Newtown P&Z Continues Hearings on Three Mount Pleasant Road Projects

NEWTOWN, CT — The Newtown Planning & Zoning Commission on Nov. 6 continued public hearings on three major applications along Mount Pleasant Road following more than two hours of testimony from applicants, experts and residents concerned about traffic, safety, sightlines and neighborhood impacts.

The meeting, held at the Newtown Community Center, drew numerous members of the public. Commission Chair David Rosen opened the session by congratulating newly elected officials and recognizing outgoing commissioner Greg Rich for his service.

Affordable Housing Proposal at 128–130 Mount Pleasant Road

The commission resumed its hearing on Application 25.21, a proposal by Cela Builders LLC to construct a 67-unit rental development with 21 affordable units under Connecticut General Statutes §8-30g, which allows developers to appeal local zoning denials for affordable housing projects

Attorney Timothy Hollister said the applicant submitted written responses to earlier concerns, including drainage revisions, signage to deter cut-through traffic on Hillcrest Drive, landscape buffering, and confirmation that a generator will be installed on site. He said a recent design meeting with the Design Advisory Board produced additional refinements.

Traffic engineer Kermit Hua said the expected vehicle volumes on Hillcrest Drive would be minimal, though several commissioners and residents disputed his assessment. Residents described narrow road conditions, poor pavement, limited vehicle pass-by room and ongoing safety concerns.

A new issue emerged shortly before the meeting involving an existing Aquarion water service moratorium stemming from 2024 flood damage. Hollister said the applicant would seek clarification before the next meeting.

After discussion, the commission voted unanimously to continue the hearing to Dec. 4.

Text Amendment and Zone Change for 188–190 Mount Pleasant Road

The commission also continued hearings on Applications 25.22 and 25.23, submitted by 188–190 Mount Pleasant Road LLC, seeking:

• A text amendment creating a “Mt. Pleasant Development District” to allow greater-density affordable housing, and
• A zone change from Business Professional Office to the new district.

Attorney Stephen Bellis said the applicant is a contract purchaser and would take ownership free of any existing mortgage if approvals are granted. He argued the commission could not deny the applications without “good grounds” under 8-30g.

Residents raised concerns about sightlines along Route 6, increased traffic near the Bethel town line, emergency access, water capacity, and potential impacts on adjacent properties. Supporters said the town needs more diverse and attainable housing options.

Commissioners said they needed more time to review materials, including an annotated packet submitted by a resident offering alternative text language and suggested grounds for denial. The hearings for both applications were continued to Dec. 4.

Athletic Field Complex Proposed for 90 Mount Pleasant Road

The commission later heard Application 25.25, a special exception request from Civil 1 Engineers to build two turf athletic fields, a 7,875-square-foot clubhouse, parking, and associated improvements.

Engineer Chris Pawlowski outlined revisions including drainage upgrades, native landscaping, lighting adjustments, and assurances that the turf fields would not contain PFAS. He said the applicant aims to begin construction in 2026, with fields ready for the fall 2026 season.

Residents raised concerns over noise, traffic queuing, vehicle emissions from idling, microplastics from synthetic turf, and the impact on nearby homes. An attorney representing proposed intervenors said a supermajority petition and an environmental intervention petition were filed a day earlier; commissioners and staff had not yet reviewed the documents.

Commissioners voted 4-1 to continue the hearing to Dec. 4, citing the need for additional review.

Other Business

• The commission approved the minutes from Oct. 16.
• The 2026 meeting schedule was not discussed.
• The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.