How zoning got its start in Newtown
by Ellen Aho
Zoning regulations that determine what kind of housing can be built in town have had a profound effect on Newtown as they have on towns throughout Connecticut. This article uses reporting and reader comments published in The Newtown Bee during the time period of 1955-1958 to describe how zoning regulations were established in Newtown.
1955 – NEWTOWN EMBRACES PLANNING
Beginning in 1955, reporting in the Bee reflected an increased acceptance of the idea that it was necessary to control the growth of the town. On January 31, 1955, Danbury Chamber of Commerce President Albert F. Clear, Jr. spoke to the Newtown Rotary Club about the link between Newtown and Danbury. Mr. Clear said that Newtown was tied to the accelerated development of Danbury “willing or not,” because workers attracted to Danbury’s growing industries would look to Newtown and other communities for housing. He posed the hypothetical that if 500 employees of a Danbury plant moved to Newtown they would pay taxes of $27,636, while their 255 children would attend the local schools at a cost of $51,000. In order to bear this cost, Mr. Clear recommended the organizing of a planning commission to “sell” Newtown to selected industry, and said that such planning must start with a “civic-minded group of citizens rather than a political group.”
On February 11, 1955, the Bee reported on a Yale study of neighboring Monroe that concluded that the town was “in the throes of growing pains which threaten its rural character unless the town takes action soon” to create a master plan. Christopher Tunnard, Director of Yale’s graduate program in city planning, declared that “the plight of Monroe is similar to what is happening in many rural areas adjacent to heavily populated metropolitan districts.” In the Editorial Ink Drops column the Bee editors noted that this study had garnered wide attention both locally and nationally, and expressed the hope that it would spur Newtown officials or civic groups to take the initiative in doing something similar.
Later that month, Judge Reed Shields, town counsel for Ridgefield, spoke about zoning at an open meeting of the Newtown League of Women Voters. The judge stressed several points in favor of zoning, including attraction of industry, protection of property value, and easing of the tax burden. He also explained the difference between a planning commission and a zoning commission, stating that the former was focused on guiding a town’s growth for the future while the latter was more concerned with setting specifics such as lot size, house size and location of businesses.
As evidence of the fact that zoning was developing as an issue statewide, Governor Abraham Ribicoff urged towns to plan for future growth during a meeting held for representatives of the state’s weekly newspapers in April 1955.
In the summer of 1955 Newtown began to take real steps toward embracing town planning. On July 11, an open meeting on planning was attended by 173 residents. The initiative for this movement came from the Newtown Realtors Group, which had found “in the process of their real estate activities” that an increasing number of townspeople were “expressing concern over the present conditions in Newtown and the need for planning the town.” Those in attendance voted unanimously to work toward getting those in favor of town planning to attend a special town meeting to approve the creation of a planning commission. A steering committee was appointed and a number of additional open meetings were held to educate residents and solicit their support. One issue that came out again was the need to educate townspeople about the difference between planning and zoning. Attorney Bradley Morehouse explained that a planning commission would have authority only to prepare a town plan, while “acceptance of the plan and enforcement thereof by establishing a zoning commission under the General Statutes would be up to the voters at a subsequent town meeting.”
Another point discussed “at some length” was the right of non-resident property owners to vote on the zoning proposals, after at least one non-resident reported having been disqualified from doing so in the failed 1953 zoning referendum because he wasn’t a registered voter. Mr. Morehouse said that a vote on the resolution for a planning commission would be open to non-resident property owners who had real property with an assessed value of at least $1000 or personal property of at least $500 as shown by the last grand list.
William Blakely, a state planning engineer, spoke to residents about the advantages of town planning, emphasizing “how important town planning is in preserving property values and in preventing an abnormal rise in the tax rate.” Elaborating on the tax issue, steering committee member Herman Geiger referenced a recent real life example. “When a contractor puts up a group of small homes, as one neighborhood in Newtown has revealed, the tax bill averages about $125. However these homes average three children for every two homes. It costs $300 a year to keep a child in school. So with a tax return of $250 for two homes Newtown is paying out $900 for schooling.” To cover this burden, Mr. Geiger continued, the tax rate would rise “at an alarming rate” and industry would be frightened away, and the best way for Newtown to escape this plight was through town planning.
A special town meeting was scheduled for September 23, 1955 to consider an ordinance to establish a town planning commission under chapter 45 of the Connecticut General Statutes. It also called for the election of five members to serve on the new commission. It was announced that both registered voters and qualified property owners were eligible to vote on the planning ordinance, but only registered voters could participate in the election portion of the vote. The meeting was one of the largest held thus far in Newtown and the ordinance passed decisively, 508 in favor and 325 opposed. As a result, the new Newtown Planning Commission was now authorized to recommend to the town the most desirable uses of land as well as to regulate subdivisions.
1956 – SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ENACTED
Led by Chairman George Northrup, the Newtown Planning Commission issued proposed regulations relating to subdivisions in January 1956. The Bee reported that these regulations were drawn up following “study of the recommendations of the State Development Commission, the regulations in force in other towns and careful analysis of local problems.”
The proposed subdivision regulations called for a 25 foot minimum setback for buildings, a 20 foot minimum for side yards, streets joining at angles as close as possible to 90 degrees, restrictions on dead end streets and their turn-arounds, and requirements relating to features like grading and drainage. Speaking to the purpose of the regulations, Chairman Northrop said that they “seek to assure the town of future developments which are reasonably free of lots of improper size and shape which may create health hazards thorough water supplies and septic tank drainage; dangerous intersections and lack of proper street entrances; poorly planned lots which result in impossible shapes, and improperly graded streets without culverts or drainage facilities.” Further, he pointed out that “subdivisions of good and practical design tend to maintain good values because problems created by poor design do not arise.”
The January 25 public hearing on subdivision regulations was attended by about 100 residents, and there “was a general feeling of approval that an active body was at last working to control the growth of the town.” A main point of discussion was the proposed 25 foot setback and 20 foot side-yard space for subdivisions, which many felt was “insufficient to prevent overcrowding.” One person pointed out that “as many as eight houses could be placed on one acre.” There was also discussion of the procedure for applying for approval of a subdivision plan, and it was noted that the commission was required by statute to act on such a plan within 90 days of submission. The Planning Commission approved the proposed subdivision regulations at its meeting on February 8, 1956, and they went into effect immediately.
The next land use development was to prepare and implement a town plan, which was viewed by the Planning Commission “to be for the best interests of the town” and essential for proper zoning. By mid-1956 the firm of Gates and Ford Planning Engineers of New Canaan had been selected for that purpose. Approximately half of the project cost of $7500 would be covered by a federal grant for urban planning assistance and the remainder was to be financed by the town. A special town meeting to approve the expenditure was held on July 20, 1956, and although there was some objection to the idea of hiring “outsiders,” the view that professional planners were needed prevailed.
In a lengthy letter justifying the need for timely action on planning, Planning Commission Chairman Northrup referenced the significance of Newtown’s location: “We are also aware that, situated as we are in the most rapidly growing county of Connecticut by reason of the expanding New York Metropolitan Area, time is a very important consideration. . . . The Federal Government has recognized the importance of sound planning to municipalities of a so-called ‘urbanizing’ character as Newtown.”
Subsequently, a group of “enthusiastic” volunteers met with the Planning Commission to work on recording and updating maps and data pertaining to the current use of Newtown’s land. Due to the size and complexity of the town, the area was divided into ten sections. Mr. Northrup shared information about this project at a League of Women Voters meeting in September 1956. Speaking of the commission’s previous work with subdivisions, he praised local building contractors for their cooperation, emphasizing that it “is the out-of-town, fly by night operator, looking for a quick profit, and a fast get-a-way, who needs to be guarded against.”
1957 – ZONING IS APPROVED
Delays in securing the federal portion of the funding put things on hold for several months, and the contract with Gates and Ford wasn’t executed until March 1957. A Bee article dated March 15 detailed the technical steps that would be taken in the year-long town planning project, which would culminate with the recommendation of zoning regulations.
Meanwhile, a debate involving a local business took over the town’s attention and accelerated interest in zoning. A group called the Newtown Park Sports Course and Motordome, which had been building a race track on its property off Rte. 34 in “Grays Plains and Halfway River Districts,” asked the town to abandon a stretch of town road that was covered by the race track so that the track could be built at regulation size for sports car racing. In return, the owners offered to build another road of approved specifications for the town.
Apparently many Newtown residents had been unaware of the race track construction prior to this time, but the road abandonment request brought the project to widespread attention and caused an uproar. Numerous letters against and a few in support of the proposal were published in the Bee in March and April 1957. (Although there was no designated section of the paper for letters to the editor at that time, they were published on occasion in the body of the news reports). In April 1957, nearly 700 residents turned out at back-to-back special town meetings where they voted to adopt an ordinance prohibiting vehicular racing within the boundaries of Newtown and voted against the abandonment of the road at the site of the Newtown Park Sports Course and Motordome.
Almost immediately thereafter, and prompted by “wide public request,” the Newtown Chamber of Commerce took steps to spearhead a movement to adopt zoning in Newtown through creation of a “citizens’ committee” led by chamber secretary William Dudde. According to the Bee, ‘the Chamber of Commerce is doing so with the best interests of the town at heart, and without any political considerations.”
Mr. Dudde explained that “because of the race track issue and pressure from industries of various sorts wanting to locate here, sometimes in very unsuitable locations, the sentiment in favor of the prompt adoption of zoning has grown in impressive fashion.” He stated that the overall purpose of the zoning effort was “to provide for the future growth of the town and, at the same time, protect property values and the beauties and natural characteristics of the town itself.”
Working in cooperation with the Newtown Planning Commission and the planning engineers at Gates and Ford, the citizens group acted quickly to hold informational meetings and appoint sub-committees to support the zoning project. A special town meeting was scheduled for May 24 to act on the zoning proposal, but the matter was put off for one more week after a qualifying petition was filed calling for a referendum vote. On May 31, 1957 the ordinance to adopt zoning under chapter 43 of the Connecticut General Statues passed by a majority of almost two to one, with 1113 votes in favor of adopting zoning and 629 opposed. With 3,941 registered voters in town at that time, the turnout was approximately 45 percent.
As a result of the referendum vote, zoning became effective in Newtown on June 22, 1957. The Town Planning Commission was renamed the Town Planning and Zoning Commission and charged with the task of establishing zoning for Newtown according to the comprehensive plan, and the Zoning Board of Appeals became an official part of the town government.
One of the first actions of the new Planning and Zoning Commission was to adopt new regulations for mobile home parks. The Bee reported that the September 1957 hearing on these regulations was “most cooperative and harmonious,” with a large number of mobile-home owners taking part. The new regulations, described as “very fair” and a potential “model for other towns” dealt with collection of taxes, water supply, garbage disposal and sewage, as well as a limit of two persons per bedroom.
Initial proposed zoning regulations were first published on October 25, 1957, followed by a public hearing on November 7 that extended over multiple nights and resulted in a conclusion that no action would be taken until the commission took steps to revise the regulations. During this time the work was focused on regulations for business and industrial districts. Urging residents to be patient, the Planning and Zoning Commission explained that the regulation of farming and residential areas was being deferred until the completion of the comprehensive plan of town development, which was required to be substantially finished by the end of February 1958.
1958 – ZONING REGULATIONS ADOPTED
In early 1958 the commission continued to focus on its efforts to segregate Newtown’s industrial development into several districts. By this time, the deadline for the town plan had been extended to the end of May, so the detail phase of the residential zoning regulations had been pushed back as well. At the end of a lengthy informal hearing on April 21 the commission finally turned to residential discussion, as Mr. Northrup “sounded out the hearing on the idea of a one-acre minimum lot size until the final plan could spell out a varying minimum.” He said residents of the different parts of town had made requests for minimum lot sizes that in most cases exceeded the proposed one acre, and that the commission “had dealt with the problem as a sanitation problem, first” in consultation with the town health officer.
During this meeting Mr. Northrup also announced that the commission had been considering a 1,200 square foot minimum “living area” requirement for individual residences and sought the thoughts of those present. Commenters observed that it would cost $15,000 to 20,000 to build that size home, and that “a smaller minimum would be better to accommodate a lower income building.” One person said he felt that “Newtown has had more than its share of modest homes,” and that 1,200 feet was fair. Several people said they thought that 1,200 feet was too large, and recommended minimums of 1,000 or 900 feet.
The Planning and Zoning Commission announced that a formal public hearing would be held on May 23, 1958, and the proposed regulations were published in the Bee. For residential structures, these rules set a minimum lot size of one acre, a minimum frontage of 150 feet, and a minimum dwelling size of 1000 square feet. Little detail was given after this hearing took place; the Bee reported that there was opinion expressed both for and against the one-acre minimum, and that the hearing “took on a legalistic aspect” when a number of attorneys raised questions relating to business and industrial classifications and the refusal of either group to agree to temporary classification as nonconforming. Shortly thereafter the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to table the adoption of the proposed zoning regulations pending completion of the town plan. The Bee reported that the commission “openly recognized antagonism to two points in the proposed regulations,” the failure to classify general business and the setting of a one-acre minimum residential lot size. It also published a letter from Chairman Northrup expressing surprise and disappointment with these developments given the amount of information that had been shared with the public.
In June 1958 George Northrup resigned from the Planning and Zoning Commission and was replaced by William K. Daniels as both a member and the chair. The commission had been working on revising the proposed regulations and, deciding that it was ready to proceed without waiting for the town plan, set a hearing date of August 14, 1958, marking the third public hearing on this matter. The proposed regulations still stipulated a one-acre minimum lot size, but members pointed out that that this was “a starting point for area requirements which will be modified as the comprehensive plan is developed.” The residential regulations also still provided for a minimum frontage of 150 feet, and a minimum dwelling size of 1000 square feet.
According to the Bee, the tenor at the August 14 hearing was “largely in favor” of the adoption of the proposed regulations. The Newtown Chamber of Commerce expressed strong support, stating what it saw as the purposes of zoning: “Aimed at preserving the rural atmosphere and residential advantages of the town as a whole, it is imperative that provision be made to promote industry, attracting new businesses at proper locations and prohibiting any influx of concerns which would be detrimental to the town.” The Bee noted that several speakers questioned the one-acre minimum lot size, which Chairman Daniels suggested would be lowered in some sections of town and raised in others, and one person argued that the 1000 square foot minimum area should be reduced to 800 square feet. An attorney for Silver City said his clients were anxious to “earn the good will of the town,” especially the neighbors in Hanover District, and he invited townspeople to visit Silver City to become acquainted with it and the benefits it could bring to the town, including the money spent there by “out-of-towners.”
Following the August 1958 hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the comprehensive zoning plan and zoning maps, and they went into effect on August 25, 1958. The Commission informed the public that a zoning enforcement officer would be available beginning the next week, and applications should be made to him for “all new construction, remodeling and any subdivisions that may be constructed.”
Drama ensued barely one month later, as the status of the new regulations was thrown into jeopardy by a petition to repeal them and a special town meeting was scheduled to take action on the petition. In its September 26, 1958 issue the Bee printed lengthy statements in support of the new regulations by Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman William Daniels, and in support of repeal by Charles O’Connor, who had instituted the petition.
Mr. Daniels argued that residents needed to “live with the zoning regulations long enough to see how they really work.” He noted that the commission was aware of the conflict of land use between residential, business and industrial areas and believed the regulations allow for the “continuation and growth of all three.” With respect to the one-acre minimum lot size, it was needed “since, in most cases, a house needs its own well and sewage system, and this much land area is most desirable.” Elaborating on the one-acre minimum, he said it was adopted “because Newtown is still a rural town and the commission feels that this aspect of a rural community is worth protecting. Further, a one-acre minimum will probably slow down small crowded residential developments which the fast industrial expansion of neighboring towns, especially Danbury, is causing. Such development means Newtown houses and educates the employes’ [sic] families, but receives no tax revenues from the industry itself. This does not mean that Newtown may not, or should not have less than one-acre zones when the need and the location can be clearly demonstrated.”
Mr. O’Connor, who owned a trailer park in Newtown, sought repeal of the regulations because of their impact on his business. In early 1956 he had approached the Planning Commission about expanding his business and was told to wait for the new trailer ordinances to pass. Assuming this meant he would get approval as long as he complied with all of those requirements, Mr. O’Connor bought the adjoining property and did extensive work to prepare for and install a number of new mobile home sites. According to Mr. O’Connor, “(l)ess than an hour” after the zoning regulations went into effect, he was informed by the zoning officer that several of his new plots could not be used “because zoning regulations would not permit it.” He consulted his attorney, who told him that the commission was acting within its authority and that attempting to rescind the zoning regulations was his “only recourse.”
Mr. O’Connor also took a “free enterprise” position against the zoning regulations, arguing that “(z)oning as set up in Connecticut is in its essence a measure of the control designed to prevent the encroachment of undesirable business and industry into a predominately residential area.” He argued that in towns such as Wilton, Easton, Fairfield and Milford, “this policy has been very effective in producing an unbalanced growth, more and more homes, more and more taxes, less and less business until today industries are wary of locating in highly taxed, highly residential towns.” By contrast, he claimed that “Danbury which cancelled zoning in the early forties has since then enjoyed an almost fantastic industrial growth.” Having started the whole petition drive, Mr. O’Connor also seemed to regret where it had ended up, stating that he was “withdrawing from this controversy.” Nevertheless, the repeal petition had garnered the requisite number of signatures and remained in effect.
The repeal vote on October 3, 1958, was at that time Newtown’s largest turnout in a referendum. It was also extremely close: 2673 voters elected to retain zoning in Newtown by a majority of only two votes. (This was the fourth referendum vote of 1958, preceded by a similarly close three-vote-margin decision in favor of constructing a new junior high school. Every vote matters!)
Immediately after the zoning regulations were upheld, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered a number of proposed amendments intended to reduce the complaints that led to the near-repeal. The proposed changes included the classification of areas for half-acre lots and two-acre lots and the elimination of the 1000 foot minimum for dwellings. Another proposed amendment authorized the use of non-conforming lots if they were recorded before the adoption of the zoning regulations on August 25, 1958. The Bee reported that in discussion on the 1000 square foot minimum, it was suggested that “with a building code enforced in Newtown no house size requirements might be necessary since the building code would protect the town from unsound structures. It was pointed out that this would allow the building of summer cottages and small homes for people requiring them.” No detail was given about what parties made these comments.
At this same time, the town’s planning consultants presented their proposed comprehensive plan for Newtown. The commission decided not to act on the plan until after the proposed zoning amendments had been addressed.
On November 14, 1958 a public hearing was held on the proposed amendments with about 100 people in attendance. The primary subject of discussion was the 1000 square foot minimum house size requirement, with people speaking both in favor and against. Arthur Christie, a former member of the planning commission, said that “zoning is no good without a minimum size house,” and noted that Trumbull, Easton, and Milford had their own versions of minimum dwelling size requirements.
The Bee reported that after the hearing, planning consultant Russell Ford elaborated on a map showing proposed half acre and two acre zones. He explained that the northern, southeastern and southwestern areas of Newtown “should be given serious consideration as two acre zones because of the distance from the center of town, the roughness of much of the terrain and the road and school transportation problem.” He said that zoning of these areas “for minimum population density” should bring about “considerable tax savings” if the population of Newtown doubled in the next 12 years as expected. The Bee reported that opposition to two acre zoning “developed primarily from the Hattertown section,” and that additional informal hearings would be held for residents in the affected areas, but no detail was provided about this opposition.
During this time, it was reported that residents of the Hanover section had set up an advisory group called the Hanover Home Owners’ Association, with a constitution, elected officers and a board of directors. One of the purposes of the organization was the “wish to help preserve the rural beauty of Newtown, and especially of Hanover District.”
At a meeting held on November 17, 1958, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted all of the proposed amendments except the elimination of the 1000 square foot requirement for residential construction, which had been the only “seriously contested” amendment at the hearing. Further dates were set for informal hearings to discuss the zoning of the minimum density areas of town in accordance with the proposed town plan.
On December 19, 1958, the Bee reported that separate meetings were set for property owners in the area north of the Borough line and west of Walnut Tree Hill Road, and in the area bounded by Hattertown, Boggs Hill and Rte. 25, and that the opinions expressed by these property owners would be “given the deepest consideration by the Zoning Commission prior to the change of lot sizes in the residential districts.”
1955 – NEWTOWN EMBRACES PLANNING
Beginning in 1955, reporting in the Bee reflected an increased acceptance of the idea that it was necessary to control the growth of the town. On January 31, 1955, Danbury Chamber of Commerce President Albert F. Clear, Jr. spoke to the Newtown Rotary Club about the link between Newtown and Danbury. Mr. Clear said that Newtown was tied to the accelerated development of Danbury “willing or not,” because workers attracted to Danbury’s growing industries would look to Newtown and other communities for housing. He posed the hypothetical that if 500 employees of a Danbury plant moved to Newtown they would pay taxes of $27,636, while their 255 children would attend the local schools at a cost of $51,000. In order to bear this cost, Mr. Clear recommended the organizing of a planning commission to “sell” Newtown to selected industry, and said that such planning must start with a “civic-minded group of citizens rather than a political group.”
On February 11, 1955, the Bee reported on a Yale study of neighboring Monroe that concluded that the town was “in the throes of growing pains which threaten its rural character unless the town takes action soon” to create a master plan. Christopher Tunnard, Director of Yale’s graduate program in city planning, declared that “the plight of Monroe is similar to what is happening in many rural areas adjacent to heavily populated metropolitan districts.” In the Editorial Ink Drops column the Bee editors noted that this study had garnered wide attention both locally and nationally, and expressed the hope that it would spur Newtown officials or civic groups to take the initiative in doing something similar.
Later that month, Judge Reed Shields, town counsel for Ridgefield, spoke about zoning at an open meeting of the Newtown League of Women Voters. The judge stressed several points in favor of zoning, including attraction of industry, protection of property value, and easing of the tax burden. He also explained the difference between a planning commission and a zoning commission, stating that the former was focused on guiding a town’s growth for the future while the latter was more concerned with setting specifics such as lot size, house size and location of businesses.
As evidence of the fact that zoning was developing as an issue statewide, Governor Abraham Ribicoff urged towns to plan for future growth during a meeting held for representatives of the state’s weekly newspapers in April 1955.
In the summer of 1955 Newtown began to take real steps toward embracing town planning. On July 11, an open meeting on planning was attended by 173 residents. The initiative for this movement came from the Newtown Realtors Group, which had found “in the process of their real estate activities” that an increasing number of townspeople were “expressing concern over the present conditions in Newtown and the need for planning the town.” Those in attendance voted unanimously to work toward getting those in favor of town planning to attend a special town meeting to approve the creation of a planning commission. A steering committee was appointed and a number of additional open meetings were held to educate residents and solicit their support. One issue that came out again was the need to educate townspeople about the difference between planning and zoning. Attorney Bradley Morehouse explained that a planning commission would have authority only to prepare a town plan, while “acceptance of the plan and enforcement thereof by establishing a zoning commission under the General Statutes would be up to the voters at a subsequent town meeting.”
Another point discussed “at some length” was the right of non-resident property owners to vote on the zoning proposals, after at least one non-resident reported having been disqualified from doing so in the failed 1953 zoning referendum because he wasn’t a registered voter. Mr. Morehouse said that a vote on the resolution for a planning commission would be open to non-resident property owners who had real property with an assessed value of at least $1000 or personal property of at least $500 as shown by the last grand list.
William Blakely, a state planning engineer, spoke to residents about the advantages of town planning, emphasizing “how important town planning is in preserving property values and in preventing an abnormal rise in the tax rate.” Elaborating on the tax issue, steering committee member Herman Geiger referenced a recent real life example. “When a contractor puts up a group of small homes, as one neighborhood in Newtown has revealed, the tax bill averages about $125. However these homes average three children for every two homes. It costs $300 a year to keep a child in school. So with a tax return of $250 for two homes Newtown is paying out $900 for schooling.” To cover this burden, Mr. Geiger continued, the tax rate would rise “at an alarming rate” and industry would be frightened away, and the best way for Newtown to escape this plight was through town planning.
A special town meeting was scheduled for September 23, 1955 to consider an ordinance to establish a town planning commission under chapter 45 of the Connecticut General Statutes. It also called for the election of five members to serve on the new commission. It was announced that both registered voters and qualified property owners were eligible to vote on the planning ordinance, but only registered voters could participate in the election portion of the vote. The meeting was one of the largest held thus far in Newtown and the ordinance passed decisively, 508 in favor and 325 opposed. As a result, the new Newtown Planning Commission was now authorized to recommend to the town the most desirable uses of land as well as to regulate subdivisions.
1956 – SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ENACTED
Led by Chairman George Northrup, the Newtown Planning Commission issued proposed regulations relating to subdivisions in January 1956. The Bee reported that these regulations were drawn up following “study of the recommendations of the State Development Commission, the regulations in force in other towns and careful analysis of local problems.”
The proposed subdivision regulations called for a 25 foot minimum setback for buildings, a 20 foot minimum for side yards, streets joining at angles as close as possible to 90 degrees, restrictions on dead end streets and their turn-arounds, and requirements relating to features like grading and drainage. Speaking to the purpose of the regulations, Chairman Northrop said that they “seek to assure the town of future developments which are reasonably free of lots of improper size and shape which may create health hazards thorough water supplies and septic tank drainage; dangerous intersections and lack of proper street entrances; poorly planned lots which result in impossible shapes, and improperly graded streets without culverts or drainage facilities.” Further, he pointed out that “subdivisions of good and practical design tend to maintain good values because problems created by poor design do not arise.”
The January 25 public hearing on subdivision regulations was attended by about 100 residents, and there “was a general feeling of approval that an active body was at last working to control the growth of the town.” A main point of discussion was the proposed 25 foot setback and 20 foot side-yard space for subdivisions, which many felt was “insufficient to prevent overcrowding.” One person pointed out that “as many as eight houses could be placed on one acre.” There was also discussion of the procedure for applying for approval of a subdivision plan, and it was noted that the commission was required by statute to act on such a plan within 90 days of submission. The Planning Commission approved the proposed subdivision regulations at its meeting on February 8, 1956, and they went into effect immediately.
The next land use development was to prepare and implement a town plan, which was viewed by the Planning Commission “to be for the best interests of the town” and essential for proper zoning. By mid-1956 the firm of Gates and Ford Planning Engineers of New Canaan had been selected for that purpose. Approximately half of the project cost of $7500 would be covered by a federal grant for urban planning assistance and the remainder was to be financed by the town. A special town meeting to approve the expenditure was held on July 20, 1956, and although there was some objection to the idea of hiring “outsiders,” the view that professional planners were needed prevailed.
In a lengthy letter justifying the need for timely action on planning, Planning Commission Chairman Northrup referenced the significance of Newtown’s location: “We are also aware that, situated as we are in the most rapidly growing county of Connecticut by reason of the expanding New York Metropolitan Area, time is a very important consideration. . . . The Federal Government has recognized the importance of sound planning to municipalities of a so-called ‘urbanizing’ character as Newtown.”
Subsequently, a group of “enthusiastic” volunteers met with the Planning Commission to work on recording and updating maps and data pertaining to the current use of Newtown’s land. Due to the size and complexity of the town, the area was divided into ten sections. Mr. Northrup shared information about this project at a League of Women Voters meeting in September 1956. Speaking of the commission’s previous work with subdivisions, he praised local building contractors for their cooperation, emphasizing that it “is the out-of-town, fly by night operator, looking for a quick profit, and a fast get-a-way, who needs to be guarded against.”
1957 – ZONING IS APPROVED
Delays in securing the federal portion of the funding put things on hold for several months, and the contract with Gates and Ford wasn’t executed until March 1957. A Bee article dated March 15 detailed the technical steps that would be taken in the year-long town planning project, which would culminate with the recommendation of zoning regulations.
Meanwhile, a debate involving a local business took over the town’s attention and accelerated interest in zoning. A group called the Newtown Park Sports Course and Motordome, which had been building a race track on its property off Rte. 34 in “Grays Plains and Halfway River Districts,” asked the town to abandon a stretch of town road that was covered by the race track so that the track could be built at regulation size for sports car racing. In return, the owners offered to build another road of approved specifications for the town.
Apparently many Newtown residents had been unaware of the race track construction prior to this time, but the road abandonment request brought the project to widespread attention and caused an uproar. Numerous letters against and a few in support of the proposal were published in the Bee in March and April 1957. (Although there was no designated section of the paper for letters to the editor at that time, they were published on occasion in the body of the news reports). In April 1957, nearly 700 residents turned out at back-to-back special town meetings where they voted to adopt an ordinance prohibiting vehicular racing within the boundaries of Newtown and voted against the abandonment of the road at the site of the Newtown Park Sports Course and Motordome.
Almost immediately thereafter, and prompted by “wide public request,” the Newtown Chamber of Commerce took steps to spearhead a movement to adopt zoning in Newtown through creation of a “citizens’ committee” led by chamber secretary William Dudde. According to the Bee, ‘the Chamber of Commerce is doing so with the best interests of the town at heart, and without any political considerations.”
Mr. Dudde explained that “because of the race track issue and pressure from industries of various sorts wanting to locate here, sometimes in very unsuitable locations, the sentiment in favor of the prompt adoption of zoning has grown in impressive fashion.” He stated that the overall purpose of the zoning effort was “to provide for the future growth of the town and, at the same time, protect property values and the beauties and natural characteristics of the town itself.”
Working in cooperation with the Newtown Planning Commission and the planning engineers at Gates and Ford, the citizens group acted quickly to hold informational meetings and appoint sub-committees to support the zoning project. A special town meeting was scheduled for May 24 to act on the zoning proposal, but the matter was put off for one more week after a qualifying petition was filed calling for a referendum vote. On May 31, 1957 the ordinance to adopt zoning under chapter 43 of the Connecticut General Statues passed by a majority of almost two to one, with 1113 votes in favor of adopting zoning and 629 opposed. With 3,941 registered voters in town at that time, the turnout was approximately 45 percent.
As a result of the referendum vote, zoning became effective in Newtown on June 22, 1957. The Town Planning Commission was renamed the Town Planning and Zoning Commission and charged with the task of establishing zoning for Newtown according to the comprehensive plan, and the Zoning Board of Appeals became an official part of the town government.
One of the first actions of the new Planning and Zoning Commission was to adopt new regulations for mobile home parks. The Bee reported that the September 1957 hearing on these regulations was “most cooperative and harmonious,” with a large number of mobile-home owners taking part. The new regulations, described as “very fair” and a potential “model for other towns” dealt with collection of taxes, water supply, garbage disposal and sewage, as well as a limit of two persons per bedroom.
Initial proposed zoning regulations were first published on October 25, 1957, followed by a public hearing on November 7 that extended over multiple nights and resulted in a conclusion that no action would be taken until the commission took steps to revise the regulations. During this time the work was focused on regulations for business and industrial districts. Urging residents to be patient, the Planning and Zoning Commission explained that the regulation of farming and residential areas was being deferred until the completion of the comprehensive plan of town development, which was required to be substantially finished by the end of February 1958.
1958 – ZONING REGULATIONS ADOPTED
In early 1958 the commission continued to focus on its efforts to segregate Newtown’s industrial development into several districts. By this time, the deadline for the town plan had been extended to the end of May, so the detail phase of the residential zoning regulations had been pushed back as well. At the end of a lengthy informal hearing on April 21 the commission finally turned to residential discussion, as Mr. Northrup “sounded out the hearing on the idea of a one-acre minimum lot size until the final plan could spell out a varying minimum.” He said residents of the different parts of town had made requests for minimum lot sizes that in most cases exceeded the proposed one acre, and that the commission “had dealt with the problem as a sanitation problem, first” in consultation with the town health officer.
During this meeting Mr. Northrup also announced that the commission had been considering a 1,200 square foot minimum “living area” requirement for individual residences and sought the thoughts of those present. Commenters observed that it would cost $15,000 to 20,000 to build that size home, and that “a smaller minimum would be better to accommodate a lower income building.” One person said he felt that “Newtown has had more than its share of modest homes,” and that 1,200 feet was fair. Several people said they thought that 1,200 feet was too large, and recommended minimums of 1,000 or 900 feet.
The Planning and Zoning Commission announced that a formal public hearing would be held on May 23, 1958, and the proposed regulations were published in the Bee. For residential structures, these rules set a minimum lot size of one acre, a minimum frontage of 150 feet, and a minimum dwelling size of 1000 square feet. Little detail was given after this hearing took place; the Bee reported that there was opinion expressed both for and against the one-acre minimum, and that the hearing “took on a legalistic aspect” when a number of attorneys raised questions relating to business and industrial classifications and the refusal of either group to agree to temporary classification as nonconforming. Shortly thereafter the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to table the adoption of the proposed zoning regulations pending completion of the town plan. The Bee reported that the commission “openly recognized antagonism to two points in the proposed regulations,” the failure to classify general business and the setting of a one-acre minimum residential lot size. It also published a letter from Chairman Northrup expressing surprise and disappointment with these developments given the amount of information that had been shared with the public.
In June 1958 George Northrup resigned from the Planning and Zoning Commission and was replaced by William K. Daniels as both a member and the chair. The commission had been working on revising the proposed regulations and, deciding that it was ready to proceed without waiting for the town plan, set a hearing date of August 14, 1958, marking the third public hearing on this matter. The proposed regulations still stipulated a one-acre minimum lot size, but members pointed out that that this was “a starting point for area requirements which will be modified as the comprehensive plan is developed.” The residential regulations also still provided for a minimum frontage of 150 feet, and a minimum dwelling size of 1000 square feet.
According to the Bee, the tenor at the August 14 hearing was “largely in favor” of the adoption of the proposed regulations. The Newtown Chamber of Commerce expressed strong support, stating what it saw as the purposes of zoning: “Aimed at preserving the rural atmosphere and residential advantages of the town as a whole, it is imperative that provision be made to promote industry, attracting new businesses at proper locations and prohibiting any influx of concerns which would be detrimental to the town.” The Bee noted that several speakers questioned the one-acre minimum lot size, which Chairman Daniels suggested would be lowered in some sections of town and raised in others, and one person argued that the 1000 square foot minimum area should be reduced to 800 square feet. An attorney for Silver City said his clients were anxious to “earn the good will of the town,” especially the neighbors in Hanover District, and he invited townspeople to visit Silver City to become acquainted with it and the benefits it could bring to the town, including the money spent there by “out-of-towners.”
Following the August 1958 hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the comprehensive zoning plan and zoning maps, and they went into effect on August 25, 1958. The Commission informed the public that a zoning enforcement officer would be available beginning the next week, and applications should be made to him for “all new construction, remodeling and any subdivisions that may be constructed.”
Drama ensued barely one month later, as the status of the new regulations was thrown into jeopardy by a petition to repeal them and a special town meeting was scheduled to take action on the petition. In its September 26, 1958 issue the Bee printed lengthy statements in support of the new regulations by Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman William Daniels, and in support of repeal by Charles O’Connor, who had instituted the petition.
Mr. Daniels argued that residents needed to “live with the zoning regulations long enough to see how they really work.” He noted that the commission was aware of the conflict of land use between residential, business and industrial areas and believed the regulations allow for the “continuation and growth of all three.” With respect to the one-acre minimum lot size, it was needed “since, in most cases, a house needs its own well and sewage system, and this much land area is most desirable.” Elaborating on the one-acre minimum, he said it was adopted “because Newtown is still a rural town and the commission feels that this aspect of a rural community is worth protecting. Further, a one-acre minimum will probably slow down small crowded residential developments which the fast industrial expansion of neighboring towns, especially Danbury, is causing. Such development means Newtown houses and educates the employes’ [sic] families, but receives no tax revenues from the industry itself. This does not mean that Newtown may not, or should not have less than one-acre zones when the need and the location can be clearly demonstrated.”
Mr. O’Connor, who owned a trailer park in Newtown, sought repeal of the regulations because of their impact on his business. In early 1956 he had approached the Planning Commission about expanding his business and was told to wait for the new trailer ordinances to pass. Assuming this meant he would get approval as long as he complied with all of those requirements, Mr. O’Connor bought the adjoining property and did extensive work to prepare for and install a number of new mobile home sites. According to Mr. O’Connor, “(l)ess than an hour” after the zoning regulations went into effect, he was informed by the zoning officer that several of his new plots could not be used “because zoning regulations would not permit it.” He consulted his attorney, who told him that the commission was acting within its authority and that attempting to rescind the zoning regulations was his “only recourse.”
Mr. O’Connor also took a “free enterprise” position against the zoning regulations, arguing that “(z)oning as set up in Connecticut is in its essence a measure of the control designed to prevent the encroachment of undesirable business and industry into a predominately residential area.” He argued that in towns such as Wilton, Easton, Fairfield and Milford, “this policy has been very effective in producing an unbalanced growth, more and more homes, more and more taxes, less and less business until today industries are wary of locating in highly taxed, highly residential towns.” By contrast, he claimed that “Danbury which cancelled zoning in the early forties has since then enjoyed an almost fantastic industrial growth.” Having started the whole petition drive, Mr. O’Connor also seemed to regret where it had ended up, stating that he was “withdrawing from this controversy.” Nevertheless, the repeal petition had garnered the requisite number of signatures and remained in effect.
The repeal vote on October 3, 1958, was at that time Newtown’s largest turnout in a referendum. It was also extremely close: 2673 voters elected to retain zoning in Newtown by a majority of only two votes. (This was the fourth referendum vote of 1958, preceded by a similarly close three-vote-margin decision in favor of constructing a new junior high school. Every vote matters!)
Immediately after the zoning regulations were upheld, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered a number of proposed amendments intended to reduce the complaints that led to the near-repeal. The proposed changes included the classification of areas for half-acre lots and two-acre lots and the elimination of the 1000 foot minimum for dwellings. Another proposed amendment authorized the use of non-conforming lots if they were recorded before the adoption of the zoning regulations on August 25, 1958. The Bee reported that in discussion on the 1000 square foot minimum, it was suggested that “with a building code enforced in Newtown no house size requirements might be necessary since the building code would protect the town from unsound structures. It was pointed out that this would allow the building of summer cottages and small homes for people requiring them.” No detail was given about what parties made these comments.
At this same time, the town’s planning consultants presented their proposed comprehensive plan for Newtown. The commission decided not to act on the plan until after the proposed zoning amendments had been addressed.
On November 14, 1958 a public hearing was held on the proposed amendments with about 100 people in attendance. The primary subject of discussion was the 1000 square foot minimum house size requirement, with people speaking both in favor and against. Arthur Christie, a former member of the planning commission, said that “zoning is no good without a minimum size house,” and noted that Trumbull, Easton, and Milford had their own versions of minimum dwelling size requirements.
The Bee reported that after the hearing, planning consultant Russell Ford elaborated on a map showing proposed half acre and two acre zones. He explained that the northern, southeastern and southwestern areas of Newtown “should be given serious consideration as two acre zones because of the distance from the center of town, the roughness of much of the terrain and the road and school transportation problem.” He said that zoning of these areas “for minimum population density” should bring about “considerable tax savings” if the population of Newtown doubled in the next 12 years as expected. The Bee reported that opposition to two acre zoning “developed primarily from the Hattertown section,” and that additional informal hearings would be held for residents in the affected areas, but no detail was provided about this opposition.
During this time, it was reported that residents of the Hanover section had set up an advisory group called the Hanover Home Owners’ Association, with a constitution, elected officers and a board of directors. One of the purposes of the organization was the “wish to help preserve the rural beauty of Newtown, and especially of Hanover District.”
At a meeting held on November 17, 1958, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted all of the proposed amendments except the elimination of the 1000 square foot requirement for residential construction, which had been the only “seriously contested” amendment at the hearing. Further dates were set for informal hearings to discuss the zoning of the minimum density areas of town in accordance with the proposed town plan.
On December 19, 1958, the Bee reported that separate meetings were set for property owners in the area north of the Borough line and west of Walnut Tree Hill Road, and in the area bounded by Hattertown, Boggs Hill and Rte. 25, and that the opinions expressed by these property owners would be “given the deepest consideration by the Zoning Commission prior to the change of lot sizes in the residential districts.”
Sources Used:
The Newtown Bee, Newtown, Connecticut
The Newtown Bee, Newtown, Connecticut