The Inland Wetlands Commission narrowly approved the 117 single-family home development at 20-60 Castle Hill Road in a 4-3 vote during their Wednesday, March 27 meeting.

The site is located on 136 acres, with the preserved portion including all of the land surrounding Taunton Lake. The development will also consist of a community center and other associated site improvements.

Members Craig Ferris, Suzanne Guidera, Michael McCabe, and Chairman Sharon Salling voted to approve, while Mark D’Amico, Kendall Horch, and Scott Jackson voted against.

This decision comes after approximately 40 residents raised concerns over water runoff from the development at the last IWC meeting on March 13.

Salling opened by thanking the staff, the Commission, and Horch for suggesting a peer review, alongside the public for submitting thoughtful questions. She continued by saying that this process has been “a good example of what makes Newtown a good place to live.”

Ferris followed and explained why he felt comfortable in approving the development. He said that the applicant, developer George Trudell alongside 20-60 Castle Hill Road property owner Joseph Draper, has avoided the majority of impacts to the wetlands and that there would only be three minor impacts to the wetlands.

The most major water resource on the site, Taunton Lake, would be protected through a conservation easement on the whole wooded slope leading down to the wetland, he stated.

Ferris then addressed concerns regarding the Newtown Forest Association’s Nettleton Preserve on 13 Castle Hill Road. These concerns were brought up at the last meeting by Newtown resident and NFA board member Bob Eckenrode, who encouraged the IWC to deny the application and said the increased runoff would carry harmful pollutants into the preservation and damage its ecosystem.

Regarding this, Ferris said that both the third party engineer and the applicant’s engineer agreed that peak runoff volumes will be reduced after construction, in turn reducing erosive capability.

He concluded by saying that the contaminants from the roadways are “infinitesimal and not an issue” and that the applicant had done an admirable job in protecting the existing wetlands with a minimal amount of impact.

This was in response to issues raised at the last meeting by Southbury resident and professional engineer Steve Trinkaus, who represented Newtown Conservation Coalition. Trinkaus said the applicant did not include metals in their drainage areas analysis, which often come from cars, brake dust, and tire wear in roadways or parking lots.

McCabe spoke next and agreed with Ferris, stating he was satisfied with the third party review. The third party had 58 of their 60 recommendations incorporated into the development application, and McCabe suggested adding the two remaining recommendations into the conditions of approval.

The first is that test pits to determine groundwater presence will be made before obtaining building permits for homes. If groundwater is detected, then basements will be constructed waterproofed or above groundwater grade.

The second is that detailed construction sequencing will be submitted and approved by the Land Use Agency once a contractor has been selected and before they move forward with construction.

McCabe finished by stating his appreciation towards the input from the community, peer review, staff, and the Commission for improved results and thought the public hearing process was effective.

Horch, who went on to vote against the approval, continued the discussion. She said the detention basins and test pits needed to be larger and the expansion areas were located in the regulated areas, buffer areas, and upland review.

She thought that this was the applicant’s chance to give alternatives to relocate things out of the upland review area and get further away from the wetlands, but they instead took more of it. Beyond that, Horch said she agreed with everything else said already.

While D’Amico appreciated the applicant’s adjustments and was grateful for the peer review, he felt like their suggestions did so at the cost of going further into the upland review area. D’Amico also believed that the complete removal of the third wetland, a minor sidehill seep, was “significant” and that no concessions were made.

He was also concerned with setting a precedent on not assessing the entirety of the property. He pointed out that while the property is being reviewed as one parcel, the wetland delineation was only done on 20 Castle Hill Road. D’Amico said he felt strongly that the entire property should have been delineated. Even though Ferris and Maguire responded to his concern, D’Amico remarked that he still felt the application was incomplete.

Reporter Jenna Visca can be reached at jenna@thebee.com.