Iroquois To Explain Pipeline Expansion Plan

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Apr 20, 2007 12:00 am

By Andrew Gorosko

The Iroquois Gas Transmission System has scheduled an informational session for Monday, April 23, to explain its proposal to build an additional section of pipeline in Sandy Hook as part of its plan to increase the volume of natural gas that it transports to Long Island, N.Y.

The meeting is scheduled for 6 pm at Reed Intermediate School Cafetorium, 3 Trades Lane. A general informational session will be held from 6 to 7 pm. A presentation of the pipeline expansion proposal and a question-and-answer period is slated for 7 to 8 pm.

Iroquois is seeking federal approval to construct a 1.6-mile-long section of buried, high-pressure natural gas pipeline near Lower Paugussett State Forest. The new pipeline would be installed parallel to an existing 11.3-mile-long Iroquois pipeline section that Iroquois constructed in Newtown between 1989 and 1991.

Many of the homes now standing in the area proposed for the new pipeline were constructed after the original Iroquois pipeline was installed.

The proposed 36-inch-diameter pipeline would be linked to the existing pipeline in a âloopingâ system designed to increase the volume of natural gas that the pipeline can transport.

The KeySpan Gas East Corporation natural gas distribution company wants to send additional natural gas to Long Island. The proposed Iroquois pipeline loop in Sandy Hook would be one of the components required for such increased gas distribution. The natural gas carried by the Iroquois pipeline is produced in western Canada.

The 1.6-mile-long pipeline section is proposed to extend along the companyâs right-of-way for its existing pipeline. The new pipeline would extend from the area near Canterbury Lane to the area near Stone Bridge Road.

About eight landowners abut Iroquoisâ proposed right-of-way. Iroquois likely would need to purchase land usage easements from some property owners, including the state, as part of the pipeline installation project.

It would probably take one to two months to construct the pipeline, which would be buried at least three feet below ground. Some blasting and tree removal would needed to install the pipeline. The proposed pipeline would run parallel to the existing pipeline, and be situated about 25 feet away from it.

In a statement, Iroquois explains that it would work with KeySpan to bring an additional 200 million cubic feet per day of natural gas into the New York City/Long Island market starting in November 2008.

Â Iroquois is proposing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that it be allowed to construct additional natural gas facilities including pipeline looping sections in Sandy Hook, as well as in Boonville and Wright, N.Y. The firm also is proposing construction of a second gas compressor with cooling facilities in Brookfield, as well as a new gas compressor station in Milford.

Iroquois plans to submit a formal application to FERC late this summer.

Issues raised by the public at sessions such as the April 23 informational meeting would be addressed by Iroquois in its formal application to FERC. Those issues would be considered by FERC in its review of Iroquoisâ application.

Besides FERCâs review of the pipeline proposal, the project also is subject to review and approval by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

âWhen determining a route for a pipelineâ¦ many factors are taken into consideration, including safety, environmental impact, access, constructability, land use, economics, and public and landowner input,â according to Iroquois.

If Iroquois receives the required approvals for the pipeline project, construction could start in the spring/summer of 2008.

The project would include bringing workers and equipment to the site, preparing the right-of-way for construction, trenching, the installation of new pipe, and pipe testing. Site restoration work would follow the construction project.

âWith any of these projects, the devilâs in the details,â First Selectman Herb Rosenthal has said.

Issues posed by a pipeline installation project include how much disruption the project would cause to people living nearby, including activities such as truck traffic and blasting, he has said.

The Way We Were

Top Of The Mountain

My Brother’s Band Planning ‘Mixed Bag’ Set List For Summer Concert Series Gig

Theater Review: A Very Happy Homecoming For ‘All Shook Up’

Theater Review: ‘Camelot’ Given The Royal Treatment In Neighboring Brookfield

It’s important to clarify the tone and context of Derek Pisani’s remarks, particularly the satirical line about suing Newtown for "Gross Stupidity." This was clearly a tongue-in-cheek jab at the exhausting culture of legal threats that’s become a staple on the local Facebook Group forums. It was a reflection of frustration over endless regulatory hurdles and obstructionism, and the desire to avoid common sense solutions not an insult aimed at residents. Satire, is meant to provoke thought and highlight the absurdities. If we are unable to distinguish between satire and literal threats, perhaps the comment hit closer to the truth than we’d like to admit. Rather than focusing on Pisanis style, we should be discussing the substance of what he’s pointing out: that Newtown’s progress is being routinely blocked by a small but vocal contingent who seem intent on saying “no” at every turn. They are saying no to any development, no to common sense solutions to crowd control, etc. Newtown deserves leaders who are willing to call things as they see them, even if their language ruffles feathers. That doesn’t mean they lack respect for constituents—it means they care enough to challenge the Mob and push for solutions. Isn't that what we elect people to do? I applaud Pisani's dedication, he certainly has earned my vote. Regardless, let’s not reduce conversation to tone-policing and outrage. Let’s focus on the issues that matter.

Who is Calling Newtowners Stupid?

Thank you for pointing out the trail access provisions included in the BOS motion—it’s an important clarification that deserves more attention in this conversation. If the development is, in fact, required to provide permanent free public access and commit to ongoing maintenance of this section of the Rochambeau Trail, that is a remarkably beneficial outcome for the town. oIt’s not every day that a private project shoulders the long-term burden of preserving and caring for a public historical corridor at no taxpayer cost—especially one that previously had no formal access, upkeep, or visibility. Let’s be honest: the idea that the only way to protect history is by preventing any development nearby is a rigid and unworkable standard. What’s being proposed here appears to strike a rare balance—historic preservation, public access, and smart development all rolled into one. That’s not a loss its a win. So rather than allowing a handful of voices to derail progress under the banner of “historic purity,” maybe it’s time to acknowledge the reality: this trail is better off with structured stewardship and visibility than remaining an overgrown ghost on old maps. Let’s move forward. Bring in the easement, bring in the public access—and yes, bring in the bulldozers!!! Progress and preservation can coexist. Let’s not let the NIMBY use fear or nostalgia keep us stuck in the past.

Discusses Rochambeau Trail And 6 Commerce Road

I've heard that several people are under the impression that the public might be banned from the Rochambeau Trail. Points 2 and 3 from the BOS motion (included in full below) make it clear that public access to the trail is part of the requirements for the developer. From what I understand, it requires free public access to the trail in perpetuity. Technically, this could be argued to be a "payment-in-kind," that attempts to balance public good with overall town growth. We can argue about weather that balance is acceptable and how the trail may be affected, but with the understanding that the trail is expected to be maintained as a publicly accessible trail regardless. July 15, 2024 Board of Selectmen approved motion: Discontinuance of Reservoir Road: Selectman Cruson moved the resolution: Resolved, that the Newtown Board of Selectmen, in accordance with Section 2-115(d)(8) of the Town Charter and Conn. Gen. Stat. §13a-49, and subject to the conditions set forth below, hereby discontinues an unimproved portion of Reservoir Road described as “Portion of Reservoir Road to be Discontinued “on that certain survey map which will be recorded on the Newtown Land Records titled “Map Showing Portion of Reservoir Road to be Discontinued” dated August, 2023 and revised September 15, 2023, and certified substantially correct by Gregory Szyszowski of SLR (the “Survey Map”), said discontinuance contingent and effective only upon the completion of the following: 1. The approval of an application for the development of land in the manner described in a letter from Attorney Thomas W. Beecher to First Selectman A. Jeffrey Capeci and Members of the Board of Selectmen dated May 30, 2024, pursuant to the “Residential Open Space Development” regulations of the Borough of Newtown by the Borough of Newtown Zoning Commission, and construction of that approval project within the timeframes required for special exception approval; 2. The inclusion of the discontinued portion of the road as part of the final Declaration of Conservation Restriction; 3. The conveyance of a mutually agreeable public easement to the Town of Newtown for pedestrian, bicycling, equestrian, and all other passive recreational uses (to exclude the use of motorized vehicles except as may be necessary by the Town or its designee to effectuate the purpose of the easement), and for municipal utility purposes; Be it further resolved, that Castle Hill Real Estate Holdings, LLC., its successors and assigns, shall not use any portion of the discontinued road as a vehicular road or access way to and from any developed portions of the property. Be it further finally resolved, that should any of the foregoing contingencies not occur, then the discontinuance contemplated herein shall not become effective and this resolution will become null and void. From: https://www.newtown-ct.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif12216/f/minutes/bos_7-15-24_min-_att_final.pdf

Is this paper road (roads that only exist on paper map but not in reality) even owned by the Town? Many roads that predate the Town's road standards are privately owned and were never accepted by the Town, such as many of the nonconforming roads around the lake communities where the property owners own right to the center line. That is something we had to deal with when working on the Roads Ordinance a few years back. We also had to deal with a private road to run the utilities to the new SHS.

For anyone who wants to know, I cant post a link here, but Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority has an entire website. Look up "HRRA whats in whats out"

I Get It!

<< Jul 2025 >>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
29	30	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31	1	2

Log In

Iroquois To Explain Pipeline Expansion Plan

Leave a Reply Cancel reply