Date: Fri 02-Apr-1999

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

aquifer-protection-P&Z

Full Text:

Proposed Aquifer Rules Draw Support And Criticism

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

A proposal to strengthen aquifer protection regulations to better safeguard

the quality of existing and potential underground drinking water supplies drew

both criticism and support at a March 25 Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z)

public hearing.

About 60 residents attended the session at which the P&Z aired the proposal

that would greatly expand and more explicitly state the rules P&Z uses to

protect groundwater quality in the town's Aquifer Protection District (APD).

The APD, which was approved by the P&Z in 1981, contains the Pootatuck

Aquifer, an area of varying width which generally follows the course of the

Pootatuck River through town from its headwaters in the vicinity of the Monroe

border northward to Sandy Hook Center.

Lawyers for developers, builders and businessmen voiced concerns that the

proposed revisions are too strict and would create too many business

prohibitions in the APD.

Some residents strongly endorsed the proposed rule changes and called for

their swift passage by the P&Z, noting the environmental benefits of the

proposal.

P&Z members are scheduled to discuss the proposed regulations April 8.

Opposition

Attorney Francis Teodosio of Shelton, representing local builder, developer

and property owner Michael Burton, said Mr Burton owns nine acres on

Washington Avenue in Sandy Hook which currently has half-acre residential

zoning. A related aquifer upzoning project proposed by the P&Z would alter the

designation of that property to two-acre residential zoning.

The P&Z's proposal to increase the zoning requirements on the property have

prompted Mr Burton to start drawing subdivision plans, Mr Teodosio said,

explaining that upzoning the area would decrease its development potential.

Although the property abuts the municipal sewer district, the town won't

provide Mr Burton with access to the sewer system, Mr Teodosio noted.

Hydrogeologist Russell Slayback, representing Mr Burton, said "I think it is

inappropriate to impose a two-acre zone for aquifer protection," adding that

he considers it difficult to scientifically justify.

Mr Burton of 18 Sweet Briar Lane suggested that the P&Z remove from the APD

the section of the Pootatuck Aquifer which lies north of Interstate-84.

Robert Volpe of Southbury said the proposed aquifer regulations are too

restrictive. "Investigate before you regulate," he told P&Z members. "This

proposal tramples on landowners' property rights," he said in urging P&Z

members to reject it.

Mr Volpe spoke on behalf of his wife, Judith, the proprietor of Avance

Esthetiques, a day spa at Sand Hill Plaza.

Mr Volpe objected to the Conservation Commission's March 24 rejection of

Avance Esthetiques' second proposal to develop 224 South Main Street to

relocate the spa. The property is just north of Sand Hill Plaza.

In rejecting the spa's second relocation proposal, the Conservation Commission

acted as if the proposed aquifer regulations already are in effect, Mr Volpe

said. The Conservation Commission rejected the development proposal on

environmental grounds (see related story).

Mr Volpe termed the P&Z's regulatory approach to aquifer protection

"overkill," adding that the agency should moderate its approach.

Charles Newman of 155 Huntingtown Road, the proprietor of Planters' Choice, a

plant nursery, said he already follows environmentally-based crop management

rules at his business. He asked whether new aquifer regulations would place

additional restrictions on his chemical and fertilizer use.

Attorney Robert Hall, representing several clients, provided P&Z members with

aquifer regulations from three other towns in the state. Mr Hall pointed to

Cheshire's regulations as a model which the local P&Z should follow. Those

regulations allow certain land uses in aquifer protection districts, such as

motor vehicle repair and photographic darkrooms, provided that the "best

management practices" are employed, he said.

The regulations proposed for Newtown simply prohibit a variety of land uses in

the APD and unfortunately do not provide for exceptions to those prohibitions

even if a landowner can show that the activity won't be environmentally

harmful, Mr Hall said.

Also, Mr Hall objected to a provision in the proposed regulations which would

prohibit medical offices.

Mr Hall, representing Curtis Packaging, said the industrial firm is preparing

plans for an industrial subdivision on its Sandy Hook property. Sand and

gravel removal would be needed to develop the subdivision site, but the

proposed regulations prohibit sand and gravel excavation in the aquifer

protection district, Mr Hall said. "It's important to Curtis Packaging that

you not prohibit the removal of sand and gravel," he said.

Mr Hall called on the P&Z to drop a proposed prohibition on printing plants in

the APD. As part of its work, the packaging firm prints containers.

Attorney Stephen Wippermann, representing J.F. Walsh and Walnut Tree

Developers, said the proposed regulations reduce the predictability of land

development, adding that the rules are too restrictive.

The proposal poses "the potential for all sorts of problems in the future. It

tries to do far too much," he said.

Attorney Bill Denlinger, representing Berkshire Veterinary Hospital, said

certain land uses which would be prohibited by the proposed regulations should

instead be regulated.

Mr Denlinger, representing D'Addario Sand and Stone Company, Inc, said sand

and gravel mining is a part of life in Newtown. "Sand and gravel operations

are not a disadvantage to Newtown," he said. Unless P&Z members can

substantiate why sand and gravel mining should be prohibited in the APD, it

should be allowed, he said.

Also, Mr Denlinger questioned the validity of a related aquifer upzoning

proposal which would require minimum two-acre residential zoning in the APD.

Builder and developer Kim Danziger of 5 Stonewall Ridge Road told P&Z members

"Seriously review the way the regulations are written so that this does not

pose a litigious problem in the future."

Resident Susan Oberstadt of Riverside Road said the proposed regulations would

reduce the possible uses of three acres which she and her husband own there.

"These regulations would really present a financial hardship for us in the

future," she said.

Support

Resident Brian Hennessey of 37 Eden Hill Road, representing the Newtown

Neighborhoods Coalition, commended P&Z members on the aquifer protection

proposal, saying P&Z members are forward-looking in seeking to protect local

natural resources.

Resident Mae Schmidle of Echo Valley Road strongly endorsed strengthening

aquifer protection regulations. Mrs Schmidle was among those who worked a

decade ago to get federal sanction for the Pootatuck Aquifer as the town's

sole-source aquifer. Three-quarters of the drinking water available in Newtown

comes from the Pootatuck Aquifer, with more than one million gallons of water

drawn daily from the underground water source, she said.

But the aquifer is prone to contamination, she said. Other than using bottled

water, there are no suitable alternatives to using Pootatuck Aquifer water,

she said. Neither water from the Housatonic River nor Taunton Pond is suitable

for human consumption, she noted. Pumping water into Newtown from other public

water supply systems would be very expensive, she noted.

Locally, United Water serves its 1,100 accounts with water drawn from the

Pootatuck Aquifer at a wellfield across South Main Street from Sand Hill

Plaza. Other public water supply wells drilled into the aquifer farther north

serve Fairfield Hills, Garner Correctional Institution and Nunnawauk Meadows.

Mrs Schmidle termed the Pootatuck Aquifer "enormously important to the town of

Newtown."

Joe Borst of 10 Beechwood Drive, a Legislative Council member, said the

proposed rule revisions appear to be a good regulation. "We've got to stop

using up our resources and leaving nothing for future generations," he said.

Resident Kurt Gillis of 30 Jeremiah Road voiced support for strengthened

aquifer regulations.

Speaking in favor of the proposed regulations, resident Vincent Venitelli of 7

Alder Lane said, "Unfortunately, the aquifer doesn't have any lawyers or

experts...I guess it depends on what your vested interest is, what your

experts say...The town has got to do something before it's too late." Mr

Venitelli was involved in the environmental aspects of the local movement

which challenged the construction of Garner Correctional Institution a decade

ago.

Resident Penny Meek of 40 Butterfield Road provided P&Z members with an axiom

about the finite supply of water on earth.

"All the water there is, is all the water there is," she said. "It is a

precious commodity and we really need to take it more seriously," she said.

Charles Annett of Cannon Drive, chairman of the town's Zoning Board of

Appeals, endorsed the proposed aquifer regulations. The town is at risk of

aquifer contamination with the continuing intensification of local land uses,

he said.

Water Protection

The proposed revisions to the aquifer protection regulations call for a

cooperative relationship between the Conservation Commission and P&Z under

which both agencies would review development proposed for the aquifer

district.

The proposed regulations would foster a clean water supply by prohibiting land

uses that can contaminate groundwater, and by regulating other land uses that

can potentially contaminate or downgrade existing and potential groundwater

supplies.

The proposed rules apply to "stratified drift" aquifers, or those such as the

Pootatuck Aquifer, in which subterranean water supplies are contained within

layered bands of sand, gravel and boulders.