Harold Joseph Watt, Sr

By LINDA BAUER

Published: May 16, 2003 12:00 am

Harold Joseph Watt, Sr, 72, of Newtown, beloved husband of Barbara Rose Watt, died on May 7 in Danbury Hospital.

Born in Bridgeport, he was part owner of the Adam C. Watt Paving Company with his son.

In addition to his loving wife, Barbara, he is survived by six children, Danielle Smith of Newtown, Adam C. Watt of Newtown, Harold Watt, Jr, of New York, Wayne Watt of Oxford, Robin Mastro of Bridgeport, and Shannon Watt of Easton, as well as several grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and other relatives.

A prayer service was held on May 10 in the Lesko-Miner Funeral Home, 155 Main Street (Route 25), Monroe, with burial following at Resurrection Cemetery, Newtown.

Memorial donations may be directed to United Home Hospice, 40 Lindeman Drive, Trumbull, CT 06611.

The Newtown BeeÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â May 16, 2003

Comments

Comments are open. Be civil.

0 comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

NFA Deep Brook Trail Scouting Day Postponed

Dolores M. Winans

Top Of The Mountain

Global Community Engagement Day Event At C.H. Booth Library

Diaspro Breaks Single-Game 3-Point Record With Seven From Downtown

Head on a swivel at all times - especially in grocery parking lots! Keep an eye out for folks turning at the flagpole - it befuddles them at times.

Please Drive Safe In 2025

How do you propose tapping the brakes, Dave? 8-30g already trumps any local regulations- you don't have a brake pedal to push. Brookfield, Trumbull and now Ridgefield have a clear case for a moratorium based on the development (thanks to 8-30g) that has already occurred. I don't see a clear case for Newtown to request a moratorium... yet.

Backs Moratorium On Dense Development Applications

Nobody is suggesting shutting the doors on new neighbors. What neighboring towns are doing, and what we should be doing too, is to tap the brakes on all of the multi-family residential development proposals so that we can spend 6 months updating our regulations such that if you want to build dense residential housing here, XX percent of it needs to be affordable (we will never make any headway on increasing our percentage of affordable housing otherwise, short of 8-30g), and the rest needs to be done in as low an impact manner as possible. Low impact on traffic, health & safety, the environment and on the cost of town services.

Backs Moratorium On Dense Development Applications

Hey, there you go! Richard solved it. Thanks, that seems so easy- we'll just get rid of the 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court. Seriously, the 2nd amendment doesn't create violent criminals or mental illness. The Supreme Court doesn't create violent criminals or mental illness. The problem is not the tools, but the criminals & the mental illness. The state of Connecticut seems to be focused on the tools, like Richard, while ignoring the users of those tools.

Why Gun Violence Is Higher In The US

Ned, please familarize yourself with 8-30G, and then please share the unique flaws that may be helpful in formulating a denial An 8-30g project can be denied only on very narrow grounds – i.e., if it presents health, safety or other concerns that exceed a town’s need for affordable housing. According to the TOG website, “projects cannot be rejected for incompatibility with a Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD); density; traffic congestion; height; aesthetics; concerns of neighbors or the community; and failure to comply with local zoning regulations.” 8-30g proposals are rarely denied by planning and zoning officials because the burden of proof on appeal is on the town. Appeals are costly, but a municipality can be successful in a court case if it has sufficiently established that the concerns leading to denial are factual and substantive.

P&Z Should Reject Vessel Proposal

<< Dec 2024 >>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31	1	2	3	4

Log In

Harold Joseph Watt, Sr

Leave a Reply Cancel reply