Sugar Street Firehouse—

Hook & Ladder To

Appeal Borough Ruling

By Andrew Gorosko

Newtown Hook & Ladder Company No. 1, Inc, has notified the Borough Zoning Commission (BZC) that it is pursuing a court appeal against it in seeking to have a judge overturn the BZC’s unanimous February 7 rejection of the volunteer fire company’s proposal to construct an 11,414-square-foot firehouse at 12 Sugar Street (Route 302).

Through the appeal, the fire company is seeking to have a judge in Danbury Superior Court order the BZC to approve the fire company’s zoning application for a site development plan for the firehouse.

Local officials received a notice of the court appeal on February 25.

The legal action is the second appeal that the fire company is pursuing against local land use agencies over their rejections of the firehouse proposal.

On January 18, the fire company filed an appeal at Danbury Superior Court in seeking to overturn the Inland Wetlands Commission’s (IWC) unanimous December 8 decision against issuing the group a wetlands/watercourses protection permit for the firehouse project. IWC members had decided that the constructing and operating a firehouse at the site would pose environmental hazards to the area. 

Under the firehouse proposal, the Borough of Newtown Land Trust, Inc, and the R. Scudder Smith Family Partnership would donate land for the project. Mr Smith is the owner/publisher of The Newtown Bee.

If the fire company secures all required approvals for the project, then the Smith Partnership and the Borough Land Trust would transfer the real estate to the fire company at no cost for the purpose of constructing and operating a fire station there, according to the legal papers.

Fire company members have maintained that 12 Sugar Street is the best place to build a new firehouse because it is centrally located within the organization’s fire district. Approximately one acre of the wet 9.4-acre site would be developed with a firehouse and related facilities.

The proposed firehouse would replace the aging, deteriorated town-owned firehouse now used by Hook & Ladder at 45 Main Street, behind Edmond Town Hall.

Some people living in the Sugar Street neighborhood have a different perspective on building a firehouse at 12 Sugar Street than does the volunteer fire company.

Opponents have complained about potential adverse effects on wetlands and watercourses in the area.

They also have raised zoning issues. The opponents contend that locating a fire station there is an inappropriate land use that would be out of character with the residential area, that the presence of such a facility would damage property values, that a fire station would damage the area’s appearance, and that firehouse-related traffic would worsen traffic congestion that occurs in the area during daily commuter rush periods.

Court Appeal

In the appeal against the BZC, the fire company maintains that the commission’s rejection of the firehouse application is “unreasonable, improper, illegal, arbitrary, and constitutes an abuse of the discretion, responsibilities, and duties vested in the commission.”

The fire company holds that its site plan application satisfies all pertinent requirements for such an application.

Hook & Ladder maintains that the BZC’s decision that the firehouse’s design does not visually harmonize with the neighborhood, and thus does not protect property values in the neighborhood, is not an appropriate or valid legal reason for denying the site plan application.   

The fire company also legally challenges the BZC’s decision that the proposed use of the site for a firehouse would not be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the borough zoning regulations.

Also, the fire company challenges the BZC’s basing its February 7 decision upon Sugar Street not being suitable and adequate to support anticipated traffic and thus pose the prospect of health and safety hazards in the area. Such issues are not appropriate or valid reasons to deny the fire company’s application, according to the legal papers.

Because the borough zoning regulations require such an application to be subject only to site plan review requirements, it is legally improper for the BZC to reject the application based on issues such as compatibility with the neighborhood and traffic flow, according to the fire company’s appeal.

In unanimously rejecting the fire company’s application on February 7, BZC members decided that the project would have negative effects concerning: architectural harmony with the neighborhood; property values; health and safety hazards; conformance with the intent and spirit of the zoning regulations; the adequacy and streets and driveways; and conformance with all applicable borough, town, and state laws, ordinances, regulations, and codes.

In August 2009, the Borough Zoning Board of Appeals (BZBA) unanimously rejected the fire company’s request for a zoning variance for an earlier version of the firehouse project at 12 Sugar Street.

In that decision, BZBA members found that a firehouse would not be in harmony with the general character of the residential neighborhood; the presence of a firehouse and its related fire vehicle traffic would create traffic hazards in the congested area; and that a firehouse’s presence would damage property values in the neighborhood.

The fire company did not appeal the BZBA decision in court.

First Selectman

First Selectman Pat Llodra this week questioned whether Hook & Ladder’s pursuing a court appeal of the BZC’s rejection of the Sugar Street firehouse proposal helps to move the volunteer fire company any closer to its goal of obtaining new firehouse facilities.

Mrs Llodra said she is concerned that much time is being spent to move through the permit process for a new firehouse.

The first selectman said that the fire company should seriously consider some alternative plans if a Sugar Street firehouse does not materialize. “I hope they have a backup plan,” she said.

The fire company believes that the Sugar Street site would serve them best in view of its location within the fire company’s fire district, she said. But the fire company needs to be realistic about the prospect of not gaining approvals for firehouse construction there, she said.

If the fire company were to prevail in its two pending court appeals, it would then still need to submit some modified development plans to the IWC and BZC for review and approval, representing additional firehouse project planning costs, she said.

“I’m anxious that we get a [fire facilities] solution,” Mrs Llodra said.

If building a new firehouse on Sugar Street is not possible, Hook & Ladder has to consider other locations for new facilities, she said.

Other possible firehouse locations that have been discussed by town officials, but have been dismissed by Hook & ladder as unsuitable, include new fire facilities at or near its current location, or new facilities at the town-owned Fairfield Hills core campus.