UPDATE: This report and headline were updated at 1:15 pm February 22 to clarify that the February 9 public hearing regarding a proposed distribution / warehouse facility was closed.

* * * * *

Newtown Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) held two public hearings during its meeting at the Newtown Municipal Center February 9. One pertained to a wetland violation at a local car wash, and the other was for a proposed warehouse facility in Hawleyville.

IWC Chair Sharon Salling said they would be swapping the agenda order for the two public hearings because the application scheduled to go second only required a brief discussion.

Application IW #22-02 by TMR Realty Newtown, LLC, is for a property located at 1 Simm Lane for a wetland violation which requires confirmation for the proper functions of the on-site drainage, the water reclamation system, and the soil testing.

Lawrence “Larry” LePere, of Solli Engineering, represented the applicant, who owns and operates QuiXpress Car Wash in town. He explained that the violation was issued last year, and they were requested to come to this board.

“I am here tonight really to let you know we still have a few things to try to work out with the [Department of Energy and Environmental Protection] DEEP. I didn’t want to continually postpone this without showing up at least in person,” LePere said.

He hopes over the next two weeks they will have more conversations with DEEP and be able to get back to the board at a future meeting with information regarding the application.

At that point the hearing will continue.

Hawleyville Warehouse

IWC then proceeded to the public hearing for Application IW #21‐36 by Wharton Equity Partners, LLC, for property located at 10 Hawleyville Road and 1 Sedor Lane to construct a 344,880 square feet warehouse building and associated site improvements including parking, storm water management, driveway, and wetland crossing.

Representing the applicant was Thomas Cody, attorney at Robinson+Cole in Hartford, who was assisted by Matthew Bruton, engineer at BL Companies in Meriden.

At the previous meeting, on January 26, Cody and Bruton gave a presentation to the IWC about their plans and impact on the property’s wetlands.

After residents voiced concerns that evening about the project, specifically for its impact on the environment, animals, and people, the commission decided to continue the application’s public hearing.

At this recent meeting, Cody began by saying, “We wanted to answer some specific questions that several commission members had, and we also wanted to take the opportunity to bring [wetland scientist Eric] Davidson with us … he is here this evening and will make a presentation to you about his findings.”

Bruton then briefly discussed how the property would be designed to deal with snow and how a hydrodynamic separator will help with the storm water management system.

He also reminded everyone that they would be filling in a portion of the wetlands to create “a solid driveway to stand the test of time.”

The commission was then invited to ask questions.

IWC member Kendall Horch inquired if they have done test holes for soil testing on the site.

Bruton said there has been “extensive geo-testing on the property” for the applicant to make sure the types of soils will work for the proposal.

IWC member Stephanie Kurose had a question about the wildlife in the wetland areas.

“According to Fish & Wildlife Service, there are four migratory bird species in the area and two federally listed threatened species that are potentially in the wetland area. I’m wondering if you have reached out [to] Fish & Wildlife Service or had a biologist survey the property to see if there were any protected species present,” she said.

Davidson then stepped in to speak upon the matter. He introduced himself as a certified professional wetlands scientist and soil scientist. He did not directly answer Kurose’s question and, instead, first gave background on the six wetland areas that are spread across the 112-acre property.

According to Davidson, the proposed accessway location is “optimal” considering the wetland locations.

One item that he said they did not have a solution for at the time was that wetland five extends to the southeast corner of the building.

Davidson informed Kurose that fish and wildlife studies are not required when submitting an inland wetlands application, so they have not done that. He did ask the applicant to make a “box turtle protection plan” during construction, since that animal may be on the property.

IWC member Craig Ferris followed up by asking if there will be an evaluation for the wildlife remaining on the property.

Davidson said they did not do a wildlife survey and there are “no vernal pools.”

Senior Land Use Enforcement Officer Steve Maguire inquired about the potential hydrology loss in wetlands area four and the redesign.

“For the western isolated wetland, are you confident that it will receive enough water, and hydrology will remain consistent there?” he asked.

Davidson said since it is not connected to other wetlands it should remain consistent.

Public Participation

Similar to the last IWC meeting, Newtown residents voiced their concerns for the application.

Newtown resident Ramunus “Ray” Bigelis read a prepared statement, which is attached to the IWC meeting minutes. He introduced himself as a retired scientist, who is not affiliated with the applicant or another company.

Bigelis’ statement read, in part, “This project violates the fundamental principles of wetlands maintenance. It also violates the need to protect essential wetlands from a variety of potential threats and unforeseen hazards — hazards and accidents associated with a truck terminal, fuels, chemicals, and toxic waste.

“It violates the notion that nature is to be protected and protected wisely. It violates the notion that all of us owe it to future generations to preserve Newtown wetlands, green spaces, wildlife, and ecology. I reject this unsound project proposal and strongly recommend its rejection by the Town of Newtown.”

He then asked the IWC directly if they have considered worst case scenarios of the project before and after completion.

Salling said they do look at the regulations that they are bound by.

Newtown resident Donald Leonard also read a letter for the record, where he expressed why he is against the application. The full 10-page letter is attached to the IWC meeting minutes.

He first shared his research of Wharton Equity Partners and noted, “Nowhere on their website does Wharton devote a single word to protecting the environment where they build, or their responsiveness to a community and its needs. It’s all about optimizing profit. ‘Environment and community’ are notoriously absent from their corporate vocabulary.”

Leonard then highlighted several points from the State of Connecticut’s Inland Wetland’s Watercourse Regulations, the variety of ways the proposed project negatively impacts the land, and other projects in Newtown that resulted in wetlands violations.

“Make no mistake, our irreplaceable wetlands will be damaged or destroyed if this proposal is approved, along with the significant environmental impact from traffic, pollution, and the loss of green space,” he said.

Newtown resident Tulio Lopez presented a graph, which is included in the IWC meeting minutes.

He explained that he was previously on the Brookfield Water Pollution Control Authority before moving to Newtown three years ago and agrees with the first two speakers.

Lopez expressed his concerns about the potential pollution and asked who the tenants will be.

Newtown resident Terry Murphy spoke next and had a two-part question regarding the “device that takes care of the water, grit, oil, etc.”

She asked where those elements go after they are collected and what guarantee the Town of Newtown has that the tenant will adhere to that device’s maintenance schedule.

Newtown resident Gary Kuglar asked, “Is there a plan in place if there is a larger spill, say of toxic materials?”

Next to speak was Newtown resident Carrie Kuglar, who mentioned that in addition to the endangered species mentioned earlier there are also other animals, such as bobcats and bears, on the property.

She also mentioned that she estimates there are about 1,000 homes in the area that are well-fed for their water. She asked what happens if there is a spill that impacts the wells.

Salling said that the topic of wells falls under the purview of the Newtown Public Sanitation District and Water & Sewer Authority.

Decision To Continue

Cody then had a chance to respond to residents’ remarks.

He said that Wharton’s website and other projects are “not relevant” to this application. The project is a traditional warehouse and not designed to be a “last-mile” facility. Also, that the proposed application is a response to the regulations to protect the wetlands.

Cody went on to say that the wetlands crossing is not fragile, “and what the project hopes to do is to actually have a mitigation area near that crossing to try to improve some of the existing conditions that have taken place over 10 or 20 years or more of impact from unchecked storm water runoff.”

He went on to say there will be future tenants — just like with any property — and that the approved conditions will stay with the land for all future operators to comply with.

Cody addressed wildlife in that he said, “The regulations track the statutes, which state that potential impacts on wildlife or wildlife habitat is not a part of the wetland commission’s review unless the wildlife impact would have a direct impact on the physical characteristics of the wetlands themselves.”

Bruton then elaborated on the storm water management system and the maintenance schedule, which includes regularly removing the material collected and bringing it to a facility off-site.

Cody also reminded everyone, “Seventy percent of the site is not being developed,” and that “the zoning for this site is industrial.”

The IWC then closed the public hearing.

For more information about upcoming IWC meetings, visit newtown-ct.gov/inland-wetlands-commission.

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