Behind the high school’s playing field are two parcels of land that were the source of a long discussion at the last Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, November 7. Vessel Technologies, a sustainable, smart home developer, is looking to build two apartment buildings at 4 Berkshire Road and 22 Oakview Road.

The application for the development reads “136 rental apartments in two buildings, 114 one-bedroom, 6 two-bedroom, and 16 three-bedroom, and will qualify as ‘set aside development’ under general statutes 8-30g.” The two separate lots make up 4.31 acres of land, and the engineer proposed 168 parking spaces between two different lots.

The buildings are made of all steel, non-combustible materials, with anti-microbial materials inside the apartments and air purifiers. The apartments are technology enabled, including in-home speakers, air monitoring and purification systems, and the bathrooms can be sterilized using UVC light. Triple-glazed, argon-filled, floor-to-ceiling windows ensure noise reduction and energy efficiency.

The interior is a “custom panel system that allows us to get behind the walls very quickly. If there’s ever a problem with plumbing or electric … we can fix that very fast without inconveniencing tenants, without doing damage to a unit,” Josh Levy explained. Levy is the executive vice president of Vessel Technologies and the applicant.

The outside of the building features a rain screen, which “eradicates any water infiltration into a building preventing any mold from developing … and creating longer longevity for the building as well,” Levy said.

As mentioned, the application falls under Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g, or affordable housing. The commission’s attorney, Patricia Sullivan from Cohen and Wolf, wrote a letter that was read aloud at the meeting that explained what an 8-30g application means in Newtown, “To promote the construction of affordable housing, the statute allows developers to propose projects that ignore both local zoning regulations and the plan of conservation and development.”

The letter continues, “In an SGS Section 8-30g affordable housing appeal, the burden shifts to the commission to prove, based upon the evidence presented, its decision was necessary to protect substantial public interest in health, safety, or other matters the commission may legally consider, and these interests clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing and changes to the proposed development projects cannot be rejected for their inconsistency with the POCD or zoning regulations. Generalized concerns about a project’s density, size, height, design, compatibility with the neighborhood, or impacts to local schools or traffic congestion are not legitimate basis for denial of section 8-30g developments.”

Commission Questions

Following Levy’s presentation, some commissioners asked the applicants questions regarding the proposal.

Roy Meadows was the first to ask Luke Morrow, the engineer on the project, about parking, “According to our thinking and our regulations, for 136 apartments, you’d need about 250 parking spaces. Could you tell me how you figured that 168 that you’re providing with this project is adequate? ... I just wonder where people will park.”

Levy answered, “According to CT state statutes, one-to-one, one parking space per one bedroom covers the need for apartments.”

Morrow added, “We also looked at the ITE, they also have a parking generation manual on top of the trip generation manual … based on the data collected nationwide, they established an average peak demand for one-bedroom units of only .68 spaces per unit, and then for two and three bedrooms, 1.23 spaces per unit. So, if you applied those ratios to this development, the northern building would require 56 spaces, and the southern building would require 61. We’re providing 80 and 88, so we would also meet the requirements of ITE as well. So, in our opinion, there is adequate parking for the site.”

Meadows then asked Morrow about the storm water drainage on the site, referencing the August 18 flooding as an area of concern, and wanted to know if the development would be able to handle a storm like that. Morrow explained, “frankly there’s no design standards for something larger than a hundred-year storm event at this point … anything other than that is [an] extremely large, overly designed system for a catastrophic event, which is something, frankly, we just don’t design for.”

David Rosen, the chair of the commission, expressed concerns with “mutual visibility,” regarding bright lights from the football field and loud noises during band practice. Levy explained there will be an existing tree line, and the orientation of the buildings “[minimize] any sight line issues.” The material also makes the building “noise tight.” Levy referenced a building Vessel Technologies built next to an active railway system and said, “you can’t hear the train inside the building.”

Rosen also expressed worry about teen drivers around this complex, saying, “you’re not dealing with typical drivers, you’re dealing with teen drivers, so it’s a slightly different situation in terms of safety.” He added with a chuckle, “No insult to teens, I have them.”

Traffic Concerns The Public

When the floor was opened to public comment, a lot of members of the community spoke on traffic as a major issue.

The traffic report, according to Morrow, says, “The estimates are about 13 trips in during the peak hour, about 44 trips out … and then 57 trips total. Weekday pm, about 36 trips coming in … and then 23 trips leaving, 59 trips total, and then similar on Saturday, about a 50/50 split, 30 trips in, 29 trips out, and a total of about 59 trips.”

He added, “The proposed development, in our professional opinion, does not create any health or safety issues with respect to traffic.”

The first member of the public to voice their concerns regarding traffic was Ron Bossio. Not only did he express concerns for traffic, but he raised questions about the size of Newtown’s fire staff. “We can never anticipate all events, but a lot of people in a high density on a road that is not designed for high density traffic — you can’t even drive down that road if the garbage truck is coming the other way. A fire truck, no less with a car? And I can’t imagine a fire truck [that] has to service a four-story building in town.”

Rob Emmerthall was next to address the commission, “With regards to traffic, the posted speed limit on that street is 20 miles an hour. There are many places where two cars cannot pass at 20 miles an hour, not imaginary, for real … I’ve had people pull outta my driveway and get hit … because of the sight line issues.”

Emmerthall continued, “That road can barely handle the traffic it has with 12 houses, not including Watkins … I’m sorry but a one-bedroom house can hold two people, okay? There’s gonna be two cars in each one of those … So, you have over 300 trips on a road that currently … has trouble with 48 for the residents that live on it. That’s over a 300% increase in traffic on a road that [can] barely manage it as it is.”

John O’Malley shared his concerns, too, “I cannot believe that we think that Oak View Road can handle additional traffic. I think it’s a safety issue today without additional traffic.” He told the commission, “If for some reason you feel you’re compelled to approve this plan, for God’s sakes, don’t approve the exits and entrances on Oakview. Put them on Berkshire.”

Ned Simpson inquired about pedestrian safety in the area, “The place is just incredibly dangerous for pedestrians. And if somebody lives in building two and wants to visit somebody in building one, they’re either gonna get in their car, drive out around to the other building, or they’re gonna walk on Oakview … there are no interior connections between the buildings, so that means that if you want to do anything, you gotta walk out on Oakview.”

Rob Sibley, director of Planning and Land Use, was also concerned about pedestrian safety. “If I could, I would still like to lift up pedestrian access. Either sidewalk connections to the road or to the village, if this is going to be a pedestrian-centered sort of development.”

Following Simpson’s concerns, the commission asked members of the public to refrain from speaking directly about traffic, as those concerns had been recognized.

Other Public Concerns

Craig Smigala cited similar apartments in Danbury, near Danbury High School, as having “had drugs, drug sales, and drug-related crimes associated with them for decades — not days, years — decades. The proposed apartments on Oakview Road … provide a similar situation as the Danbury Apartments.”

Smigala ended his comment by asking the commission to “just say ‘no.’”

Samantha Klein also wanted the commission to think about “what this does to emergency service and our public school systems.”

Dave Ackert posed questions to the commission regarding environmental impact. He said, “The reality is … even though you may reduce flow, some of what they’ve proposed, everything that they’ve proposed, doesn’t account for cleaning that water. It also doesn’t address the warming of that water. Any water, to Roy’s point, that doesn’t get captured by the system and goes down to the Pootatuck is gonna be warm. It’s gonna kill fish. Who knows what else it’s gonna do?”

Mark Damico was the last to speak on the development, and he suggested “third-party reviews for nearly everything.”

The public hearing has been extended to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, December 5. Sibley reminded the commission that “We still have an outstanding letter and review by the engineer that isn’t completed. You don’t have a letter in the file for water connection or from Sewer and Water Commission.”

=====

Reporter Sam Cross can be reached at sam@thebee.com.