Opponents of a large multifamily housing complex proposed for a 35-acre site near Exit 10 of Interstate 84 are urging the Water & Sewer Authority (WSA) to reject a developer’s dual requests to provide the project with sewer service and to designate certain wastewater treatment capacity for its use.

The WSA conducted a public hearing on Thursday, March 12, on 79 Church Hill Road, LLC’s, application submitted on behalf of developer Sirjohn Papageorge of Trumbull. About 30 members of the public attended the lengthy session. 

It remains unclear how many dwellings the developer is seeking to construct. The application documents state “350 units” as being the maximum number of dwellings that would be allowed under the terms of the Incentive Housing-10 Overlay Zone (IH-10), which was recently created by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).

However, attorney Timothy Hollister, of Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, of Hartford, who represents Mr Papageorge, told WSA members that “We’re not there yet,” in terms of specifying a number of dwellings.

Mr Hollister said the developer would state the number of dwellings sought when submitting an application to the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC). The project, which is simply listed as “Newtown Residential Development” on the WSA application, would require IWC and P&Z approvals.

The site at 79 Church Hill Road is bounded on the south by Church Hill Road, on the east by Walnut Tree Hill Road, on the north by Evergreen Road, and on the west by westbound Interstate 84 and its Exit 10 interchange. Vehicle access to the site would be provided at Walnut Tree Hill Road.

Before the public hearing began, the WSA held an executive session to discuss the status of a pending lawsuit filed against it by 79 Church Hill Road, LLC, for having recently rejected “without prejudice” the developer’s initial application for sewer service because that application was incomplete.

Through that lawsuit the developer seeks to have a judge order the WSA to provide sewer service for the project.

The developer later filed a second WSA application, which was the subject of the March 12 hearing.

Public Comment

Virginia Gutbrod of 4 Walnut Tree Hill Road said she is concerned about the prospect of a multifamily complex being built in her neighborhood. She said she is concerned about the effects of nitrogen in water runoff in the area, given that her property is served by a domestic water well.

At recent P&Z sessions, Walnut Tree Hill Road and Evergreen Road residents have expressed concerns about the construction density issues posed by the presence of a new multifamily complex. 

They point to construction density issues already posed by the presence of the 212-unit Walnut Tree Village age-restricted condominium complex on Walnut Tree Hill Road, which lies directly across that street from the 79 Church Hill Road site.

Jack Bestor of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road told WSA members that he is seeking “intervenor status” in the developer’s application. Such status would grant the intervenor certain review privileges on the project.

In a statement submitted to the WSA, Mr Bestor said, in part, “I firmly believe that [the project] is likely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting an already fragile environmental infrastructure, thereby impairing and threatening the public trust… that our water and other natural resources will be protected.”

Duane Jones of 16 Walnut Tree Hill Road told WSA members that he opposes providing sewer service for the proposed housing complex.

Beth Koschel of 20 Evergreen Road said it is difficult to believe that the developer does not yet know how many dwellings he would seek to construct.

To that comment, one WSA member responded that “350 units” is the number of dwellings listed on the application.

Zoltan Csillag of 10 Walnut Tree Hill Road said that area residents are concerned about the implications of the project, whether it involves 350 or 250 or 150 dwellings. “This project would be a threat to the local environment,” he said. He urged that the WSA deny sewer access for the project.

The WSA should protect the town and its taxpayers, he said.

Linda Jones of 16 Walnut Tree Hill Road said a petition is being circulated in seeking signatures of those opposed to the project.

“The neighborhood is strongly opposed,” she said. The sewer system should be used for its intended purpose of resolving groundwater pollution problems, she said in urging that the developer not gain sewer access.

Opponents are circulating petitions both on paper on the Internet. The Internet petition reads, in part, “If approved, this project would threaten health and safety, and present a serious environmental risk to the area – and will set a dangerous precedent that could negatively impact all of Newtown.”

Resident Rich Fennaroli said that the presence of a multifamily complex could serve a positive purpose through increased local property tax revenue.

A spokesman for the Blue Colony Diner at 66 Church Hill Road said that the presence of new multifamily complex would provide a good opportunity for young adults to locate in Newtown.

David Troy of 42 Farm Field Ridge Road asked WSA members what the town would do if the developer received access to all of the town’s remaining sewage treatment capacity, as has been requested,  and then the town needed more treatment capacity for some other reason.

Bryan Atherton, the real estate broker representing Carmine Renzulli who owns the 79 Church Hill Road site, spoke in favor of the proposed housing project. Such a complex would not put stress on the local public school system, Mr Atherton said.

A Good Location

As he handed out some documents to WSA members, Mr Hollister said, “There has been a lot of misinformation about what we are doing.”

The lawyer said the developer has been trying to cooperate with the town in terms of creating a high-quality housing complex in what is considered a good location for such development.

He noted that the P&Z recently created the IH-10 zoning regulations, which would apply to the project sought by the developer.

Mr Hollister said that the site has good traffic access and also has access to a public water supply system.

In its application, the developer is seeking to have the WSA expand the sewer service district to include all 35 acres of the site, not just the three acres nearest Church Hill Road, which already are located in the sewer district.

Mr Hollister said the developer wants approval from the WSA to reserve 43,845 gallons of daily sewage treatment capacity for the project. Application documents list 43,750 as the gallonage sought. The 43,845 gallon figure represents the maximum potential development of 350 dwellings at the site under the terms of the IH-10 rules, Mr Hollister said.

But, the lawyer added, the developer does not have a plan to build 350 dwellings.

Mr Hollister said the applicant also is reviewing whether the site could be developed without sewer service, but with the use of a large on-site community septic system.

“The issue is ‘how’ this [site] is going to be developed, not whether” it is going to be developed, he told WSA members.

The community septic system planning has indicated that the site could support a maximum 400 to 410 dwellings, Mr Hollister said.

However, the lawyer stressed that having use of the municipal sanitary sewer system is the developer’s preferred waste disposal method.

Mr Hollister told WSA members that the best approach to residentially developing the 79 Church Hill Road site would be under the terms of the IH-10 zoning regulations.

Those rules cover multifamily housing complexes which have an affordable housing component, as well as a commercial component. Also, the IH-10 rules provide the P&Z with some control over the design features of a housing complex.

Mr Hollister noted the WSA has indicated that it has approximately 23,000 gallons of unused daily wastewater treatment capacity available at the local sewage treatment plant.

Because the developer wants more treatment capacity than that, it wants the WSA to seek from the state some of the state’s remaining treatment capacity at the sewage plant, he said. “The state has reserved way more capacity that they are using or would ever use,” he said.

“I’m not saying it would be easy” to have the state transfer some of its treatment capacity for a multifamily complex, Mr Hollister said.

Besides the town, the wastewater treatment agreement that governs operation of the sewage plant is signed by five state agencies which have interests at the Fairfield Hills property.

Response

Asked recently for a comment on the prospect of the state transferring some of its sewage treatment capacity for use by a multifamily complex, state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) spokesman Dennis  Schain said, in part, “Because of (the) needs of state agencies and investments (the) state has made, it is not likely the state would be willing or able to cede any of the capacity they have rights to.”

Engineer Kurt Mailman of Fuss & O’Neill, Inc, which is the town’s engineering consultant, said at the  March 12 public hearing that, “Trying to reallocate the state’s (wastewater treatment) capacity would be a difficult program.”

Also, improving the facilities at the sewage plant and improving the Sandy Hook Center sewage pumping station in order to accommodate the proposed multifamily complex would be expensive, Mr Mailman said.

Mr Mailman said that although the applicant lists 350 dwellings on the WSA application form, the generalized design of a community septic system for the site indicates that such a system could handle wastewater from 400 units.

Fred Hurley, director of public works, noted that the 32 acres which the developer wants included in the sewer district is located within the town’s “sewer avoidance area.”

The central sewer system was built to resolve existing groundwater pollution problems caused by failing septic systems, not to promote new development, he said. The sewer system started operation in 1997.

Extending sewer service to a sewer avoidance area would violate WSA policy, he said.

The town’s remaining 23,000 gallons of sewage treatment capacity pertains to properties within the sewer district, not properties outside the district, he said.

Mr Hurley noted that under the development plans, the applicant would be using all of the town’s remaining 23,000 gallons of treatment capacity.

Mr Hurley said it is unclear if the current application contains sufficient information for the WSA to decide on the sewering request.

Following discussion, WSA members agreed to continue the public hearing on April 1.