Hook & Ladder Firehouse Proposal

Draws Support And Opposition

By Andrew Gorosko

Amid a public hearing Wednesday night, at which representatives of Newtown Hook & Ladder Company, Inc, #1, were presenting plans for that volunteer fire company’s proposed new firehouse at 12 Sugar Street (Route 302), a series of electronic tones sounded, alerting a group of those firefighters to an emergency. They quickly left the meeting room in Newtown Municipal Center to respond to a fire call on Valley View Road.

But the heavily attended Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) hearing continued, with proponents of the project explaining why the proposed 11,414-square-foot firehouse is needed at 12 Sugar Street, and opponents of the plan who live in that area stating that the site is not the right place for a new firehouse.

The fire company is seeking a wetlands and watercourses protection permit from the IWC in connection with its proposal to construct a firehouse on a one-acre section of the 9.4-acre property.

The property is on the north side of Sugar Street, northwest of Sugar Street’s intersection with Elm Drive. The site lies 950 feet west of the major intersection of Sugar Street, Main Street, Glover Avenue, and South Main Street.

Under the proposal, the Borough of Newtown Land Trust, Inc, and the R. Scudder Smith Family Partnership would donate land for the firehouse project. The property has extensive wetlands. The undeveloped site is lightly wooded and contains heavy undergrowth.

Besides IWC approval, the project would require approval from the Borough Zoning Commission (BZC).

As the IWC hearing began, IWC Chairman Anne Peters stressed that public discussion would need to be limited to the environmental protection of wetlands and watercourses.

Issues such as traffic congestion, noise, and construction density are not reviewed by the IWC, she said. Also, public opinion on the relative merits of building a firehouse at that particular location is not considered by IWC members when reviewing such an application, she said.

IWC members plan to resume the public hearing on October 13.

Firefighter Rob Manna, representing Hook & Ladder, told IWC members that 12 Sugar Street is a practical location for a new firehouse. Other locations for a firehouse that have been explored by the fire company did not make economic sense due to high costs, he said.

There is a clear need for a new firehouse, he stressed, adding that the fire company has served the town since 1885.

The fire company is now located in a masonry building at 45 Main Street, behind Edmond Town Hall. Various structural problems with that building have resulted in the need for internal shoring with steel beams, which has reduced the building’s usable interior space.

Attorney Christopher Smith of the Hartford law firm Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, representing the fire company, told IWC members that the firehouse project would not adversely affect wetlands or watercourses nearby. The proposal complies with applicable town regulations, he added.

“The best possible location for the [fire] department is this location,” Mr Smith said of the 12 Sugar Street site, adding that the land needed for the project would be donated.

Civil engineer Chris DeAngelis, representing the fire company, said that one acre of the 9.4-acre property would be physically disturbed for the firehouse project. That construction would occur on the southwestern section of the property. Twenty-one vehicle parking spaces would be created, he said. Mr DeAngelis described the proposed stormwater drainage system at the site.

Wetlands specialist Megan Raymond, representing the fire company, described vegetation present at the site. Approximately 4,980 square feet of existing wetlands would be affected by the construction project, she said, adding that a retaining wall would be constructed.

Ms Peters asked that the applicant provide added details about how the property would be landscaped with plantings as part of a construction project.

Various shrubbery would be planted and existing invasive plants would be removed from the property, Ms Raymond explained. The construction would have no direct impact on nearby streambed or stream bank, she said.

Noting that approximately 5,000 square feet of wetlands would be lost due to a construction project, Ms Peters asked how the applicant would compensate for that loss of wetlands.

Due to the extensive amount of wetlands that already exist on the 9.4-acre property, there is not much potential to create new wetlands there to compensate for the loss of wetlands due to construction, Christopher Smith said.

 IWC member Edward Bryan urged that the applicant provide the IWC with responses to environmental issues raised in a critique of the application prepared for the IWC by Land-Tech Consultants, Inc, of Southbury.

IWC member Philip Kotch said that in view of the proposed filling of approximately 5,000 square feet of wetlands, he wants to know the environmental effects that firehouse construction would have on the nearby stream and its adjacent floodplain.

In response to a query from IWC member Sharon Salling, Mr DeAngelis explained that the construction project would create 34,670 square feet of impervious surfaces on the site. Such surfaces are those over which stormwater flows.

Opposition

Resident Francois Debrantes of 13 Sugar Street, which lies across the road from 12 Sugar Street, rebutted Hook & Ladder’s view that 12 Sugar Street is the best place to build a new firehouse.

The project would cause wetlands disturbances, he said. The funds earmarked for new firehouse construction in the town’s Capital Improvement Plan should instead be used to renovate Hook & Ladder’s existing firehouse, he said.

Attorney Catherine Cuggino of the Chipman, Mazzucco, Land & Pennarola law firm of Danbury, representing Mr Debrantes, said there is no reason to build a new firehouse at 12 Sugar Street. Ms Cuggino pointed out various technical flaws in the wetlands application.

The IWC should consider the adverse implications of allowing such a firehouse to be built in a residential area, she said.

Ms Cuggino urged the IWC to reject the application based on public safety and health issues.

Wetlands specialist Matthew Popp, of Environmental Land Solutions, LLC, of Norwalk, representing Mr Debrantes, raised a variety of concerns about the firehouse proposal, including parking, the construction of a retaining wall, stormwater drainage, snowplowing, pavement, and landscaping.

Approximately 5,000 square feet of wetlands would be filled without any mitigating environmental measures being taken, Mr Popp said.

Resident Edward Terry of 18 Lincoln Road voiced opposition to the proposed firehouse project. Mr Terry urged the IWC to protect the wetlands at the site.

“That’s all your job is — protect the wetlands. Do your job,” he said.

 Carol Terry, of the same address, she expects that the site is the last haven within the borough for certain birds and wildlife. Firehouse construction would adversely affect wildlife habitat, she said.

Hook & Ladder President Richard Camejo told IWC members that the fire company has assembled a knowledgeable development team for the project, which is able to address any technical issues that arise about the construction proposal.

 Kevin Cragin, chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners, said that creating a new firehouse for Hook & Ladder has been under discussion for 26 years. “The board has unanimously supported this particular project,” he said, in urging an IWC approval of the development proposal.

One area resident told IWC members he fears that if a firehouse is approved for the site, a four-lane version of Sugar Street would eventually be created in that area to handle traffic flow. Such a road widening would have adverse environmental effects, he said.

Alan Shepard of 1 Glover Avenue questioned aspects of the retaining wall proposed for a wet area on the site. Because the site is in a floodplain, the plans for the project should include more details concerning wetlands, watercourses, and topographic features, he said.

Hook & Ladder Fire Chief Jason Rivera told IWC members that fire company members volunteer their time to protect the lives and property of residents. The proposed location for a new firehouse is the correct place for construction, he said.

Fire officials have asked that the town provide $1.5 million the toward the overall cost of a $2.6 million firehouse. Through the use of “value engineering” the fire company is seeking to hold the cost of the project down to $2.2 million or $2.3 million.

The firehouse project has been placed on the town’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Under that spending plan, the town would contribute $1.5 million toward the construction project. The funding would be spread across three fiscal years, through three $500,000 increments.

In August 2009, the Borough Zoning Board of Appeals (BZBA) unanimously rejected the fire company’s request for a zoning variance for 12 Sugar Street for firehouse construction. That action came amid stiff neighborhood opposition to granting a zoning variance to allow the fire company to build a firehouse closer to the street than the zoning regulations would normally allow.

In their motion to reject the requested zoning variance, BZBA members cited three basic reasons for turning down the application. They decided that a firehouse would not be in harmony with the general character of the residential neighborhood; the presence of a firehouse and its related fire vehicle traffic would create traffic hazards in the congested area; and that a firehouse’s presence would damage property values in the neighborhood.

The town has five volunteer five companies — Hook & Ladder, Dodgingtown, Hawleyville, Sandy Hook, and Botsford. Unlike the four other fire companies which own their respective firehouses, Hook & Ladder is based in a town-owned building.