Date: Fri 05-Sep-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Newtown-Village

Full Text:

Opponents Press P&Z to Reject Newtown Village Project

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

Opponents of Newtown Village, a 96-house development proposed for Route 34 in

Sandy Hook, have called for Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members to

reject the condominium complex, citing concerns over excavation, traffic,

noise, property values, the character of the neighborhood, and increased

demands for public services.

The P&Z conducted an August 28 public hearing to field comments about the

proposal which had been explained by the applicants at an August 7 hearing. A

third installment of the hearing, at which the developers will rebut

criticisms of the construction proposal, is scheduled for September 24.

The developers want to build 96 single-family houses, 24 of which would be

designated as "affordable housing." The houses would be sold as condominium

units under the terms of a "common interest ownership community."

The application marks the first affordable housing proposal for Newtown. By

selling at least one-quarter of the houses as affordable housing, the

developers can employ a "density bonus" in which the state would allow them to

build more houses on the 32-acre site than is permitted by town development

regulations for an area with R 1-Acre residential zoning.

D&H Homes, LLC, of New Milford, and Fairfield 2000 Homes Corporation of

Stamford want to build Newtown Village at the site of a former sand and gravel

mine bordered on the west by the Exit 11 entrance ramp to Interstate 84, on

the northeast by Philo Curtis Road, on the south by Route 34, and on the

southeast by Bishop Circle. Vehicle access to the site would be from Route 34.

The site was used as a surface mine 25 years ago during the construction of

I-84. The applicants have options to buy the three parcels which comprise the

32-acre site.

In their application to the P&Z, the developers seek a special exception to

the zoning regulations to build the complex. Simultaneously, the applicants

seek an amendment to the zoning regulations to let them build a mechanized

community septic system which would extract nitrogen from wastewater before

it's discharged into the ground. Current zoning regulations don't allow

"mechanized" community septic systems for multi-family developments.

Association Fights Back

A neighborhood group known as the Sandy Hook Concerned Homeowners Association

has hired land planning consultant Joseph Heyman to represent it in opposing

Newtown Village.

Mr Heyman said the proposed complex represents a construction density for the

site which is at least four times as dense as the area's R 1-Acre residential

zoning allows. Because the proposal includes affordable housing, applicable

state land use rules allow the construction to be denser than the zoning for

that area allows.

"There are many reasons why this application should be denied," Mr Heyman told

the P&Z.

The removal of more than 186,000 cubic yards of earth material is proposed, he

said, pointing out that the amount of material to be trucked away is

equivalent to the volume enclosed by a football field which is 111 feet tall.

When planning development projects, an engineer's goal is to have no materials

removed from a site, he said. The removal of more than 186,000 cubic yards of

material is clearly not incidental to the project and the application is

deniable on the basis of the excavation plans alone, Mr Heyman stressed.

Mr Heyman said that based on a cubic yard of high-quality fill being worth

$12, the value of the fill proposed for removal is about $2.25 million.

The proposed excavation defaces the site's natural features and violates the

land use regulations, Mr Heyman said.

"It smells like, it looks like, it walks like a sand-and-gravel operation," he

said.

Excavation trucks would create a traffic hazard when entering and leaving the

site on a driveway at Route 34, he said. An average excavation truck carries

about 15 cubic yards of fill, meaning it would require about 25,000 truck

trips at the site to handle the fill, he said.

The site is near two areas on Route 34 which have high accident rates, Mr

Heyman said, arguing that Newtown Village should be denied for that reason.

He also maintained the applicants don't meet applicable regulations on health,

safety and welfare.

Heavy trucks entering and leaving the site and excavation equipment would also

pose substantial noise problems, he said, damaging area property values.

Petition

Noting that the applicants are seeking a special exception to the zoning

regulations, Mr Heyman submitted a petition to the P&Z bearing the signatures

of 34 nearby residents. The petition hopes to fulfill a zoning requirement

that would force at least four P&Z members to vote in the affirmative to

approve the proposal, instead of a simple majority of three, making it more

difficult for the proposal to gain passage.

The application violates provisions of the town's 1993 plan of development,

and the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials' 1997 regional guide

map to growth, Mr Heyman said.

Noting that houses in Newtown Village would be 20 feet apart, Mr Heyman said

the project doesn't maintain the area's rural character.

The presence of a 96-house development would increase congestion on Route 34,

he said. "Traffic is not OK. Under the best of circumstances, it is not OK,

and on that basis alone, this application should be denied," Mr Heyman said.

The intensity of the development is much too high, according to the

consultant. The application violates many applicable zoning regulations, he

stressed.

Engineer Robert Bass, of Fuss and & O'Neill, Inc, the town's consulting

engineer, said the firm has reviewed traffic aspects of the project at the

town's request. The firm doesn't approve of the applicants' proposal to use

the turnaround areas on project roads for vehicle parking, noting that access

by fire trucks, garbage trucks, and school buses would require those areas to

be free of parked vehicles. He suggested that project roads be shortened and

widened, which might result in fewer houses being built.

Mr Bass also recommended that the applicants do a vehicle speed study on Route

34 to gauge whether there are adequate sight lines for motorists near the

proposed driveway to Newtown Village. The engineer said it's unclear how

students would travel from the complex to nearby Newtown High School, asking

whether it would be on school buses or on foot in an area which has no

sidewalks.

Engineer Peter Grose of Fuss and O'Neill said the Water Pollution Control

Authority (WPCA) has decided against extending sewers to the development site.

The town's sewer district is limited in size and the sewage treatment plant

has limited treatment capacity, he said.

The WPCA has the responsibility to designate local sewer avoidance zones and

the development site is in such a zone, he said. Sewer-avoidance zones are

established for reasons including preserving an area's rural character and

protecting the environment, he noted.

The applicants want to install a small-scale sewage treatment plant at the

site. Newtown's land use regulations allow community septic systems, but don't

allow small-scale sewage treatment plants.

Resident Joe Borst of 10 Beechwood Drive, a Legislative Council member, stated

his opposition to Newtown Village. The complex would sit atop the primary

recharge area for the Pootatuck Aquifer, the town's designated source sole

aquifer for underground drinking water, he said. Polluted water runoff from

impervious surfaces on the site would find its way into the aquifer, he said.

Allowing Newtown Village to be built would result in the construction of other

such projects in town, he added, concluding that Newtown Village would

overcrowd the land.

Resident Michael Gorski of 8 Bishop Circle told P&Z members he opposes Newtown

Village. He said the project would have far reaching effects for Newtown,

adding that the application "flies in the face" of many zoning regulations. In

order to develop the site, the developers would have to demolish a house on

Route 34, he noted. "Do you want to set that precedent?" he asked.

Upland hardwood trees on the site would be felled to prepare for construction,

Mr Gorksi said. The construction work will generate much noise, he said,

adding, "It's unreasonable to expect us to take that."

Many children live in the Bishop Circle/Elana Lane area, he said, noting they

would be in the vicinity of "a dangerous commercial mining site."

Gary Fetzer of 5 Old Bethel Road and candidate for the Democratic nomination

for first selectman in next Tuesday's Democratic primary, said "I do oppose

the site as proposed here," citing traffic safety, water pollution, and fire

and ambulance access issues. Mr Fetzer asked who would monitor the

development's waste disposal system to ensure it's running properly.

Resident Kenneth Appley of 3 Elana Lane said the presence of a bypass road at

Fairfield Hills would worsen the traffic situation along Route 34 near the

development site. Philo Curtis Road, which is to the rear of the site, is in

poor physical shape, he said. That road would become worse if traffic from

Newtown Village were to use it, he said. Citing concerns over Newtown

Village's effects on the public school system, property taxes and traffic, Mr

Appley said, "I just can't see (Newtown Village) helping Newtown."

Resident Michael Lucas of 4 Philo Curtis Road, a Sandy Hook volunteer fireman,

said, "The fire potential in this complex would be horrendous if it ever got

started. A structure fire in there would be a catastrophe." He added that it's

good the developers propose extending a public water line to a hydrant system

for firefighting.

Of the proposal, he commented, "A few houses in there, yes, but not 96."

Resident Vicki Carlson of 1 Elana Lane noted that septic leaching fields would

be open space areas in the development. Children living in the development

shouldn't have to play in leaching fields, she said.

Resident Raj Srikantiah of 12 Philo Curtis Road said he has seen three serious

accidents on Philo Curtis Road, including one fatal accident in the past five

years. He termed the proposal "a complex of cookie-cutter matchboxes." The

dust raised by excavation work would pose health problems, he said. Mr

Srikantiah said as the Newtown Village houses age, the area would start

looking like the Bronx or Yonkers, N.Y.

P&Z member Daniel Fogliano asked the developers whether they could build 96

houses and use a community septic system for waste disposal, instead of a

small-scale sewage treatment plant.

A community septic system wouldn't cleanse the wastewater from 96 houses

thoroughly enough to meet the water quality standards of the state Department

of Environmental Protection (DEP), said Michael Petti, an engineer for the

developers.

Mr Petti said the developers will calculate the maximum number of houses that

could be served by a community septic system.

The Proposal

Each house would have a garage with one or two bays. Three-quarters of the

houses would have three bedrooms. The remainder would have two bedrooms.

Some 21 acres of the site would contains houses, roads and common areas. The

remaining 11 acres would have a detention pond, a community septic system,

wetlands and open areas. Each yard and house would be individually owned, with

the remainder of the site commonly owned. Property owners in the development

would be subject to various ownership rules.

The developers state Newtown Village would pose no adverse effects on property

values in the area based on a real estate market analysis.

Last February, in the face of strenuous opposition from nearby property

owners, the Conservation Commission unanimously granted a wetlands

construction license for Newtown Village. At that time, the proposal included

102 houses. In its decision, the Conservation Commission determined that the

applicants plan to take adequate steps to environmentally protect wetlands and

watercourses at and near the site.