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

The hearing was the second hearing on 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 whether the final decision will be taken at this meeting or whether the hearing will continue.

Opposition to the 117-home cluster development on 40 acres of the 132-acre site focuses largely on two concerns: the large number of homes and the presence of Rochambeau Road, which runs along Reservoir Road, on the property.

The homes will be built in a cluster using 4.05.1, a special town ordinance that allows residential open space developments. The homes will be clustered across 40 acres of the development to maximize open space around it and will be a “multi-generational” development with homes ranging from 1,800 to 3,000 square feet. There will be “major disruptions” to the ring roads around the houses. This would leave 85 acres near Taunton Lake as open space.

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

Beecher also responded to a water flow study by Trinkaus Associates, saying the 100th anniversary of Castle Hill Farm, a property located beneath the 20-60 Castle Hill project, opposed the development on the grounds of increased water flow onto their property. Deep Brook flood plain and the 500-year flood of an unnamed river. He said the property had “poorly drained loam” soil-wise and was frequently flooded.

“We are not surprised that flooding problems exist and continue in this area,” Beecher said.

Beecher also noted that the project has a wetland approval and that by law the County Zoning Commission cannot include an objection to that approval in its decision on the application.

Another issue Beecher addressed was a publicly directed petition claiming that the ordinance was not in compliance with the County Zoning Regulations, which require that the County Zoning Commission can only approve the Castle Hill subdivision application by a majority vote of four out of five members. It is approved by state law and cannot be binding on this application. Beecher noted that such petitions can only apply to changes in zoning regulations, not individual applications for zoning.

Developer George Trudell has discussed placing evergreen screens on certain parts of the property to block homes in the subdivision from being seen from the road. He also said a 30-metre-long curtain would be installed between the houses and the part of Reservoir Road that runs through the property. When asked how close the homes were to Reservoir Road, part of the historic Rochambeau Trail, Trudell said it came within 25 feet of the road.

Several members of the zoning commission questioned the figures in the traffic study, with one of them expressing concern that residents would try to avoid the often backed-up Mt Pleasant Road and take narrow back roads such as Currituck Road.

During public engagement, resident Susan Hildren said the traffic study was “ideal” regarding the amount of traffic in Mount Pleasant and called the study “misinformation.” He expressed concern about vehicles attempting to leave Johnnie Cake Road and Reservoir Road, given the high speed of vehicles traveling on Mt Pleasant.

“If a car moves, no one can stop in time; “It’s almost a blind corner,” Hildren said. “Building this development would make my life hell. “There will not be even a moment of peace in the region.”

Area resident Randy Kiely said the “scales are tipped” in terms of his belief that the development is good for the town. He said traffic concerns would be minor as traffic has increased throughout the area and most of the traffic consists of people passing through town.

Kiely addressed a comment at an earlier public hearing about a potential increase in the number of students in the subdivision in Hawley, but Kiely noted that enrollment at that school has decreased.

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

Area resident Elaine Breitling said if the project is built, the current road plan in the area “won’t work without a major change.” He said studies like the one the developer did “always produce the results they want.”

Breitling, who lives nearby, said he has witnessed many “horrific” accidents in the area since he 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), said the County Zoning Commission is hearing from experts, citing Beecher’s views on the water flow study and the petition requiring a majority. on the developer’s payroll, but commissioners must have their own experts review both issues.

He asked if the subdivision complied with the town’s Preservation and Development Plan, asking how it would be possible to place the homes within 20 feet of historic Rochambeau Road.

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

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

County Zoning Commission Chairman Douglas Nelson said the commission has asked for an opinion from its own attorney on the petition.

Resident Dottie Evans said she had three “big concerns” about the development: environmental, social and historical. He said there should be “room for compromise” and that the size and impact of development should be reduced.

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

Resident Holly Koçet also asked for the number of houses to be reduced, saying that 117 houses would “negatively affect traffic”. He also noted that studies show that the services expected from developments like this are greater than the tax revenues generated.

He said that the parcel would not be of any benefit to the society and noted that the houses to be built were “touted as luxury houses even though there is no affordable housing in the town.”

“There’s nothing for old people who want to grow old here or kids who want to stay in Newtown.

Resident Emily Kaufman, who said she lives in a nearby neighborhood of 60 homes, criticized the development for being “closed” to the rest of the county.

Resident Al Hilbrand was concerned about the rear exit on Castle Hill Road. This exit was intended for emergencies only, but Hilbrand felt that residents of the subdivision would eventually ask for the security gate there to be opened so that the entryway could be used freely.

Resident Dan Holmes asked the developers if they could consider an alternative, affordable plan that “wasn’t that bad,” pointing to mixed-use housing to be built in Fairfield Hills as examples of diverse housing.

“It doesn’t feel right to put more than 100 homes in our little township,” Holmes said.

Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at [email protected].

County Zoning Commission Chairman Douglas Nelson.—Bee Photos, Glass

Attorney Tom Beecher (left) and developer George Trudell.

Resident Charles Gardner speaks during public consultation.

Resident Casey Ferguson speaks during public consultation.