Revised Version Of Hanover Heights Under P&Z Review

By Andrew Gorosko

In response to a court challenge to a technically flawed residential subdivision approval, the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) is now considering a revised version of Hanover Heights, an eight-lot project proposed for a steep, rugged 28.4-acre site at 64–74-A Hanover Road.

The P&Z held a public hearing on Monroe developer Robert Mastroni’s controversial construction application on April 20. Action on the application is expected at an upcoming session.

The subdivision would be served by a dead-end street known as Anthony Ridge Road that enters the steep site from the east side of Hanover Road, near Hanover Road’s intersection with The Boulevard Extension. The site is near the westbound lanes of Interstate 84.

To resolve the legal issues raised in a court appeal challenging the P&Z’s January approval of Hanover Heights, the panel agreed to conduct a new public hearing on a revised version of the project.

In January, in a lawsuit filed in Danbury Superior Court, Kevin Fitzgerald and Robin Lozito Fitzgerald of 24 Old Farm Hill Road challenged the P&Z’s approval of Hanover Heights, listing the P&Z and Mr Mastroni as defendants. The Fitzgeralds live near the development site. In the lawsuit, the Fitzgeralds list a variety of flaws in the P&Z’s handling of the application, in seeking to invalidate the subdivision approval.

Through their lawsuit, the couple seek to have the P&Z require that Mr Mastroni provide certain open space land at the development site, and require that the P&Z and other town agencies consider the Fitzgeralds’ offer to provide a right-of-way easement near the development site, among other requirements.

Attorney Robert Hall, representing the developer, said April 20 the subdivision that was approved by the P&Z in January provided the town with 1.5 acres of open space, plus a fee in lieu of other open space. The current application would instead provide the town with 4.26 acres of open space. The revised application would meet the P&Z’s requirement that 15 percent of the site be designated as open space land, Mr Hall said.

Engineer Alan Shepard, representing the developer, said that the Fitzgerald family has offered to provide a right-of-way easement on their abutting property, which would create a link in a publicly accessible pathway connecting open space on the Hanover Heights site to other open space land leading toward Lake Lillinonah.  

Mr Mastroni told P&Z members that an antique red barn now standing on the development site would be preserved in some fashion, and would not demolished in connection with the homebuilding project.

Kevin Fitzgerald spoke at length on the revised Hanover Heights proposal, objecting to it for many reasons. Mr Fitzgerald criticized the applicant for not presenting a more complete description of the project on April 20. Mr Fitzgerald stressed that the property is steep and potentially dangerous.

Mr Fitzgerald cited sections of the 2004 Town Plan of Conservation and Development that address the desirability of open space land. Mr Fitzgerald said he thought that the town plan would prevent development such as that proposed by Mr Mastroni. Such construction would put nearby domestic water wells and house foundations at risk of damage, Mr Fitzgerald said.

Past logging on the site has damaged the terrain, diminishing local wildlife habitat, he said. The piecemeal layout of open space proposed by the developer does not constitute what the town desires in the way of open space, he added.

Other developers are monitoring how the P&Z acts on the Hanover Heights proposal to learn the local potential for the development of steep hillsides, Mr Fitzgerald said. Allowing development in such steep places would result in Newtown looking like Danbury and Southbury, he claimed.

Mr Fitzgerald urged that the antique red barn on the site remain in place and not be moved. The barn, which bears the legend Hanover Hill Farm, serves a visual gateway for Hanover Road, he said.

Martin Blanco of 8 Pheasant Ridge Road said that steep slopes are not suitable places to build residential subdivisions. He asked whether other steep hillsides would be developed in the future if Hanover Heights is approved.

Barbara Baron of 2 Orange Pippin Road said, “We’re scarring the face of this town with such [construction] proposals.” She urged the P&Z not to allow development on such terrain.

Lauren Liniger of 51 Horseshoe Ridge Road asked whether the piecemeal open space layout proposed for Hanover Heights would become a trend in future residential subdivisions. She urged that Hanover Heights be a four-lot development, instead of an eight-lot subdivision. She urged the P&Z to preserve the town’s character, adding that the town should buy the entire site and preserve it as open space.

Robin Fitzgerald said that the rip-rap stone facing proposed for steep slopes on the site would be ugly. She urged the P&Z to reject the project. “Newtown’s going to look like the Bronx,” she said.

Joel Faxon of 38 Old Farm Hill Road urged that the P&Z either reject the construction proposal or require that the developer provide much more open space on the site.

P&Z Response

In response to the public comments, P&Z Chairman William O’Neil said that zoning involves balancing land-use controls against the rights of property owners to develop their land.

The town has set aside $10 million to acquire open space land, he noted. The town has increased its open space requirement for subdivisions from ten percent to 15 percent of a site, he added. The quality of acceptable open space has been upgraded, he said. The minimum standards for building lots have been increased, he added.

The town plan constitutes a “vision” of conservation and development within the framework of land use regulations, he said. Nothing within the regulations allows the P&Z to force an applicant to keep a barn in place, he said. The P&Z can seek to obtain various concessions from developers, he added. The P&Z seeks to improve its regulations to meet the goals of the town plan, he said.

“We have six or seven cases in court all the time…There is a constant battle going on all the time,” Mr O’Neil said.

The courts do not support the decisions of land use agencies as often as they did in the past, said P&Z member Lilla Dean. The P&Z values public comment on development applications, she said, adding that, “We can’t regulate aesthetics, unfortunately.”

Public comments are considered in the P&Z’s decisionmaking, said P&Z member Jane Brymer.

P&Z member Robert Mulholland said, “We’re as conservative as we legally can be…The public is definitely listened to.”