Riding Roughshod Over Newtown’s Commissions

To the Editor:

A few years ago, I filed a permit with Newtown’s Planning & Zoning Commission to extend my driveway and add a new curb cut. When the job was nearly complete, the town engineer required that I regrade and resurvey the driveway to smooth out a three percent variance in the grade of the slope up to the roadway, even though it matched the original driveway slope. While I was not happy about the added expense, I did appreciate that the new code was intended to keep developers from building on steep hillsides.

So you can imagine my surprise when Newtown’s P&Z Commission fought a developer’s proposal to build homes on a ridiculously steep slope below the roadbed on Hanover Road, a judge ruled in favor of the developer. I knew then that even the best intentions of the P&Z are not enough to protect Newtown.

Last week, P&Z heard about another proposed development along Hanover Road. The notification for this hearing was not sent certified mail and it did not reflect the increased size of the project. It also conveniently omitted any reference to the newly purchased Hanover Hill Farm lot. This lot at 64 Hanover Road includes the attractive red barn. As it turns out, the barn, built in 1888, and the farmhouse are to be leveled and their prominent hillside blasted. The lawyer reluctantly agreed that he would correct the notification error, emphasizing, however, that he was not required to by law.

It’s clear now why some developers will continue to look to Newtown to build where they should not be able. Despite our new “stricter” codes they still blast hillsides, demolish rather than preserve Newtown’s treasures, pay money in lieu of required open space, install steep riprap, pollute our waterways, get variances to build on wetlands, and argue that new rules do not apply if their new subdivision is on land that was subdivided before the rules went into effect.

I have a great respect for the volunteers who make up the Planning & Zoning commission. The meetings run late, they visit and walk the properties under review, and they try to balance the interests of different parties, including the people of Newtown. Unfortunately, with our regulations open to “interpretation” in the way that they are, the P&Z is more powerless than I thought.

The town’s recent campaign to purchase open space and development rights is worth celebrating. But at the rate that development is eating away at Newtown, it’s not enough. According to an article in this newspaper last month, 25 percent of the barns listed in the 1997 Field Guide to New England Barns are now gone and Newtown’s barns may be disappearing at the same rate.

Local efforts at land conservation and preservation will not be enough if Newtown doesn’t have the necessary safeguards on its side. Are there other regulations that P&Z can employ without having to defend them in court? Are there strategies that other towns use to make development in their town unattractive or more costly for developers? Should we stop allowing variances? Should Newtown’s Conservation Commission be given added powers? Might Ruby Johnson and The Friends of Fairfield Hills be right to worry that the publics vision for FFH may not be realized?

Without making changes to our current land use program, a lot more of Newtown’s land and many of its treasures will fall to developers and lawyers who continue to ride roughshod over Newtown’s commissions.

Kevin Fitzgerald

24 Old Farm Hill Road, Newtown                           October 17, 2005