Borough Zoning members had questions for the developers of 20-60 Castle Hill Road on issues including traffic, and a long session of public participation weighed in both for and against the development — but mostly against — at a public hearing on October 16.

The hearing was the second concerning the development, and no decision was made. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 20, in the Newtown Middle School auditorium. It is unknown if a final decision will be made at that meeting or whether the hearing will be further continued.

The opposition to the 117-home cluster development on 40 acres of the 132 acre property largely centers on two concerns — the large amount of homes, and the presence of the Rochambeau Trail on the property, lying along Reservoir Road.

The homes will be built in a cluster using a specific town regulation, 4.05.1, which allows residential open space developments. The homes will be clustered in one 40 acre area of the development to maximize the open space surrounding it and would be a “multi-generational” development with homes between 1,800 and over 3,000 square feet. There will be “large setbacks” around the homes from the surrounding roads. This would leave 85 acres near Taunton Lake as open space.

The meeting began with Castle Hill Attorney Tom Beecher saying that Castle Hill staff had met with Town Engineer John Curtis and reviewed and implemented his suggested changes to the development.

Beecher further responded to a water runoff study by Trinkaus Associates, saying that Castle Hill Farm, a property located below the 20-60 Castle Hill development that has opposed the development on the grounds of increased runoff to their property, is located in the 100 year flood plain of Deep Brook and a 500 year flood of an unnamed tributary. He said the property contains “poorly drained loam” for soil and that it is frequently flooded.

“We’re not surprised flooding issues exist and persist in this area,” said Beecher.

Beecher further noted that the development has its wetlands approval, and noted by law that the Borough’s Zoning Commission cannot weigh an appeal of that approval into its own decision on the application.

Another issue Beecher addressed was a public-driven petition under the Borough’s zoning regulations that would have required the Borough Zoning Commission to only be able to approve the Castle Hill subdivision application on a supermajority vote of four out of five members, claiming that regulation was not upheld by state law and could not be binding for this application. Beecher stated such petitions could only be applicable to changes in zoning regulations, not to individual applications on developments.

Developer George Trudell discussed screens of evergreens to be placed on certain parts of the property, to block views of the subdivision’s homes from the road. He also said that a 30-foot-long screen will be placed between the homes and the section of Reservoir Road that crosses the property. When asked how close the homes come to Reservoir Road, which is part of the historic Rochambeau Trail, Trudell answered it gets as close as 25 feet.

Several members of the zoning commission questioned numbers on the traffic study, and one expressed a concern that residents of the subdivision would try and avoid Mt Pleasant Road, which is often backed up, and go onto narrow back roads like Currituck Road.

During public participation, resident Susan Hildren said the traffic study was “idealistic” about the amount of traffic on Mt Pleasant and characterized the study as “misinformation.” She expressed concerns about vehicles trying to leave Johnnie Cake Road and Reservoir Road given the high rate of speed of vehicles traveling on Mt Pleasant.

“No one can stop in time if a car pulls out; it’s almost a blind corner,” said Hildren. “To build that development would make my life hell. There won’t be a moment’s peace in the area.”

Resident Randy Kiely said for her, the “scales were tipping” towards her believing the development is good for the town. She said traffic concerns would be minor, as the entire area is seeing increased traffic and most of the traffic is people crossing through the town.

Kiely addressed a comment from a previous public hearing about the potential increase in students at Hawley from the subdivision, but Kiely noted enrollment at that school was down.

“Weren’t we just talking about closing that school due to lack of enrollment?” Kiely asked.

Resident Elaine Breitling said the current road plan in the area “will not work without a drastic change” if the development is built. She said studies like the one done by the developer “always produce the results they want.”

As a nearby resident, Breitling said she had seen many “horrific” accidents in the area since she moved in 40 years ago.

Dave Ackert, founder of the grassroots organization Newtown Conservation Coalition (not to be confused with the town’s Conservation Commission), referring to Beecher’s opinions on the water runoff study and the petition to require a supermajority, said that the Borough Zoning Commission had heard from experts on the payroll of the developer, but it would behoove the commission members to have their own experts look into both matters.

Speaking to whether the subdivision complied with the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development, he asked how it could possibly be compliant if the homes were placed within 20 feet of the historic Rochambeau Trail.

Ackert also asked the commission to check on Beecher’s claim on the soil types at Castle Hill Farm, noting that the town’s NRCS maps, which were used as a reference, were estimates only and not an exact inventory of soil types on each property.

Ackert also asked the commission to refer the application back to the Inland Wetlands Commission.

Borough Zoning Commission Chairman Douglas Nelson said that the commission is seeking an opinion from its own attorney on the petition.

Resident Dottie Evans said she had three “huge concerns” with the development — environment, social, and historic. She said there should be “room to compromise” and the size and impact of the development should be reduced.

“We should find a compromise so we can all move forward and do better,” said Evans.

Resident Holly Kocet also asked for a reduction in the number of homes, saying that 117 homes will “negatively impact traffic.” She also noted that studies have shown that services required from developments like this outweigh any tax revenue realized.

She said the subdivision would not help the community, noting that the homes to be built were “touted as luxury houses in spite of the lack of affordable housing in town.”

“There is nothing for seniors who want to age in place or children who want to remain in Newtown.

Resident Emily Kaufman, who said she lived in a nearby neighborhood of 60 homes, was critical of the development for being “closed off” from the rest of the borough.

Resident Al Hilbrand was concerned about a rear exit on Castle Hill Road. That exit is meant for emergencies only, but Hilbrand felt residents of the subdivision would eventually seek to have the security gate there opened so the accessway could be freely used.

Resident Dan Holmes asked if the developers could consider an alternate, affordable plan that was “not so egregious,” pointing towards the mixed use housing to be built at Fairfield Hills as examples of diverse housing.

“Putting 100-plus homes in our little borough just doesn’t feel right,” said Holmes.

Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.