To the Editor:

Part II — In continuation of Jim Gaston’s letter . . .

The Wharton attorney at the meeting on 5/19/22 interrupted the presentation of Azeez Bhavnagarwala, PhD, claiming that this highly qualified expert was not a traffic engineer and therefore unqualified to render an opinion. But this gentleman wasn’t being offered as a traffic engineer expert; he was being offered as a Statistical Analyst (Research Scientist at IBM and on the ECE Faculty NYU).

What the Wharton lawyer didn’t want on record was that a solid statistical review revealed that warehouses of a similar number of docks, size and number of employees demonstrated with a 93% statistical accuracy an expectation of 1000+ tractor-trailer trucks per day. Even applying a 50% efficiency reduction would equate to 500+ trucks, and where will these 100, 200, 400 trucks be traveling?

In all probability, down Main Street. And this is a modest estimate, with a stronger possibility of 1,000 trucks at the site location. The Application should fail because it fails to give us basic and necessary foundational information, and the Statistical Analysis demonstrates a strong alarm.

Perhaps the worst offense is the claim that the Special Appropriation Petitioners don’t have the necessary 20% to require a Zoning Commission super-majority vote (4/5), rather than a simple majority. The Wharton lawyer incorrectly added the Applicant’s land to the land 500 feet from the Applicant’s border and then computed whether the signatures owned 20% of the total land.

He claimed that with the inclusion of the Applicant’s land the Petitioners do not satisfy the 20% requirement. However, that is not what the Regulation states:

11.01.200(D)(2) — “Voting required by petition if the owner of the 20% or more in area of all land (other than streets) lying outside of, but within 500 feet of, each boundary line of the property proposed for a special exception object to the propose exception in writing prior to Commission action, then the Commission may grant said special exception only upon affirmative vote of at least four members of the Commission (including alternates designated to sit for absent members).”

Excluding the Applicant’s land, the 20% appears satisfied, and super majority approval is required to approve the Special Exception.

Bottom line, the Newtown voters, taxpayers, and citizens don’t want this project. There will be better commercial property projects that come along. The zoning board commissioners have myriad reasons to turn this Application down.

In short, support smart commercial zoning, like the Marygold’s project, not projects that are toxic to Newtown zoning and that Newtowners don’t want. We also support the logic and reasoning contained in the Don Mitchell, Esq. Letter to the Editor regarding the Warehouse project.

Sincerely,

Alex Villamil

Sandy Hook

Editor’s Note: The Main Street Marygold’s project came under the jurisdiction of the Borough of Newtown Zoning Commission with P&Z involvement relating to the local Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD).