Hook & Ladder—

Firehouse Proposal Modified, But Opposition Continues

By Andrew Gorosko

Representatives of Newtown Hook & Ladder Company, Inc, #1, this week explained to Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) members how the volunteer fire company has modified its proposal for a new firehouse at 12 Sugar Street (Route 302) in response to criticism of the plans, but the project is continuing to draw sharp opposition from a resident who lives across the street from the site.

Hook & Ladder representatives described the altered plans for the project at an October 27 IWC session, at which resident Francois de Brantes of 13 Sugar Street, and a wetlands specialist whom Mr de Brantes has hired, explained why the firehouse project is an environmentally unsuitable proposition.

IWC members discussed the technical details of the project for more than two hours, eventually deciding that the IWC public hearing on the fire company’s request for a wetlands/watercourses protection permit would continue on November 10.

At an October 19 Borough Zoning Commission (BZC) public hearing, the firehouse proposal drew stiff opposition from some residents living near the Sugar Street site. The BZC hearing will resume on November 16.

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has unanimously endorsed the firehouse proposal to the BZC, provided that the project gains a wetlands/watercourses protection permit from the IWC.

The volunteer fire company wants to build a two-story, 11,414-square-foot firehouse at 12 Sugar Street to replace the aging, deteriorated town-owned firehouse at 45 Main Street, behind Edmond Town Hall.

The site proposed for a new firehouse is on the north side of Sugar Street, northwest of Sugar Street’s intersection with Elm Drive. The site lies west of the major intersection of Sugar Street, Main Street, Glover Avenue, and South Main Street. The property has extensive wetlands. The undeveloped site is lightly wooded and contains heavy undergrowth. About one acre of the overall 9.4-acre site would be used for a firehouse.

Under the proposal, the Borough of Newtown Land Trust, Inc, and the R. Scudder Smith Family Partnership would donate parcels of land for the firehouse project. Mr Smith is the owner/publisher of The Newtown Bee.

Attorney Christopher Smith, representing the fire company, told IWC members that in response to issues raised at the October 19 BZC hearing, the fire company is willing to modify its plans to provide for a wider buffer zone between the proposed firehouse and the western edge of the site.

Attorney Smith said that the firehouse project would not encroach into a stream or a streambank on the site. The proposed construction would not cause additional flooding there during high water conditions, he said.

The fire company does not believe it would need to obtain a wetlands permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers, he added.

To suitably construct a proposed retaining wall on the site, the fire company would bring in certain soils and gravel to create a base for that wall’s construction, he said. The proposed concrete-block retaining wall would be similar in design to such a structure that stands at the town’s Eichler’s Cove Marina on Lake Zoar in Sandy Hook, Mr Smith said.

Civil engineer Chris DeAngelis, representing the fire company, said that calculations indicate that during “100-year-storm” flood conditions at the site, an approximately 2,500-square-foot area would flood to a depth of six inches. The project would have “no direct impacts” on the stream on the site, and would have “no significant impacts” on wetlands, he added.

The project’s site design is the best possible design possible, he said. New soil that would be brought to the site would improve drainage conditions, he said.

But IWC member Philip Kotch asked about the destruction of wetlands on the site due to the construction a retaining wall.

IWC Chairman Anne Peters suggested that proposed construction project be physically reoriented to minimize the project’s effects on a stream on the property.

Megan Raymond, a wetlands specialist representing the fire company, said that such a reorientation of the site plans would adversely affect wetlands on the property. The existing proposal is the best possible proposal for the site, she said. Ms Raymond noted that about eight acres of the 9.4-acre site are wet areas.

Although the proposal would result in a small environmental impairment of the property, the overall wetlands system there would be functional, she said. Shrubbery would be planted to improve environmental conditions, she said.

The firehouse proposal meets the applicable wetlands regulations, she said.

Although the project would have an unavoidable impact on the site’s wetlands, that impact has been minimized to the greatest extent possible, and the project thus complies with the regulations, she said.

Joseph Hovious of 3 Leopard Drive represented the Candlewood Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited at the IWC session. The group is a private conservation organization.

Mr Hovious noted that stormwater discharges from the firehouse site would eventually flow into downstream waters that hold a trout fishery. Trout Unlimited has been monitoring downstream water temperatures for the past three years, he noted. Trout do not fare well in warm water.

Mr Hovious urged that the fire company take steps to prevent the thermal pollution of downstream waters by minimizing the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and other measures.

Wetlands play an important role in the filtration of stormwater runoff, he said.

Opposition

Wetlands specialist Matthew Popp, representing Mr de Brantes, told IWC members that the firehouse project would damage wetlands.

The project would causes a dewatering effect near the proposed retaining wall and would adversely alter vegetation, he said.

The project does not contain mitigating features that would compensate for the filling of wetlands, he said. The plans call for filling in almost 5,000 square feet of existing wetlands.

“This project has an adverse wetlands impact that is not mitigated,” Mr Popp stressed.

Mr de Brantes said the applicant has “trivialized” the serious objections that he has raised about the firehouse project.

“There’s no mitigation,” he said, adding that planting some shrubbery on the site does not suitably compensate for the loss of wetlands on the property.

Mr de Brantes charged that a geotechnical report on the project submitted by the applicant is invalid because that report pertains to a previous, now-defunct version of the project.

Also, the plans concerning retaining wall construction are deficient plans, he added.

Mr de Brantes said the application contains many defects and urged the IWC to reject the fire company’s request for a wetlands/watercourses protection permit.

Alan Shepard of 1 Glover Avenue told IWC members that the current version of the firehouse project included “big changes” compared to an earlier version of the project.

Mr Shepard, who is a civil engineer, posed a variety of technical questions about the project.

He also asked that earthen test-hole information be provided by the applicant to document subsurface soil conditions at the site.