Sugar Street Site-Hook & Ladder Presses Ahead With Firehouse Proposal
Sugar Street Siteâ
Hook & Ladder Presses Ahead With Firehouse Proposal
By Andrew Gorosko
Undeterred by its failure to secure a required wetlands/watercourses protection permit from the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) last week for its proposed firehouse at 12 Sugar Street (Route 302), Newtown Hook & Ladder Company, Inc, #1, this week presented its firehouse proposal at a lengthy Borough Zoning Commission (BZC) public hearing in seeking a zoning approval for the construction project.
BZC members ended the public hearing on December 13, but did not act on the volunteer fire companyâs application to construct an 11,414-square-foot firehouse to replace the aging, deteriorated red-brick town-owned firehouse now used by the firefighters at 45 Main Street, behind Edmond Town Hall.
BZC members are scheduled to discuss and possibly act on the zoning application when they next meet on January 12.
Following the December 13 BZC hearing, attorney Christopher Smith, who represents Hook & Ladder, was asked how the development application can proceed through the land-use review process considering that the seven-member IWC on December 8 unanimously rejected issuing a required environmental protection permit for the project.
Attorney Smith responded that the applicant would somehow need to resolve the lack of a IWC permit. One option may be the fire company lodging a court appeal against the IWC over its decision, he said.
Generally, IWC members decided that the firehouse project would pose significant adverse effects on wetlands and watercourses. The project would require the earthen filing of about 5,000 square feet of wetlands, without significant mitigation on the site to compensate for that loss of wetlands.
Under state law, the deadline for the fire company to file a court appeal against the IWC would be the end of December, at a point when it would yet be unknown whether the BZC would grant a zoning approval for the firehouse project.
Under the development proposal, the Borough of Newtown Land Trust, Inc, and the R. Scudder Smith Family Partnership would donate land for the firehouse project. Mr Smith is the owner/publisher of The Newtown Bee. Approximately one acre of the wet 9.4-acre site would be developed with a firehouse and related facilities.
The BZC heard more than three hours of testimony at the December 13 hearing. It also heard about three hours of testimony at an initial October hearing.
While testimony at the October session was mixed, with some members of the public supporting the application and others opposing it, on December 13 all members of the public who spoke opposed constructing a firehouse at 12 Sugar Street. They generally acknowledged that a new Hook & Ladder fire station is needed, but said that the Sugar Street site is the wrong place to build it.
Those who spoke against constructing a firehouse there generally said that a fire station is an inappropriate land use that would be out of character with the residential area, the presence of such a facility would damage property values in the area, the presence of a fire station would damage the areaâs appearance, and that firehouse-related traffic would worsen traffic congestion that occurs in the area during daily commuter rush periods, among other complaints.
The firefighters, however, maintain that 12 Sugar Street is a good place to build a new firehouse because it would be at a central location within the Hook & Ladder fire district.
The town has five fire districts for its five volunteer fire companies. Unlike Hook & Ladder, each of the four other fire companies owns its firehouse. The other fire companies are based in Dodgingtown, Hawleyville, Sandy Hook, and Botsford.
Applicantâs Presentation
At the December 13 hearing, Atty Smith explained that the applicant had made some revisions to its zoning application since the October BZC hearing, but that the proposal remains essentially the same proposal that had been presented earlier.
The lawyer urged the BZC to render a decision on the application based on the proposalâs merits in terms of the borough zoning regulations, and not in light of the IWCâs denial of an environmental protection permit for the project.
Civil engineer Chris DeAngelis, representing the fire company, described a conservation easement that would be placed on the site to prevent future development there, if a firehouse is built.
âWeâve âtightenedâ the site as much as we can,â he said of the applicantâs strictly limiting the amount of land which would be developed.
An engineering review shows that a retaining wall proposed for the property would be a workable structure, Mr DeAngelis said. The town engineer has endorsed the project, Mr DeAngelis added. Lighting at the property would comply with applicable âDark Skyâ standards to limit light from straying off the site, he said.
A fire marshalâs review of the siteâs layout shows that the property would be adequately designed to allow firefighting to occur there in the event of a fire, Atty Smith said.
Atty Smith said that although the site is located in a residentiallyzoned area, the zoning regulations allow a firehouse as a âpermitted useâ in such an area.
Hook & Ladder spokesman Rob Manna displayed a series of aerial photographs showing other local firehouses in relation to their surroundings which, he said, are comparable to the Sugar Street setting.
âWhat weâre proposing here is not unique, and certainly is acceptable,â he said.
The presence of a firehouse in the Sugar Street area would not damage nearby property values, according to the fire company.
Also, traffic related to a firehouse in the area would be âworkable,â Atty Smith said.
Opposition
Resident Alan Shepard of 1 Glover Avenue, who is a civil engineer, questioned information on the depth of the subterranean water table at the Sugar Street site. Mr Shepard also questioned aspects of a proposed retaining wall that would be built in developing the site.
Mr Shepard raised issues about whether fire trucks would be able to adequately maneuver on the property. He questioned the practicality of the projectâs traffic design in relation to the adjacent Sugar Street.
âThe site is too small to handle the intended useâ¦I think thatâs a significant concern,â Mr Shepard said.
Mr DeAngelis responded that although the site is tightly designed, traffic flow would be workable. The project also would be subject to traffic review by the state Department of Transportation (DOT), he added.
Curt Riebeling of 21 Sugar Street said that the location proposed for a firehouse is âinherently unsuitableâ for that use. He urged the BZC to reject the project.
Mr Riebeling said that 145 area residents have signed a petition in opposition to the proposal. He added that four real estate agents have provided letters stating that the presence of a firehouse in the neighborhood would damage property values.
He added that firehouse-related traffic would create traffic problems in the area. Also, the site does not hold any space that would allow for parking expansion, he said.
âThis application should be turned down because the proposal is unsuitable for the site,â he said.
There are two workable alternatives for Hook & Ladder getting a new firehouse, he said. They are constructing new facilities at the fire companyâs existing location, or creating facilities at Fairfield Hills, he said.
Mr Riebeling said he respects the work of volunteer firefighters, but urged that plans be dropped for a firehouse at 12 Sugar Street.
Robert Olah of 34 Sugar Street, similarly, said there are other places for a new firehouse that are more suitable than Sugar Street. Other local firehouses are located in commercial settings, he said.
Sugar Street is not wide enough for the maneuverings of fire trucks, Mr Olah said. The street is especially narrow at the point where it crosses above a brook near its intersection with Elm Drive, he said, terming that area a âchokepoint.â
âThey [firefighters] are trying to fit a 500-pound gorilla into a 480-pound bag,â Mr Olah said of the firehouse proposal. âIn this design, everything is marginal, except for the building itselfâ¦This is not a good design,â he said.
âThere never will be enough room for parking on this property,â he added.
â[The firefighters] are trying to put a too big building on a too small site on a too narrow road,â Mr Olah said.
Edward Terry of 18 Lincoln Road said the Sugar Street area experiences traffic congestion. âItâs not the place for a firehouse,â he said. Mr Terry said that new fire facilities should be built at Hook & Ladderâs current location or at Fairfield Hills.
Eugene Orlowski of 20 Sugar Street said that the 12 Sugar Street site poses too many limitations on outdoor operations. Firefighters should get new first-rate facilities elsewhere at a place without such limitations, he said.
Anne Kutka of 22 Sugar Street asked whether the presence of ice and snow on the site would create problems for fire trucks maneuvering on the property.
Joseph Sullivan of 13 Lincoln Road said he opposes constructing a firehouse at 12 Sugar Street. He said that the presence of such a structure would damage the areaâs aesthetics and hurt property values.
Attorney Catherine Cuggino, representing Francois and Nathalie de Brantes of 13 Sugar Street, told BZC members that the firehouse application does not comply with applicable borough zoning regulations. The lawyer called for the BZC to reject the project.
Francois de Brantes provided BZC members with a series of photographs to support his contention that the presence of a firehouse at 12 Sugar Street would damage the areaâs appearance. âThe âviewscapeâ of Newtown will be forever changed,â he said. Extensive tree cutting would be needed for the project, he added.
The proposed 11,414-square-foot firehouse would not fit well into the neighborhood in terms of its size, the extent of road frontage required, and the activity that would occur there, Mr de Brantes said.
He noted that he Borough Zoning Board of Appeals (BZBA) in August 2009 rejected the fire companyâs request for a zoning variance for a similar project there. Mr de Brantes said that the design now under review is worse than the design that the BZBA rejected.
Mr de Brantes said the presence of a firehouse would worsen traffic conditions in the area. He also questioned aspects of a retaining wall proposed for the site.
Also, Mr de Brantes said he has asked the state attorney generalâs office to review the legality of allowing a land preservation organization, such at the Borough of Newtown Land Trust, Inc, to donate land in connection with a development project. He also objected to having the town use its capital improvement funds toward constructing a firehouse at 12 Sugar Street. âNo one knows what this thingâs going to cost,â he said.
Earlier this year, fire officials asked that the town provide $1.5 million the toward the overall cost of a $2.6 million firehouse. Through the use of âvalue engineeringâ the fire company is seeking to hold the cost of the project down to $2.2 million or $2.3 million.
The firehouse project has been placed on the townâs Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Under that spending plan, the town would contribute $1.5 million toward the construction project. The funding would be spread across three fiscal years, through three $500,000 increments.
âThis is an ill-conceived project,â Mr de Brantes told BZC members. The project would destroy wetlands, would hurt property values, and would damage the appearance of the area, he stressed. âWe urge you to reject this project,â he said.
Fire Company
Atty Smith, representing the fire company, told BZC members that the IWC, which rejected a wetlands/watercourses permit for the firehouse project on December 8, has no jurisdiction over zoning issues.
In responding to the various criticisms of the firehouse proposal, Atty Smith said, in part, that: the expansion potential for the project has no bearing on the pending application; the town engineer has endorsed the project; the fire company would not propose a design that is unworkable; the project represents a âpermitted useâ as specified by the zoning regulations; the Planning and Zoning Commission in its role as the boroughâs planning agency has endorsed the project, and the project would not adversely affect traffic in the area.
The firehouse proposal meets applicable zoning requirements, he said. âWe really would like to have an approval for this property,â he said.
BZC member Douglas Nelson, who served as acting chairman at the December 13 hearing, said the BZC has heard much public comment during its two hearings on the firehouse application, noting the âstrong feelingsâ that have been expressed.