38-Lot Subdivision—

Residents And Engineer Raise Issues Over Sherman Woods 

By Andrew Gorosko

Residents who are upset at the prospect of the 38-house Sherman Woods subdivision being built on agricultural land in their neighborhood are registering their complaints about the project with the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC), which is reviewing the proposal in terms of wetlands and watercourses protection for the 158-acre site off Sherman Street in Sandy Hook.

Also, a town-sponsored technical review of the construction proposal has found that in its current configuration, the project would pose a high probability of damage to wetlands and watercourses, especially in terms of long-term adverse effects on water quality and the shape of stream channels on the site.

IWC members conducted the second segment of an ongoing public hearing on Sherman Woods on June 24, fielding a range of comments from residents concerned that the construction project would adversely affect the area. Sherman Woods is the largest residential subdivision proposed for town in nearly a decade.

William H. Joyce of Shepard Hill Road is the developer. In 2008, Mr Joyce acquired more than 158 acres for the project from its previous owners at a price of $4.6 million, according to town land records.

Some of the site lies in the town’s environmentally sensitive Aquifer Protection District (APD), an overlay zone located above the Pootatuck Aquifer, which is the underground water source for two local public water supplies. The scenic site contains wooded areas and rolling open meadows. Cattle are raised on the property.

The Sherman Woods site lies in the area surrounded by Berkshire Road, Sugarloaf Road, Sherman Street, Still Hill Road, and Toddy Hill Road. New streets serving the project would intersect with Toddy Hill Road and Still Hill Road. The developer proposes constructing about 3,550 linear feet of new roadways on the site. The complex would include 36 new single-family houses, plus two existing houses. Each house would have an individual water well and an individual septic waste disposal system.

A stream, known as Keating Pond Brook, drains south-to-north through the site. That stream courses through an extensive wetlands corridor. The watercourses on the site eventually drain to Curtis Pond. The property holds a five-acre created pond. A major environmental issue facing the applicant would be the preservation of the stream and the pond on the site.

The site would hold 45 acres of open space land that would be left undeveloped. That open space would exist on two tracts, with the bulk of it situated along a wetland corridor adjacent to Keating Pond Brook. Also, the subdivision would hold more than 17 acres protected by conservation easements, or areas where physical changes are prohibited for environmental reasons.

At an initial June 10 public hearing on Sherman Woods, representatives for the developer described the project in detail. Members of the public, who were not allowed to speak on June 10, made their views known on June 24. Residents concerned about the project also have submitted letters to the IWC stating their issues.

IWC Chairman Anne Peters stressed to residents that the IWC has limited scope in reviewing such proposals, being restricted to the protection of wetlands and watercourses. The agency does not consider issues such as traffic and a subdivision’s effects on a neighborhood’s character, she said.

Conservation Commission member Mary Kaley, representing that agency, said the development site is a very valuable property in terms of its natural resources, considering that it is a part of the Pootatuck River Watershed. Ms Kaley urged that the IWC not approve the current proposed version of Sherman Woods.

The site lies within the primary recharge area of the Pootatuck Aquifer, she noted. Water flowing across the site drains into a trout fishery downstream, she added.

“The project impacts must be minimized,” Ms Kaley said.

The Conservation Commission recommends that a program of water quality sampling be conducted as construction is underway to detect any environmental problems, she said. If problems are found, steps should be taken to correct them, she said.

Also, the developer should provide an accessway to a dam on the site, she said. The area proposed for protection by conservation easements should be expanded, she added.

Additionally, the public accessway that would be located at the end of the proposed Hanlon Pond Road to provide walking access to open space areas on the site should be improved to prevent damage to wetlands, she said.

Resident Pam Davis of 25 Sherman Street asked how wetlands on the site would be protected from subdivision residents’ use of household chemicals.

Ms Davis noted that much wildlife has been spotted on the site, such as moose, bears, and foxes.

Resident Richard Boritz of 30 Still Hill Road said he has two water wells on his property.

Mr Boritz asked how the presence of a subdivision would affect a spring in the area in terms of its water quality and its water level. He asked how the project would affect his domestic water supply.

Mr Boritz said he has lived at his home at the edge of a wetland for 13 years. “Preserve that wetland environment,” he said.

Michael Herde of Oxford, of Herde Construction Inc, told IWC members that he would build houses on the Sherman Woods property. Those houses would be energy-efficient, he said.

Resident J. Patrick Bovino of 10 Old Mill Road said the developer is seeking to place as many house as possible on the site. He said that the developer’s proposal to cross a wetland with a new vehicular bridge extending from Still Hill Road would serve as a way to maximize the number of building lots on the site.

There are alternate ways to develop such a site, he said, citing the need to preserve wildlife habitat.

Resident Carole Ando of 98 Berkshire Road said that a location proposed for a building lot along Sherman Street is very wet and is subject to much standing water.

“This is a beautiful piece of land,” Ms Ando said of the overall site. To maximize the number of building lots on the site would have a major adverse effect on the area, she said.

Resident Terrence Ford of 45 Toddy Hill Road said, “The Pootatuck Aquifer is a resource that is in jeopardy if we don’t work to protect it.”

Resident John Reed, Jr, of 18 Sugarloaf Road asked whether sand would be removed from the site and then be sold to subsidize the cost of subdivision construction. Mr Reed noted that the presence of sand acts to purify groundwater in the area.

Letters of Concern

In a June 9 letter to the IWC, Michael and Marianne Brown of 4 Sherman Street urge that an alternative version of Sherman Woods with significantly fewer houses be designed. The Browns raised issues including wetlands protection, the functioning of septic systems, drinking water quality, the prospect of soil erosion, watercourse protection, the presence of vernal pools, and wildlife habitat protection.

In a June 9 letter, Lynn and Sean Remson of 2 Sugarloaf Road raise the issues of wildlife habitat destruction, pollution caused by construction, pollution’s effects on aquatic plants and animals, aquifer contamination, and well water contamination.

Sheep farmer Peter Sepe of 83 Toddy Hill Road also wrote to the IWC.

“We are concerned about the threat to the rural character of our neighborhood by the proposed development,” he wrote.

The project would displace the cattle currently raised on the site, he wrote. The subdivision would cause pollution, traffic, and noise, he added.

Pet dogs that would live at the subdivision would become predators of his sheep, Mr Sepe wrote.

Such a development project would encroach on the habitat of turkeys, otters, and beavers, he wrote. Mr Sepe urged that the IWC not approve Sherman Woods.

 Margo S. Lopez-Cepero of 60 Toddy Hill Road wrote that she is concerned about the prospect of pollution, damage to wetlands, and damage to wildlife. She urged that the proposed number of building lots be significantly reduced.

Timothy Russell of 54 Toddy Hill Road wrote in a June 10 letter that he is concerned about a possible reduced water supply in the area if the subdivision is built and new water wells and drilled for its inhabitants. A reduced water supply could mean that current residents of the area would need to redrill their water wells, he added.

In a June 21 letter to the IWC, Mr Bovino wrote that the developers have not addressed all the watercourses that exist on the site.

Also, Mr Bovino challenged civil engineer Larry Edwards’ June 10 claim that using the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) “cluster housing” regulations to develop the property would be “unworkable.” Mr Bovino wrote that Mr Edwards should substantiate such a claim. Mr Edwards represents the developer.

Mr Bovino said the site could be developed with a different road layout to avoid constructing a vehicular bridge across wetlands near Still Hill Road.

Also, the site would need to have ongoing beaver control to prevent a pond there from increasing in depth and also in area, he said.

At the town’s request, civil engineer Steven Trinkaus of Trinkaus Engineering, LLC, of Southbury, performed an independent engineering review of the Sherman Woods project.

That review focused on site design, erosion, sedimentation, stormwater control, compliance with land use rules, and the possible adverse effects on wetlands and watercourses.

Mr Trinkaus submitted a 17-page technical critique of the project.

Among his many findings, Mr Trinkaus wrote that as currently planned, “Many natural resources on this site are not being adequately protected from the impacts associated with development.”

The conventional site design maximizes the use of upland areas, leaving little protection for wetlands and watercourses, he states.

The site’s central wetlands and watercourses are at potential environmental risk due to the lack of upland areas being permanently protected as open space, he adds.

Many wetland and watercourse features are proposed to lie within building lots, increasing the potential for intrusions by homeowners,  according to Mr Trinkaus.

Mr Trinkaus found that the erosion/sedimentation control plan for the project lacks many details. Also, significant aspects of the erosion control plan do not comply with state standards, he adds. The lack of a proper erosion/sedimentation control plan can result in sediment discharges during construction, according to the engineer.

Mr Trinkaus also found a number of flaws in the developer’s plans for stormwater control.

Some basic calculations analyzing watersheds have been incorrectly prepared, he finds. Off-site areas south of the property have not been included in the stormwater analysis, as should be done to understand the hydrological properties of the site, he adds.

The stormwater control devices proposed for the site have not been designed in accordance with state standards, according to Mr Trinkaus.

Additionally, the engineer finds flaws concerning stormwater runoff volume. Increased runoff discharged into streams on the site would adversely alter the shape of stream channels on the site. Also, the developer has not addressed the effects on water quality caused by nonpoint source pollution, according to Mr Trinkaus.

The IWC’s Sherman Woods public hearing is scheduled to resume at 7:30 pm on Wednesday, July 8, at the town offices at 31 Peck’s Lane. The developer’s staff is expected to discuss Mr Trinkaus’s engineering analysis and residents’ comments at that session.