Newtown Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) had a lengthy meeting on March 22 at Newtown Community Center to discuss a controversial multifamily housing development for Commerce Road.

IWC members present were chair Sharon Salling, Mike McCabe, Scott Jackson, Suzanne Guidera, Craig Ferris, Kendall Horch, and Stephanie Kurose. Senior Land Use Enforcement Officer Steve Maguire and Land Use Enforcement Officer Kiana Maisonet were also present.

The hot button item was Application IW #23-04 by Teton Capital Company, LLC, for property located at 6 and 8 Commerce Road, for construction of a 171-unit multifamily housing development.

The current application had initially been brought up at the February 22 IWC meeting as an upcoming topic and gained much interest from residents requesting a public hearing be conducted. Organizations such as Candlewood Valley Trout Unlimited and the Catherine Violet Hubbard Animal Sanctuary, that abuts the land, have already openly raised concerns about the project.

The Greenwich-based developer previously applied for a zone change for the property to allow senior housing as a permitted use, and Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) approved it in November 2021.

Earlier this month, the current application went to the Design Advisory Board where the members expressed worries that its style did not match the character of Newtown.

At the March 22 IWC meeting, Salling prefaced the conversation by saying the public hearing will continue to the next meeting to give more people the opportunity to speak, given that the meeting would need to be limited to two hours and conclude at 9:30 pm.

Attorney Peter Olsen, of the Land Use & Conservation Counsel in Bethel, represented the applicant. Other members of his team were Civil Engineer Jason Edwards, Wetland/Soil Scientist Steven Danzer, and Landscape Architect Matthew Popp.

Edwards and Danzer have worked on projects in Newtown before, specifically the Holly Estates Subdivision off Berkshire Road (Route 34) that recently faced two IWC permit revocation hearings for poor site conditions.

Olsen noted that Teton Capital Company was responsible for the 66,000-square-foot Church Hill Village senior community on Church Hill Road Newtown.

“Thus, our project tonight is derivative of that name, and it’s called Church Hill Farm at Deep Brook, representing the agricultural history of the site and the resources nearby ... The town has owned the property since it was acquired from the State of Connecticut in 2004,” he said.

Olsen detailed that the property is about 41 acres, and they plan to develop 14.2 acres. The remaining 27 acres would go to the town as a conservation easement requirement.

Teton Capital Company’s plans are to build 171 units of age-restricted housing for people 55 years and older.

Previous Permit

For background, Olsen said that an industrial park was proposed for the property in 2009-10. IWC at the time approved permit IW #10-32 for those wetland activities, which is active and extended through 2025.

“Most of the activities that we are proposing are pretty much covered by the #10-32 permit, most importantly the road crossing, most of which is now complete; but because that permit expires in 2025, we don’t know [if] we will be completely done with the project by then and that permit cannot be further extended … We need a new permit to make sure we have the time needed for our project,” he said.

Comparing the current application to the original permit, Olsen said, they have “significantly pulled back from the wetlands and the upland review area” and “reduced the overall impervious coverage.”

Danzer shared that he has been involved with the property the longest out of anyone in the room. He was hired by the town to prepare independent expert reports for application IW #10-032 in 2010 and 2011.

When describing the water course systems, he pointed out that Deep Brook on the property lets out into the Pootatuck River, and then lets out into the Housatonic River. While mentioning the previous IW permit, he said he had issues with it and feels the current application is “better.”

Danzer said the major mitigation they are offering is “avoidance of the 100-foot wetland buffer,” as well as “the preservation of the 27 acres of open space.”

He described those 27 acres of land as being wide meadow and noted that the type of land is basically “endangered habitat” not found many places.

In Danzer’s nine-page environmental report, dated February 23, 2023, he summarized that he believes, “There will be no significant impacts or direct impacts to the wetlands/watercourses on or adjacent to the site. Nor will the proposed activities change, diminish, or otherwise detrimentally alter the ecological communities or the functions or values of the wetlands on or adjacent to the site.”

The report also detailed the site’s wetland resources, proposed activities, impact analysis, and a couple photos of the property.

Civil Engineering

Edwards then went over the topography of the site that he surveyed.

“The high side is on the west here along the railroad tracks and where the access road was constructed everything flows down towards the wetlands here to the east towards Deep Brook eventually,” he said when referencing a map.

Edwards mentioned that the property is within the Newtown Aquifer District, so they had WSP USA create an aquifer impact assessment report. “We’ve got an extensive storm water management system and plan,” he added.

There is a large sediment basin, as well as a collection system of piping on the property that will be part of the irrigation system.

Edwards’ report stated, “All impervious surfaces in the new development will discharge to a piping network. This network flows to the east and eventually terminates at a hydrodynamic separator unit which will provide primary treatment. The separator outlets to a water quality retention basin which in turn overflows to Deep Brook. Each catch basin will have a two-foot minimum sump with the last basin in the system equipped with a hooded trap.”

His office prepared an addendum to the plan, and he said, “We wanted to provide some assurance or some confirmation of water quality in that basin … We are removing 80 percent of the total suspended solids from the storm water runoff; two, we are making attempts to protect thermal pollution from Deep Brook; and three, we are maintaining the hydrology of the site to the wetlands.”

He noted they have a “fairly standard erosion control plan” and briefly went over it.

Landscaping

Popp created a landscaping plan and plant list. “We’re proposing a number of shade trees, about 45 shade trees. All of the species are native. The shade trees are larger growing trees. They include red maple, sugar maple, pin oak, white oak, and lindens,” he said.

Along the perimeter of the site, between the buildings, and along the road, they are proposing planting evergreens.

“We do have a number of shrubs located along the site,” Popp said, including bayberry for soil stabilization. As for the proposed lighting, there would be building-mounted lighting, 14-feet pole lighting along the access-way, and 12-feet pole lighting in the interior of the site. They plan to have “warm color” LED lights that would be pointing downward.

Popp said they are considering having a community garden on-site. He brought up that Trout Unlimited had concerns about thermal pollution, so they are proposing additional plantings to shade the basin.

Mitigation

Salling said, “Typically when there is a loss of wetlands, there is mitigation. Previous plans did show an added wetland, which is now being used for another purpose.”

Olsen acknowledged that the 2010 technology park plans did have creation, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands, as well as removal of debris from the wetlands. However, since the road from that plan was already constructed, and had about 8,000 square feet of wetland impacts, the rest of the 2010 impacts are not being done.

Danzer reiterated the plans before are different than what is proposed today.

“There are other opportunities for mitigation if the commission feels that we need an additional one. One of them, which is simple, is basically the weeding out of invasive species wherever we can,” Danzer said.

He also mentioned they can create canopy coverage on-site to prevent higher temperature waters from going into Deep Brook.

Danzer then went over the Inland Wetland Regulations “Criteria for Decision,” Regulation 10.2(d)(3) about how mitigation does not just need to be wetland creation; it can be avoidance, restoration, and enhancement.

After some discussion, Salling said, “Based on the comments, Mr Danzer … I would like you to think about all the options and things that you mentioned and come back next week with [mitigation] suggestions.”

Commission Input

Horch put together four pages of questions and comments for the applicant to address, which are pages 118 to 121 in the Meeting Minutes. Edwards said they will have answers for her by the next meeting.

In summary, she stated, “Based on the additional information that needs to be provided by the applicant to address my concerns, I think this project should be peer reviewed by another engineering firm to make sure the calculations and drawings are accurate. It’s critical that the design be coordinated and provide the best protection for the on-site and off-site inland wetland system as well as Deep Brook. This includes construction and post-construction.”

The audience members at the meeting applauded Horch after she was done speaking.

Ferris inquired if fertilizers are going to be used. Popp answered that no fertilizers would be used along the perimeter of the site or near the access roads, but fertilizers would “possibly” be used in lawn areas at the center of the site.

Ferris also requested models regarding the storm water flow, as well as a documented scientific study confirming there will be no negative impacts regarding thermal pollution. Edwards said they can work on both.

Maguire expressed concerns about the storm water basin, specifically capacity and mitigation conflicts; thermal pollution from water runoff; and the project’s impervious surfaces.

Public Participation

Sandy Hook resident Joe Hovious spoke on behalf of Mike Fatse, Newtown resident and president of Trout Unlimited Candlewood Valley, who submitted a letter. The letter stated concerns for the project’s impact on Deep Brook and the Pootatuck River.

Specific concerns were “1. Thermal effects of summer thunderstorms falling on extremely hot parking surfaces which can significantly raise water temperatures to lethal levels for fish and aquatic insects in a matter of minutes. 2. The disturbance of the property and the effects of sediment, which will find its way into Deep Brook, cover the stream bed, thus making natural reproduction extremely difficult due to the lack of available gravel beds that are currently down stream of the project. 3. The potential for contaminated runoff during all seasons which could include sand, road oils, and salt/chemicals used during winter for snow removal. 4. Overall impact and negative effects on the health of Deep Brook and the Pootatuck River below the project.”

Sandy Hook resident Neil Baldino, who is vice president of Trout Unlimited Candlewood Valley, gave a 25-slide PowerPoint presentation titled, “Deep Brook Watercourse — A High-Quality Aquifer” and highlighted why it is special. It is attached in the meeting minutes.

The last person able to speak during the public hearing, due to the meeting’s time restraint, was Sherman resident Michael Humphreys, who also spoke on behalf of Trout Unlimited. He brought up potential impacts the project would have on the wild trout habitat and Deep Brook, based on his professional experience.

IWC will continue the public hearing for Application IW #23-04 by Teton Capital Company at its next meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 12, at 7:30 pm, in the Newtown Municipal Center’s Council Chambers.

The applicant is also anticipated to present a Site Development Plan to the P&Z during a public hearing on Thursday, April 6.

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