Rosenthal: Repeal Lake Pocatogpoug Amendment

By John Voket

Future developments and improvements to hundreds of properties ringing Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar could be affected if a controversial amendment that passed in the final hours of the last legislative session is not repealed in 2005. Newtown is among the 27 municipalities with property bordering at least one of the ten Connecticut lakes measuring greater than 500 acres that is not classified as a reservoir.

This means, according to one of the most recently enacted state statutes, that no new substantial developments can be constructed within 2,000 feet of the boundary of either Lake Zoar or Lake Lillinonah. Furthermore, anyone living within these zones who wants to reengineer a septic system, repave a driveway, or perform any other improvements affecting more than 12,000 square feet of his or her property, would be in violation of that new law which even overrides local planning and zoning authority.

The so-called Lake Pocatogpoug Amendment has other far-reaching implications to many Newtown property owners according to First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, so he is lending his name to a groundswell of supporters hoping to see the statute repealed as quickly as possible. Mr Rosenthal discussed the issue at length during the December 20 selectmen’s meeting, and in a subsequent interview.

Earlier this week, the first selectman participated in a conference call with lawyers representing a commercial developer in East Hampton, who are working to overturn Section 3 of Public Act 04-248. That act, titled “An act Concerning the Board of Assessment Appeals for the Town of Somers, The Time for Filing Certain Exemptions in East Hartford, Zoning Near Certain Lakes, Validation of Executive Nominations and Submission of the State Plan for Conservation and Development,” contains the amendment in question.

That amendment reads: “On and after April 1, 2004, the zoning regulations of a municipality, adopted under any special act or section 8-2 of the general statutes, shall not authorize the construction of structures, accessory structures and other improvements, the total area of which is more than twelve thousand square feet, within two thousand feet of the boundary of any lake, that exceeds five hundred acres. The provisions of this section shall not apply to reservoirs.”

Mr Rosenthal fears that if this amendment is not repealed in the upcoming state legislative session, that it may not only impact residential development and improvements being planned for lakeside properties, but efforts to accurately revalue residential properties for the grand list.

“I believe it was an official from New Milford who questioned whether or not this action would effectively devalue properties, and would constitute towns like ours having to revalue them, which may potentially and negatively affect our grand list,” Mr Rosenthal told The Bee Tuesday. “This clearly represents bad legislation, attached to a bill governing a revaluation matter as an amendment in the eleventh hour before the last legislature adjourned.”

The first selectman said he was already very familiar with the amendment, and its potential impact locally. He said he joined with a number of communities in asking former governor John Rowland to veto the bill, but the veto never occurred.

“It’s unfortunate,” commented Mr Rosenthal. “This bill never had a public hearing, and it was not vetted in the normal process, so now this amendment that two legislators from eastern Connecticut thought would only affect one development project in East Hampton has the potential to negatively affect hundreds of Newtown property owners.”

Mr Rosenthal said he is firmly against this type of legislation because it circumnavigates local zoning.

“From a land use standpoint, it’s taking authority out of the hands of local zoning officials,” he said. “And from a development standpoint, it could lead communities to not proceed with viable lakeside projects, even if they are within the scope [permitted in the statute.]”

He said the recent conference call was conducted by the law firm of Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, who are working on behalf of the developer seeking to build a Shaw’s supermarket on the grounds of another smaller shopping plaza in East Hampton.

“They were calling around seeking support for the repeal from officials in towns with similar lakeside concerns,” Mr Rosenthal said. “It’s not too often you’ll find us siding with a developer, but in this case it seems appropriate.”