Upzoning Will Not Achieve Its Goals
Upzoning Will Not Achieve Its Goals
To the Editor:
Newtown Planning and Zoning may be frustrated by the lack of effect it has had on controlling development. In fact despite their efforts theyâve had no effect on stopping development in town. The climate of the P&Z over the last four years has done more to encourage new development than stifle it. In the last four years nearly 400 new housing permits were issued and at least 25 percent or 100 permits can be accountable to a rush of developers to make application prior to changes in zoning regulations.
In The Bee we have read of a 41-lot subdivision recently approved which was rushed to predate the recent change to the zoning regulations in June 99.
The proposal to upzone is another attempt which will deliver zero effect regarding development. This is because the lake front and other targeted areas are mostly developed and any remaining land can not be developed for physical or economic reasons.
While upzoning appears to satisfy an agenda to reduce development it will deliver no results because from zoning office records development is not happening in any of the targeted areas and in this fashion. We would love to know the reason for upzoning predominantly developed neighborhoods which have delivered 12 building lots on less than an acre out of 40 percent over the last four years. Doesnât sound like a threat to me.
The monitoring of well and septic issues has been and will continue to be the responsibility of the Newtown Health Department. Upzoning half-acre zoning to one acre on now conforming existing residences will only deliver more nonconformance and unneeded regulations which serves no purpose. Unless it is to restrict people not land use.
The P&Z must have skipped classes on land use when it became reasonable to upzone sewered and public water supplied existing residences on half-acre to 1 and 2 acre zone. Mr Fogliano says, âWe didnât make these things up out of thin air,â but I believe in reality he would be hard pressed to show where the CT Department of Environmental Protection would concur with much of anything going on here.
The origins of this upzoning proposal began in opposition to development. It later was linked to aquifer protection and water quality in general. Who of course could argue with that. However, for those opposed to development it delivers nothing. For those concerned with the aquifer and water quality in general it will change nothing that isnât already monitored by the health department and for those families affected it creates nonconformity threw unnecessary regulation.
Upzoning might have seemed like a reasonable approach in 1996 and I can appreciate a lot of research on the issue but the facts cannot be ignored. It is clear that this measure of upzoning will not achieve its stated or implicit goals.
Rick Haight, NPOA
99 Church Hill Road, Sandy Hook    August 11, 2000