To View From

Newtown’s ‘Perimeter’

The following letter to William O’Neil, chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, has been received for publication.

Dear Mr O’Neil:

I and some of my neighbors attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on April 15 to hear the decision on the application to amend the zoning regulations to increase the gross floor area for retail stores from 40,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet. We were delighted with the decision denying the application. We felt the rationale articulated by Ms Dean and the other members was on point. We are strongly in agreement with it. It also seemed to express the opinion of former planning commissioner, Heidi Winslow, whose opinion we read about in The Newtown Bee as well as in the minutes of your previous hearing on this case. (Unfortunately, we were not aware of the original hearing on March 18 until after it had occurred or we definitely would have attended.)

We were, therefore, somewhat distressed about your discussion to have some kind of floating zone in which the 60,000-square-foot retail store might be appropriate. After all of your discussion about the type of community that Newtown is — that is, a small store town catering to the local residents as opposed to a Federal Road type of town — your suggestion sounded as though you would like to bring in by the back door something you had just, with good reason, denied. You mentioned a floating zone with conditions, such as “located on the perimeter of the town.” We on Cold Spring Road live near the perimeter of town. We do not like the larger box retail entities any more than the residents in the middle of town do. They change the character of our area detrimentally; they could adversely affect our property values; and they will significantly increase the traffic on the main road near us — Route 25. I am sure other residents who live near other entrances to Newtown would also not like to be categorized as second class citizens when it comes to the type of retail that you envision might be allowed there.

On the same subject, you also mentioned that your commission has not approved any applications that have helped to increase the tax base. I got the impression that you felt you (the commission) were somewhat remiss in this regard. I respectfully suggest that your commission’s primary obligation to see that the land in Newtown is used appropriately for its present and future residents is a sufficiently serious, if not overwhelming, mission to focus on. Other entities in town should focus on market forces and taxes. The best use of the land is a higher goal and should not be unduly influenced by market forces which change so often for better or worse.

Finally, I would like to thank you for your and the other members’ service on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Your detailed knowledge of the applications and of the appropriate governing laws as well as your conscientious and thoughtful responses were impressive. We appreciate the contribution you are all making to the betterment of our town.

Sincerely,

Mary Curran

41 Cold Spring Road, Newtown                                   April 20, 2004