Vessel Technologies presented some changes to their application for 136 apartment units to be built among two buildings at Oakview and Berkshire Roads at the last Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, December 5.

Josh Levy, the applicant, began the presentation by saying the application, which is an 8-30g, or affordable housing, application, will house “hardworking people who are looking for nice homes to live in.” One of the engineers on the project, Matt Baldino, went over the revisions to the application in-depth for the commission and the large crowd that had amassed.

Those who have been following this development from the beginning may recall that the two buildings will consist of 114 one-bedroom, 6 two-bedroom, and 16 three-bedroom apartments, is spread out on 4.31 acres of land, and neighbors the high school’s football field.

One of the issues the commissioners raised at previous meetings was regarding parking. The commission believed there wasn’t enough parking for the amount of proposed living spaces. Baldino explained that the developers would provide additional parking through “either deferred parking, or if the commission requires at the time of installation, through either impervious pavers or gravel lot if the need arises for those.”

Another issue that raised significant alarm from the public was traffic on Oakview Road. Many members of the public, and residents on Oakview, said that the road simply cannot handle an additional 136 cars, assuming that only one person lives in each of the proposed apartments and has one car.

Baldino, to that point, said, “We did modify the driveways to restrict them to only allowing left turns in and right turns out … We have submitted a revised traffic assessment with this revision as well, which indicates that the roadway has adequate capacity.”

The biggest revision of the plans from the original design to the most recent revisions is the elimination of access via Oakview Road. Exiting and entering is now only allowed via Berkshire Road, with an internal driveway connecting the two buildings and subsequent parking lots.

In the applicant’s presentation, it read, “We understand based on communication received today from the town engineer and statements made by the public that there is still concern about the level of traffic on Oakview. While we do not believe that there is any evidence to support this concern, we want to be responsive to the concerns of our neighbors and town officials. As such we have updated our site plan to provide for an internal driveway and access via Berkshire Road so that there is no traffic on Oakview. We believe this takes care of all concerns.”

Baldino also submitted a traffic study that was conducted at Farrell Community. He said, “We evaluated the traffic that we observed at the Farrell Community during the peak hours and compared that to what the Institute of Transportation Engineers would anticipate at a development.”

Baldino anticipated 30 trips in the morning, with seven entering and 23 exiting. Similarly, Baldino anticipated 38 trips in the evening, with 24 entering and 14 exiting. The study revealed 30 trips in the morning, with eight entering and 22 exiting; 35 trips in the evening, with 24 entering and 11 exiting.

Sight Lines & Drainage Questions From The Commission

Baldino explained that the developments would not be seen from the Blue & Gold Stadium because of the topography of the land. There is a slight slope upwards that separates the land for the development and the football field, and a line of trees that would act as a screen between the two properties.

David Rosen, the chair of P&Z, asked, “When you’re looking at the sight line, I noticed that the trees … were as if they were in the summer. What’s the difference … in terms of winter viewing?”

Baldino answered, “It’s kind of a mix of vegetation that would stay green all year round.” He added that, “Due to the angle in which you would be looking up in order to see over that hill, you would look over this development, you wouldn’t be looking at the building itself.”

Baldino also offered a brief explanation of the drainage on the site, saying, “We’ve designed [the drainage system] to adequately reduce the flows during all of the 2, 5, 10, 25, and 100-year storm events, so that would be reducing the flows into the storm water system in Oakview Road … The flows that would be flowing into that system would be less than they are today.”

Rosen then moved to public comment, saying, “This is an 8-30 g application, so hearing about building density or aesthetics is not gonna cut it. Regardless of whether we agree with you, and we probably would, but the reality is that we need to focus any concerns that you have on serious health and safety matters.”

The Intervenor

John O’Malley, a resident in town, approached the commission with an intervenor: Steven Trinkaus. Trinkaus is a civil engineer who has worked on over 500 affordable housing projects and has reviewed over 500 more.

O’Malley stated that his “main concerns are the environmental impacts of [what] kind of pollutants are gonna happen because of all the [cars] that are gonna be there.”

Trinkaus began his testimony by saying, “The revised plan that was submitted … with access to Route 34, I don’t think is a given that DOT is gonna bless that based on my experience. DOT generally wants a certain separation between driveways or roadways on the same side of the road.”

He commented also on the parking, “The parking as proposed … is inadequate for this development. I came up with a total of at least 238 spaces that should be here.”

Trinkaus’ other major area of concern is regarding the storm water management as well. He said, “Regarding the storm water management, there were four test pits done. Two were done in the lower system, the other two were done in the saddle between the two buildings. They were not done where the upper system is at all. I will not disagree that it is probably sand and gravel; however, you do need to do test pits, especially for underground infiltration systems.”

This proposed development is in an environmentally sensitive area. Trinkaus explained that the development falls in an aquifer protection district and a primary aquifer recharge area. Due to this, the applicant needs to file an aquifer protection application that will then need to go to the Inland Wetlands Commission for review, which, in this case, has not been done according to Trinkaus.

Another major issue for this environmentally sensitive area is the treatment of the roads for ice and snow. In recent years, there has been a shift away from traditional sand to chloride brines. Trinkaus said, “Chlorides stay in the soil, they stay in the water, they do not go away. The only way to eliminate chloride impacts is simply not to put them down.” He added, “In this case, ground water will follow the natural flow which will be towards the Pootatuck River.”

Trinkaus said towards the end of his testimony that, “Storm water impacts are also not a ‘one day after the development’ you see an impact, they are a cumulative impact.”

Public Comment

Neil Baldino was the first to speak and spoke on behalf of Candlewood Valley Trout Unlimited. He shared that his concerns were regarding “storm water discharge into the Pootatuck. It’s very close, I think we measured about 650 feet.”

Neil mentioned that silt has been a major issue in the Pootatuck River over the past four years. Silt is an issue because it “smothers the spawning beds for cold water species, reduces the number of quality spawning areas, along with killing off micro invertebrates.” He ended his comment by explaining that Candlewood Valley Trout Unlimited is not against economic development, it just wants “all the risks to be mitigated.”

Tara Vincenta was the next to speak. She questioned whether or not this new internal driveway, with additional parking lots, would need “significant retaining walls in order to create a level enough space,” as she, herself, is a landscape architect.

Ron Bossio echoed previous comments he made regarding fire safety and access. The new plans include an island at the entrance of the driveway, requiring incoming and outgoing cars to make an almost 90-degree turn to access the parking lots. He wasn’t so sure a fire truck could make such a tight turn.

Ryan Clark, a resident of Oakview Road, and almost directly across from the proposed development, had a lot to say regarding this development. He began by expressing his concern still being “around the amount of apartments that are gonna be here.”

He spoke to the new access drive on Berkshire Road with the turn restrictions, saying, “It’s irrational to believe that over 150 people that are temporarily renting an apartment will obey a traffic sign and an arrow on the pavement to take the long way around. But as I heard the engineer from Solli told one of my neighbors after the meeting last month, it’s not his job to make sure the rules are followed. Well unfortunately, it will be a problem for those of us affected by this development.”

Clark also discussed Newtown’s Plan of Conservation and Development, saying, “your plan of conservation and development states that the vision of Newtown is, and I quote, ‘to protect and enhance its picturesque, rural, historic, New England setting and attributes. The architecture and landscaping of all types of properties will be designed to protect the image of a rural and historic town.’ I understand that an 8-30g allows them to void [those kinds] of regulations, but this design, while modern and technology-advanced, does not fit in with the harmony of that neighborhood at all. Two large, white apartment buildings are gonna stick out like a sore thumb in our small, wooded street. It should also be noted, you guys are worried about the view from the high school, but this will be very visible from 84 and serve as a misrepresentation of the character of our community.”

Mary Ann Jacob spoke next. She shared, “To say that this development is consistent with the POCD is a wild stretch … to have the expert representing it as compliant is disingenuous in my opinion.”

Jacob ended her comment with, “We need to, as a community, make sure we’re defending our assets really well.”

The Applicant Responds

Rosen offered Levy an opportunity to respond to the comments. He said, “There’s been a lot of discussion about streams or impact of water temperatures and things like that; those are actually not things that are in the purview of a planning and zoning commission or applicable to an 8-30g application for health and safety purposes.”

Rosen added his last thoughts, saying, “If we were to look at this proposal, and you look at the sight lines, well you could cure the sight line issue by taking the fourth story off and having it at least be somewhat compliant with our zoning. Right now, obviously it doesn’t have to be, but it really isn’t.”

Levy asked for an extension, which was granted. There is an opportunity for Trinkaus, the intervenor, to be cross-examined at the next meeting, which will be Thursday, January 2, 2025, at 7 pm.

=====

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