Newtown Inland Wetland Commission (IWC) conducted a special meeting at Newtown Municipal Center on February 1 to discuss revoking — for a second time — the wetlands permit for the Holly Estates Subdivision on Route 34. The only item on the agenda was the revocation hearing for Permit #20-27 by Negreiro & Sons Construction LLC, for property located at 203 and 211 Berkshire Road.

The property features the new road Holly Lane, a cul-de-sac where more than a dozen single family homes are being built. An 1860 home originally on the property that was to be restored was later demolished.

Prior to the subdivision, the 73.2-acre parcel was a mixture of forest, old fields, and farmed fields that supported a variety of wildlife. Twenty-seven acres were donated to Newtown Forest Association (NFA), due to the town’s open space rules. Most of those acres are wetlands.

The project gained much attention from the community in the last few years due to concerns relating to road safety and the subdivision’s negative impact on wetlands, wildlife, and the water table.

The IWC approved the application for the project in 2020. It was then approved in early 2021 by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

By April 2021, the Town of Newtown issued a permit revocation hearing due to poor site conditions, failure to maintain erosion controls, and lack of communication from the applicant to remedy the issues.

At the time, applicant Jose Negreiro said he felt “confident things are going to get done.”

After much discussion, IWC decided to not revoke the permit. The commission was assured the problems would be fixed and communication would be restored with updated reports of the progress.

Plans were submitted including diversion swales to be installed above the development, plans to abandon the trenches on site, and repairs to the erosion controls.

While some promised actions were done, not all were executed. The town went out numerous times to point out aspects that needed to be fixed, to no avail.

Current Action Considered

Fast forward to nearly a year later, and IWC was again holding a special meeting to consider revoking the permit issued to Negreiro & Sons Construction LLC.

In attendance at the February 1 meeting were commissioners Kendall Horch, Michael McCabe, chair Sharon Salling, Suzanne Guidera, Scott Jackson, and Stephanie Kurose. They were joined by Senior Land Use Enforcement Officer Steve Maguire and Land Use Enforcement Officer Kiana Maisonet.

Representing the original application was Negreiro, Jason Edwards of J. Edwards & Associates, Gary Nash of Nash Construction, and attorney Chris Russo of Russo and Rizio LLC.

Maguire highlighted, “One of the main concerns I had from the beginning were the trenches … they were supposed to be removed.”

He noted that he sent a couple of e-mails to the contractor and the owner saying action needed to be taken before development begins around these sensitive areas along the stream.

Maguire took evidence of what he witnessed during multiple site visits, and passed around a handout with dozens of images illustrating poor site conditions.

His findings show even the land donated to NFA is being negatively impacted.

“I feel that they are not capable of maintaining the site … I’m requesting the permit be revoked, things to be readdressed, and resubmitted," Maguire said.

Applicant’s Response

Edwards spoke first and noted that he is the site engineer, not the developer.

He said they had a “dry summer” and that “everything was going well, so we essentially stopped the monitoring program at that point, and it had not resumed.”

Edwards passed out a packet to the commissioners that had an inspection report from his office.

The paperwork detailed that he performed an inspection on January 28, 2023, at 11:30 am, focused on Lot 3 and Lot 12.

“However, I also did a general broad inspection and examined the brook and crossing as well as the detention pond,” Edwards noted.

The report went on to say that the site was “in decent condition” even with tracking and silt accumulation on the roadway.

“I recommend that the contractor repair and reinforce silt fence where necessary, including adding a second row of silt fence or hay bales to downhill areas on Lot 12,” it concluded in part.

Maguire said that even though the application was approved as a subdivision they would refer to specific areas of concern by identifying the lot number.

“Lot numbers 11, 12, and 3 are my main concerns for direct impact to wetlands that I want to be addressed … also the other ones of concern we know are [lots] 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13, which have wetlands in the vicinity,” he said.

After some discussion, Edwards said the project’s environmental consultant, Steven Danzer, is scheduled to be on site the weekend of February 4 to provide an assessment, as well as a mitigation schedule.

Salling voiced: “It’s clear that there’s an awareness that there are issues, but it isn’t clear that the plan to mitigate or remediate has been put into place in a timely fashion and followed.”

What concerns the town staff and commission, she added, is when there is a repetition of issues happening.

“What I would like to hear … is not only the steps but the schedule and a real commitment to implementing those steps on a schedule that prevents us from having to have another hearing,” Salling said.

Maguire said he does not feel the environmental issues and concerns are being focused on, and instead only building more houses is being prioritized. As a result, the applicant’s ways are having a “ripple effect” and acting like a “band aid” to the problems.

Nash said, “That erosion control is put in that stream, because we had to do pipe crossing in that stream.”

He went on to explain that the previous landowner used the property for farming and diverted water, which caused unforeseen issues for the developer.

“The farmer had trenches that concentrated water, which started a problem when we had the original temporary pond. Now that water was coming from the high side of the road, all the temporary ponds were on the low side, and the diversion trenches were on the low side, which gave us a huge amount of water crossing the road when it was under construction,” Nash said.

Maguire said he understands and sympathized with that.

“This site is not an average site. I’ve been doing this for almost 40 years now and I’ve never seen a site with a water table as high and the type of material that has been disturbed from the farming of it,” Nash said.

Commission Input

Horch said she had been to the site that morning and the lower lot was “completely exposed.”

“To expose an entire lot right next to wetlands with not enough silt fence protection — that was my concern. That seemed like a red flag,” she said.

Horch also pointed out the swales that had been proposed and accepted by IWC back in April were not constructed, the trenches were not abandoned, and berms were put in the upper lot.

Nash said they are using the berms to divert water traveling on disturbed grounds.

“I saw the berm on Lot 3, and I followed where the diverted water would go, and it looks like it goes into a pile [with] an upside-down cone and a log and just a bunch of stuff before it would flow right onto the road. I didn’t even see a silt fence there either,” Horch said.

Salling asked why the swales were not constructed.

Nash answered, “At the time they were proposed, it was way too wet up there. Then everything became vegetative and nothing was going to be done with those lots.”

Guidera said that she is in favor of stopping construction and other commissioners agreed.

Russo said there are issues Edwards can address immediately. Edwards then began to list possible resolutions.

Salling said, “I think that we owe you the time to come back with a plan. You shouldn’t be hashing it out in here.”

Russo emphasized that revocation would stop work from being done, even though it sounds like work needs to be done to protect the area.

“I would personally suggest that we have the opportunity to quickly prepare a plan that we would address first … rather than a revocation, which would just stop everything on the site,” Russo said.

Kurose stated, “I think you can understand our skepticism, though, when Steve has been going out there for months and months. This isn’t the first time you all have come in.”

After some back and forth with commissioners and applicant representatives, Russo said he did not want to have the issues turn into “an adversarial position between the two parties.

“The owner is trying to address those issues. Revoking the permit, to me, is an extreme measure that would force the sides to become adversarial,” he added.

He recommended they continue to cease and desist to allow for Edwards to prepare a plan to present the IWC.

Maguire emphasized he “can’t babysit the site” and stood by the recommendation to revoke the permit.

Since some commissioners had to leave the meeting due to time, they proposed delaying further discussion.

“We want to give you a chance to live up to what you say,” Salling told the applicant and representatives.

The commissioners voted to continue the revocation hearing to their next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, February 8, at 7:30 pm. It passed with only Kurose in opposition.

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