P&Z Delays Action

On Upzoning Plan

By Andrew Gorosko

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members plan to meet with the first selectman to publicly discuss the implications of “upzoning,” the P&Z’s controversial proposal to increase minimum zoning requirements for extensive residential sections of town to protect groundwater quality.

P&Z members had placed “discussion and possible action” on the upzoning proposal on their May 4 meeting agenda. But after reading and considering a memorandum on the topic from First Selectman Herbert Rosenthal, P&Z members decided to discuss the matter with him before acting on it.

In the May 3 memo, Mr Rosenthal wrote, “I have had a number of requests to speak to the commission about granting an additional hearing before you make a decision on your rezoning [upzoning] proposal. Since this proposal may impact so many properties in one way or another and since it has raised considerable concern, some justifiable and some not, I urge you to seriously consider reopening the hearing. If you choose to do so, I would encourage you to include a ‘structured’ question and answer session as part of the hearing.”

P&Z members did not reopen the public hearing on upzoning May 4.

Mr Rosenthal’s memo continues, “If you do not reopen the hearing, I request you to delay action to a future meeting because I have a special Board of Selectmen’s meeting on the same evening [May 4] and I would like to have the opportunity to have some discussion with you in my capacity as an ex-officio member before you take action.”

As first selectman, Mr Rosenthal is considered an ex-officio member of all town boards and commissions by virtue of the fact that he is the first selectman. The first selectman, however, does not have voting rights on those agencies. It was unclear this week when the P&Z will meet with Mr Rosenthal.

P&Z members read the memo at the Newtown Middle School auditorium, where about three dozen members of the Newtown Property Owners Association, which is opposed to the upzoning proposal, had gathered, anticipating that the P&Z would act on upzoning that night.

Association members have said that if the P&Z approves upzoning, they would file a lawsuit seeking to overturn the measure in court. Association members see upzoning as a threat to the development potential of their neighborhoods, as well as a threat to their property values. Association members recently met with the first selectman to express their concerns.

The P&Z has proposed upzoning to safeguard groundwater quality in the Pootatuck Aquifer, and to prevent groundwater contamination problems from worsening in the several communities along Lake Zoar. The underlying goal of upzoning is protecting groundwater quality, both in the town’s Aquifer Protection District (APD), which lies atop the Pootatuck Aquifer in south central Newtown, and also in the several lakeside communities in Sandy Hook lying on the eastern edge of town along Lake Zoar, including Shady Rest, Pootatuck Park, Riverside, Cedarhurst, and Great Quarter.

 The comprehensive rezoning proposal covers an aggregate area greater than 2,500 acres. It affects approximately 2,315 properties, almost 2,000 of which have dwellings on them.

Under the proposal, some residential properties with current ½-acre zoning would have zoning designations increased to either 1 acre or 2 acres, depending upon their location. Other properties with current 1-acre residential zoning would be increased to 2 acres. Such upzoning is intended to at least maintain, or potentially decrease, existing construction densities, and hence decrease existing and potential threats to groundwater quality.

P&Z View

Commenting on the first selectman’s May 3 memo, P&Z Chairman Daniel Fogliano said that another hearing on the rezoning proposal is not needed. Mr Fogliano suggested that P&Z members delay action on the matter until they meet with Mr Rosenthal to discuss his views.

The P&Z’s upzoning proposal drew opposition from residents and developers at P&Z public hearings in February and December. Affected residents say they are unconvinced that upzoning is necessary, adding they fear that increasing minimum residential zoning requirements would damage their properties’ development potential, and thus reduce the value of their real estate.

P&Z member Heidi Winslow said she is not anxious to have a third hearing on the topic. But she added she wants to hear what the first selectman has to say on the matter.

P&Z member Lilla Dean pointed out the agency already has had two hearings on upzoning, but agreed that P&Z action should wait until P&Z members discuss the subject with Mr Rosenthal.

P&Z member Stephen Koch agreed.

 “I still feel there’s a fundamentally strong reason for protecting the groundwater” through the use of construction density restrictions, Ms Winslow said.

Ms Winslow, however, suggested that it may not be necessary for the P&Z to require as much as minimum 2-acre residential zoning in sections of the town’s Aquifer Protection District (APD) which have sanitary sewer service. She pointed out, though, that allowing existing 1/2 -acre minimum residential zoning in those areas is unrealistic.

P&Z member Robert Poulin questioned whether all the work that the P&Z has put into its upzoning proposal has been worth the effort.

Approving upzoning would probably result in preventing the potential construction of 75 to 100 houses, he said. He questioned whether the complexities involved in the upzoning effort are worth preventing the construction of a maximum 100 houses.

Mr Fogliano responded he is not interested in preventing anyone from living in town. He added that the town’s existing 1/2 -acre residential zoning is “archaic.”

Technical information provided to the P&Z indicates that 1/2 -acre lots cannot sustain functioning septic systems, Ms Winslow said.

 Upzoning would eliminate the potential for increased construction densities and would act to maintain existing construction densities, she said.

Ms Dean said upzoning would serve a parallel purpose to the aquifer protection regulations which the P&Z approved last June.

The aquifer regulations greatly expanded the scope and range of the P&Z’s oversight of proposed development in the APD. The aquifer regulations are the subject of two lawsuits which have been filed by multiple plaintiffs who are trying to overturn those regulations in court.

Ms Dean said, “No one wants to be told what they can or cannot do with [their] property.” But, she added, upzoning is intended to preserve groundwater quality for future generations. Upzoning would not eliminate structures that exist in upzoned areas, but would prevent future increases in construction density in those areas, she said.

Questions Posed

As P&Z members discussed their rationale for upzoning, they were peppered with questions from audience members who expressed doubts about the wisdom of the measure. P&Z members responded to some questions, but not to others.

Mr Fogliano said the past public hearing on the upzoning proposal was advertised in accordance with state law. Property owner association members have complained that instead of receiving individual notifications by mail that their properties were proposed for upzoning, the P&Z had placed only a legal advertisement in a newspaper listing the streets which would be affected by upzoning. Association members largely live in the communities situated along Lake Zoar.

Mr Fogliano said that when members of the public eventually sought out town officials for information on the implications of the rezoning project, property owners received answers which relieved them of their fears.

In response to continuing comments and questions from the audience, Mr Fogliano said, “This is not a public hearing,” after which P&Z members took up a public hearing on a business proposal for South Main Street. Mr Fogliano referred association members to informational packets which the town had prepared on upzoning.

About 30 people then left the auditorium and gathered in its main lobby as the P&Z meeting continued.

Association director Barry Piesner spoke at the impromptu session. Mr Piesner said P&Z members have closed their minds to the association’s concerns and will not listen to comments from members.  

“Logic is not part of the conversation,” he said.

Mr Piesner said association members face two issues – raising money to launch a legal challenge against the anticipated upzoning measure, and seeking property tax reductions from the town if their properties are upzoned.

 “If they’re [P&Z members] making it harder for us to sell our properties, then our properties are not going to be worth as much,” he said. Undeveloped lots which are upzoned will not be worth as much as they are now, he said.

“Why should the town expect people to pay taxes on a property that’s undevelopable?” he asked.

“They [P&Z] don’t want to hear questions. They stopped the clock at that second hearing,” Mr Piesner said of the February hearing on upzoning.

Many people raised many issues at the two hearings, but Mr Fogliano has addressed only a few of the questions which were posed, Mr Piesner said.

Mr Piesner claimed there was inadequate notification of the hearings.

Association member Edward Lundblad said residents affected by upzoning will find that they are living in static neighborhoods, unless they are willing to endure the complexities of seeking zoning variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals to make changes.

In a May 1 letter to Mr Fogliano, Mr Piesner had requested that the P&Z hold another public hearing soon on upzoning.

Mr Piesner wrote, in part, “There are many questions about anticipated problems with upzoning that may come down the road after the current P&Z members have moved on to other pursuits. These issues involve quality of life, health, and property tax assessment… We believe the P&Z has an obligation to address these issues before a final decision on upzoning is made.”