert on any application for a structure of 1,500 square feet or more; would require mitigation of any impact of building such structures to be reviewed by an independent third party; require a supermajority vote for approval of an application that would require the removal of a historic road or site from the map; and require a 300’ buffer around any historic site to prevent urbanization around the views from historic structures or sites.

Resident Charles Zukowski during the public hearing expressed concern about the availability of documents to the public concerning both the amendment and the 20-60 Castle Hill development application. The Borough’s zoning enforcement officer, Joe Chapman, has limited hours and Zukowski said getting paperwork or seeing details of zoning applications in the Borough can be difficult. Borough Zoning Chairman Douglas Nelson said the office would strive to make documentation more readily available. Zukowski also mentioned that more details should be put on the town or Borough website so that interested residents don’t have to go down to the Municipal Center, which is closed during hours many residents would be able to go.

Resident Dan Holmes, speaking directly to the proposed amendment, said that the amendment gives the zoning regulations “some bite” with regard to historic preservation. He said approving it would be a “good decision” in helping the Borough abide by the town’s POCD.

Resident Sue Torrey was “definitely in favor of the amendment” and was a former resident of Southbury, where Ackert pulled some of his ideas for the amendment.

“Whatever they feel they’re protecting over there, so can we,” said Torrey.

Resident Emily Kaufman “echoed support” of the amendment and said she “always appreciated” the town’s historic locations.

Resident Pat Hirsch said that while the amendment “may seem like more bureaucratic steps,” that from the public’s view, it helps “if we know things are processed and items have been done” so that the public can “trust decision-makers and the decisions made.”

Resident Elliot Taylor said that currently there’s “grey area” for the town’s historic sites and changes to those sites would “make the Borough unrecognizable.”

Following public participation, Borough Zoning commissioners asked questions of Ackert to help them better understand the intended proposed reach of the amendment as well as the intent behind it.

Commissioner Dave Francis commented on the regulations being “broad,” referring to historical and archaeological sites and structures that are under special exception and site development plan but also all residential. He asked Ackert if residential areas will have to comply with this same procedure.

Ackert confirmed that the amendment was intended to apply to all residential areas. Francis and Nelson disagreed with Ackert on how onerous the regulation to require third party review would be, with both expressing concerns about applicants not being able to get information in a timely manner related to the zoning deadlines. Ackert, however, maintained that most residents should be able to make a phone call to the State Historic Preservation Office or the US Parks Department to determine whether any further action is needed. If a property is not marked as having possible historic significance, they would not require any third party review. Ackert said he found people at the State Historic Preservation Office to be responsive to his calls.

Francis questioned that the amendment would require a supermajority to “cause to be discontinued, abandoned or removed from any map a historic road or site without a supermajority,” noting that discontinuing roads was not within the zoning commission’s purview.

Ackert answered that it is in the commission’s purview to take actions that could cause that. Specifically, the discontinuation of Reservoir Road has been conditioned on the approval of the current site development application for 20-60 Castle Hill Road; the amendment would make it require a supermajority to approve that application in the future.

Nelson said that the town has some historic preservation-related language in its subdivision regulations.

“There’s a lot of good stuff in there,” Nelson said. “You folks also brought up a lot of good things worth looking at.”

The amendment was expected to be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission at its August 1 meeting, after press time for The Newtown Bee. The Borough Zoning Commission will continue its hearing at its next regular meeting on August 14.

=====

Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.