Newtown Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) continued its public hearing for apartments being proposed on Mt Pleasant Road during a meeting at Newtown Municipal Center August 24.

IWC members present were vice chairman Craig Ferris, Mike McCabe, Suzanne Guidera, Scott Jackson, and Stephanie Kurose, as well as the town’s Senior Land Use Enforcement Officer Steve Maguire and Land Use Enforcement Officer Kiana Maisonet.

The proposal being discussed was IW Application #22-14 by Farrell Building Company. It is for a property located at 90 Mt Pleasant Road, to construct 11 Garden Apartment buildings, one clubhouse, and associated site improvements including driveways, parking, and stormwater management.

Ferris notified the group that the Land Use Department received a verified petition to intervene from Newtown resident Mark D’Amico that the commission needed to vote if they accept it.

“We had an identical petition last time that we did accept,” he said. “I would make a note that accepting the person’s application for intervenor status does not mean we agree with the premise.”

Commissioners then discussed the legitimacy of the application for intervenor status.

“It’s up to the board with how you want to proceed on it,” Maguire said. The group decided to hold off on voting until after they heard from the applicant that evening.

Newtown Attorney Robert Hall represented the applicant and started off by saying, “I appreciate the consideration by the commission of the points that I raised last month about the need for an intervenor to make specific allegations.”

Hall said his clients have made some “significant improvements” to the plan regarding the wetlands since they last met.

MC LLC Design Manager Paul Dumont, PE, went over the specific revisions that were made after hearing comments from the commission and public at the last meeting.

“We evaluated ways which we could enhance the water quality treatment while reducing the land disturbance to the wetland buffer … We also took a look at the wetlands’ hydrology,” he said.

Dumont explained that they submitted a water quality treatment plan with changes to the stormwater management design, including implementing “a variety of practices from the Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual.”

As for the wetlands’ hydrology, they looked at the drainage areas and wetland fingers.

“What we’ve done to really try to maintain the flow to those areas … where we only had two discharges, we now have three primary discharges from our command systems with additional discharges,” Dumont said.

He pointed out the added swale and basin on the site.

“Lastly, I just wanted to talk about the maintenance of stormwater facilities,” Dumont said. “We did submit, along with our materials, a comprehensive maintenance program … which includes various milestones, both annually and semi-annually inspections.”

He said they thought it was important because “the long-term maintenance and function of these stormwater facilities is critical to maintaining the water quality treatment they provide and to mitigate any impact to the wetland areas in the long-term.”

Commission Feedback

Ferris inquired, “Can you tell me roughly what percentage of flow goes to the detention basin as opposed to these other rain gutters and things?”

It was clarified that it is an infiltration basin and that about 50% of the site’s flow would be going to that basin. Ferris asked that a representative address the letter received by Community Environmental Defense Services about their concerns with the soil types being suitable for infiltration.

Dumont answered that they perform testing on each area and that they found the areas suitable for infiltration.

The commission brought up the public’s concerns that were raised at the last meeting about if the water being discharged into the wetlands could be contaminated with oil from the parking areas.

“The short answer is no,” Dumont said before describing how the basins would collect those possible contaminants.

Greg Pancost, of Farrell Building Company, explained that his company owns the property for the application and would also be the end user. “We are the developer, the builder, the user, and manager of operations for the property,” he said.

Pancost added that they have experience with long-term stormwater treatment facilities and temporary erosion control of stormwater management. Maguire voiced that he is “happy to see the revisions” and “better connectivity” with the basins.

Public Participation

The IWC approved Patrick Napolitano’s position as an intervenor at their last meeting, and he attended the August 24 meeting to speak on it.

“The size of this development is far greater than the proposed medical facility in 2018,” he noted. Napolitano brought up concerns with the proposed parking, calling it “insufficient,” and that it will force cars to have to park on the fringe of the wetlands, which could cause contaminants to run into the wetlands.

When he began to talk about traffic, he was reminded that it is not in the authority of the IWC.

Napolitano questioned, “Do the new maps include the new wetlands area not previously shown?” He was told that yes, they do.

He also inquired about the systems’ maintenance schedule, specifically that if there are no laws or regulations requiring it be done, “Why would they bother?”

Napolitano added, “If these systems are not maintained, once these poisons that are coming off this massive complex are filtered into the wetlands and trout stream, there’s no going back.”

He suggested the facilities be checked monthly, annually, and after storms, among other recommendations for keeping the site clean.

Maguire gave his input, saying, “If there is something significant enough that would impair and impact a wetland, we would be [alerted] to it. With regards to the maintenance, we can condition the wetlands permit for maintenance, but the longevity of it is on the property owner to maintain. I do understand your concerns, but it’s hard. This commission cannot speculatively consider a lack of maintenance for an impact.”

D’Amico spoke next and addressed the petition as an intervenor, saying that there are differences between his application and Napolitano’s petition.

He shared that he has taken part in Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s (DEEP) Municipal Inland Wetlands Comprehensive Training and learned a lot. He recommended others take it, as well.

“One of the things that I brought up at the last meeting was addressing how other towns have adopted this idea that the wetland review area be extended beyond 100 feet on certain areas where there is a slope … it doesn’t mean we can’t consider it,” D’Amico said.

Another point that he wanted to make was Newtown’s regulations define “significant impact activity,” and that he believes this application falls under it. He read off the specific regulations to inform the commission about where he found the information.

“Given everything that we’ve learned not just today but in previous applications … this application is woefully incomplete,” D’Amico said.

The IWC then took a vote to deny D’Amico as an intervenor and all were in favor of that denial. Commissioners then unanimously moved to close the public hearing for IW Application #22‐14.

The group did not approve or deny the application at the meeting. Instead, they chose to continue it to the next IWC meeting on Wednesday, September 14, at 7:30 pm in the Municipal Center, Council Chambers, 3 Primrose Street.

For more information, visit newtown-ct.gov/inland-wetlands-commission.

Reporter Alissa Silber can be reached at alissa@thebee.com.