A letter from an attorney challenging the town’s decision to conditionally discontinue a section of Reservoir Road was filed a few days before the Borough of Newtown’s Zoning Commission continued deliberations on a Castle Hill development requiring it.

The letter was briefly mentioned during the commission’s deliberations at the commission’s January 15 meeting. It was also discussed during an executive session at the January 21 Board of Selectmen meeting, but no decision was made by that body and no discussion was made during the public portion of the meeting.

The letter, from Attorney Daniel Casagrande of Anderson & Cramer, LLP, of Danbury, alleges that the approvals for the road discontinuation are illegal because the town did not schedule a town meeting with a vote of the public, and the board’s conditional discontinuance is “unfair” because “it effectively destroys the right of a meaningful appeal to court of the discontinuance.”

The letter says that state statute requires that the town notice and conduct a town meeting, which by definition is a meeting of townspeople in which all legal residents can cast a vote on the issue. It also claims that two of the conditions (the discontinuance had four conditions) placed on the discontinuance, one saying that the discontinuation goes into effect if the project is complete within five years and second requiring approval of special exception application by Borough Zoning, means that no notice of the discontinuance of the road has been legally filed. This in turn, according to Casagrande, means the discontinuation cannot be legally appealed.

The letter ends asking for the Board of Selectmen to “take immediate action to rescind its vote to discontinue [Reservoir Road], and to present a new proposed discontinuance (with any desired conditions) to the town meeting for consideration.”

“Not only the law but fundamental fairness require this action, which, in the end, is in the best interest of the town,” stated Casagrande. “If I do not receive written confirmation from the Board within 15 days of the date of this letter, that the Board has rescinded its vote or placed it on agenda for rescission this month, I will advise my client to pursue all remedies available to him in law and equity to strike down this illegal action, including but not limited to a mandamus action in Superior Court.”

Resident Eric Thompson stated in a letter that he engaged the attorney to “protect the public interest, not because I have anything to gain.”

“The proposed Castle Hill development has the potential to forever change the iconic, quaint center of Newtown,” stated Thompson. “If this is going to happen, there has to be strict adherence to proper procedure. We ask that the law be followed.”

At the Borough Zoning meeting, some discussion was made of a protest petition, but Chairman Douglas Nelson said as a special exception, the protest petition was not “supported by state statute” and thus could not require the commission to only be able to approve the development by supermajority.

Commission member Claudia Mitchell questioned why, if that was the case, it was not brought up before. Nelson answered that he had not read it or looked into its validity before, and doing so is generally done during the commission deliberations, not the public hearing.

Nelson asked for a vote on whether the commission agreed that the protest petition was not upheld by state statute, but Mitchell and Commissioner Douglas McDonald both wanted more time to review.

Mitchell also expressed concern that the developer’s submitted traffic study “told a different story” about traffic in town than what was discussed during public participation by residents.

“I think the traffic study is flimsy at best,” said Mitchell.

Mitchell also felt the density of the subdivision was too large and would effectively more than double the population of the Borough.

“Is this a good plan for this place in the Borough at this time?” Mitchell said was the important question.

McDonald also questioned the fact that the large amount of property to be part of the open space easement, roughly 92 of the lot's 132 acres that includes all the land on Taunton Lake, would not be accessible to the public, only to residents of the Castle Hill subdivision.

Nelson also briefly opened discussion on the possibility of a second point of ingress and egress to the property. Currently it only has an exit onto Johnny Cake Lane, and a second exit only accessible by emergency vehicles on Castle Hill Road. Commission members have expressed support for that emergency exit to be opened to the public as a safety issue.

Nelson also raised the possibility of placing stipulations as conditions on a potential approval.

The Borough Zoning Commission will be meeting again to deliberate on the 20-60 Castle Hill development at 7 pm Wednesday, February 19, in the Alexandria Room of Edmond Town Hall. There is some expectation that a final decision may be made at that meeting, but it is possible extensions may be filed.

=====

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