Borough Rules Revised

By Andrew Gorosko

The Borough Zoning Commission has submitted for Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) review and comment a revised version of the borough’s Village District zoning regulations –– a set of rules that are intended to keep future commercial development in the borough in “aesthetic harmony” with existing architecture.

The existing Village District regulations are intended to preserve the appearance of borough areas with “business” and “professional” zoning designations. The rules seek to “protect the distinctive character, landscape, and historic values” of the area by placing various restrictions and controls on commercial development.

The proposed changes to the Village District regulations concern how the borough zoners interpret their regulations, how public views in the area would be maintained, and nighttime illumination standards.

Last spring, P&Z members endorsed the then-proposed Village District zoning rules, which the borough zoners later approved, with some changes. 

The P&Z serves as the borough’s planning agency. Although the P&Z has no direct power over passage of the Village District regulations, P&Z opposition to such regulations would require the five-member Borough Zoning Commission to achieve a four-member majority, rather than a simple three-member majority, to approve such zoning regulations.

Attorney Donald Mitchell, representing the Borough Zoning Commission, told P&Z members November 6 that procedural questions have arisen about the legal validity of the Village District zoning regulations, which were approved last May.

While some borough commercial property owners are making plans for new development, those legal questions linger, Mr Mitchell noted. Those questions have prompted the borough zoners to seek reenactment of the rules, with some revisions, Mr Mitchell said.

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil said P&Z members would address the proposed Village District revisions at the P&Z’s November 20 session.

Following the Village District rules’ passage last spring, borough commercial property owners filed three lawsuits in Danbury Superior Court in seeking to overturn the rules. The property owners claim that the regulations are vague, would damage development potential, and hurt property values.

At the November 6 P&Z session, attorney Robert Hall objected to the Village District zoning regulations. Mr Hall is involved in two of the three lawsuits that seek to overturn the regulations. Mr Hall is the plaintiff in one lawsuit, involving his ownership of the Newtown General Store building at 43 Main Street. In another of the lawsuits, as an attorney, Mr Hall represents Eton Centers, the New York City firm that owns the 5 Queen Street shopping center, which was formerly occupied by the Grand Union supermarket.

Mr Hall told P&Z members the Village District zoning regulations raise important land use issues, which P&Z members did not address last spring due to time constraints.

The Village District regulations only apply to certain commercial properties, but should apply to other types of properties as well, Mr Hall stressed. Mr Hall termed the Village District rules “ill-conceived regulations.” He said, “I just think they’re terrible regulations, on their merits.”

Areas covered by the Village District overlay zone include properties with “business” and “professional” zoning designations along both sides of Church Hill Road between the Housatonic Railroad overpass and Wendover Road; areas with “business” zoning along both sides of Queen Street between its intersection with Church Hill Road and the traffic signal at the main entrance to Newtown Shopping Village; and the several individual properties with “business” zoning lying along the west side of Main Street between Newtown General Store and the intersection of Main Street and Sugar Street.

A 1998 state law allows zoning commissions to create specialized zoning districts, in which the aesthetic aspect of areas that are visible from public roads may be controlled through zoning regulations.