On Thursday, February 20, the Planning & Zoning Commission held a vote for the proposed development by Vessel Technologies at 4 Berkshire Road and 22 Oakview Road. The commissioners discussed the development briefly before taking a vote.

The plans detailed two apartment buildings that would have consisted of 114 one-bedroom, six two-bedroom, and 16 three-bedroom apartments. The buildings were “set-aside” developments under Connecticut general statute 8-30g, or affordable housing. The developer planned to set aside 30% of the apartments, or 41 units, for 40 years at 60-80% of the median income.

The Commission Speaks

The commissioners each discussed their thoughts regarding the development. Commissioner Roy Meadows was first to speak.

“With the design as it is currently envisioned for the unit, I have a problem with the parking lots,” Meadows said. He added that the 8% grade of the internal driveway is “unsafe,” citing the current Starbucks parking lot as a similar design.

“People coming through one parking lot into the other parking lot, [they’re] not very careful. You can get hit,” he said.

Next to speak was Commissioner Greg Rich. He said, “I’ve thoroughly reviewed the application and testimony, and under the 8-30 g statute, the only reason that we can have to deny this application is health and safety. I respect Commissioner Meadows’ opinion on the parking lot, but it does comply with the Newtown Zoning regulations on parking lots. I see no significant health or safety concern to deny this application, and I do appreciate the fact that the applicant has been willing to work with us at every turn.”

David Rosen, the chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission, was next to speak. He said that there is “very different testimony from both the intervenor and the engineer representing the applicant.”

“We’re left as a commission to think about whether the intervenor was able to establish the environmental harm caused by the construction,” Rosen said. “I would say, from my perspective, that that hasn’t been established. However, my concern is two-fold, one is that with the parking, if there is overflow parking, where does it go?”

Rosen added that overflow parking does “become a safety hazard, especially when we’re talking about high school drivers nearby.” He also said that due to Aquarion not issuing a will-serve letter, the applicant has no water on-site.

“That’s something we’re going to have to consider … We’re left wanting to know whether there’s going to be a proper source of water for residents, and that to me is also a health concern,” Rosen said.

Barbara Manville was next to speak. She agreed with Meadows and Rosen regarding the parking lot, and with Rosen regarding the lack of water to the site.

“There’s a safety issue with the flow of traffic within the development. It’s very congested,” Manville said. “There’s a safety issue as it relates to foot traffic, intermingled with the vehicle traffic … There’s a significant potential for vehicle and pedestrian accidents.”

She added, “This is supposed to be an affordable housing development. I imagine a single mom living in the complex with a two-year-old toddler half-in and half-out of the stroller when they are outside. Where are they supposed to walk? The rural nature of Newtown is about being able to easily access outside space and easy walking. Lack of walkable space is an accident waiting to happen.”

Manville also said that storm water management on the site was a health concern, along with the need to protect the local aquifer recharge area.

David Landau was last to speak from the commission. He was seated as an alternate for the commission.

Landau said his issue with the development “is the potential overflow from the site that goes directly into the stormwater drain on Oakview Road … that pipe does not flow the water in any manner where it can absorb into the ground, it goes directly into the Pootatuck River.”

Landau added that the Pootatuck is one of the last remaining Class 1 trout streams in the area.

After the brief discussion, the commissioners then discussed stipulations if the development were to be approved.

Rich said, “On the draft, I would like to see as a precondition that the EV stations are installed by construction.” Manville agreed with this sentiment.

Landau disagreed, “I don’t think EV stations are a very good idea to tax our already stressed power grid until that whole EV thing is figured out.”

Rosen also disagreed, adding that “parking is already so tight” he is concerned “there may not be enough space.” With Meadows’ previous statements regarding parking, that stipulation was not passed.

Voting

The commission then put the development to a vote. The vote failed in a 3-2 decision. Voting against the development were Rosen, Manville, and Landau. Voting for the development were Meadows and Rich.

The positive vote did not pass, so the commission then voted on the reasons behind the motion failing. The next vote was regarding the applicant not providing “proof of a functioning service connection to the public water utility, and therefore the commission finds there is significant impact to the protection of the public health and safety,” Manville read into the record.

In this vote, Landau, Manville, and Rosen voted “no.” Meadows and Rich voted “yes.”

Rob Sibley, director of Land Use, said, “That was for an affirmative vote for the denial,” meaning those who voted “no” found a significant impact on public safety due to the lack of public water. Those who voted “yes” did not find a significant impact on public health for the same reason.

Following this vote, the commission voted on the testimonies from Solli Engineering, the engineer on the development, and Steve Trinkaus, the intervenor on the development.

Sibley explained the commissioners are voting on whether or not Trinkaus proved to the commission if there is impact associated with the Pootatuck aquifer as an environmental aspect. In this vote, a positive vote means that Trinkaus did not prove there will be an environmental impact, and a negative vote means he did prove it.

Rich said, “I wanted to bring up that we did have conflicting testimony between the intervenor and Solli Engineering regarding the protection of the aquifer. I didn’t find Mr Trinkaus’ case very compelling. It didn’t seem to be backed up by evidence, it was more feeling, ‘trust me, I’m an experienced engineer.’ Where I really was convinced by Solli engineering’s assessment of the situation.”

Rosen agreed, “We’re left in a lot of these situations to provide our judgment on what we’ve seen, but I didn’t feel that there was significant, compelling evidence about the aquifer.”

The commission then voted regarding the intervenor’s status. The motion carried, with Rich, Meadows, and Rosen voting yes, and Manville and Landau voting no.

=====

Reporter Sam Cross can be reached at sam@thebee.com.