Environmental Issues On Firehouse Site Scrutinized

By John Voket

An engineer and scientist who are consulting on the proposed Newtown Hook & Ladder headquarters project spent close to an hour October 13 reviewing some of the finer revision to the project plans.

Engineer Chris DeAngelis and wetlands specialist Megan Raymond took turns presenting new or refined aspects of the project to a full council chamber and the Inland Wetlands Commission, indicating that many of the revisions came in response to concerns by opponents of the project.

Saying his firm “took to heart” a number of concerns or requests for clarifications, Mr DeAngelis flipped through a series of plans revealing sight line elevations, landscaping and infrastructure specifics, some of which he said go substantially above and beyond what state and local environmental protection guidelines demand.

The consultants, who are both working on behalf of Newtown Hook & Ladder, the developers, concurred that the footprint of the project, once completed, would impact just one-and-a-half percent of the entire wetlands on two soon-to-be-combined parcels, one donated by the Borough of Newtown Land Trust, Inc, and the other by the R. Scudder Smith Family Partnership.

Mr Smith is the owner and publisher of The Newtown Bee.

“The project will not impact the overall quality, hydrology, or the vegetative [integrity] of the wetlands,” Mr DeAngelis told the commission.

Under questioning by commission Vice Chair Sharon Salling, who chaired this session, Ms Raymond assured that the relatively confined development on what would eventually be a 9.4-acre site would also not create “thermal pollution,” rising the temperature of the adjacent water course, even when the area was subject to substantial runoff from heavy rains or other precipitation.

A substantial part of Mr DeAngelis’s portion of the presentation focused on what he described as “an extensive stormwater retention system,” which incorporates a series of three water filtration chambers and then into a catchment basin. Only when the successive filling and topping off of all successive vessels occurs — during periods of sudden intense or seasonal runoff — would the water then begin to discharge into the adjacent wetlands.

Clarifying a question from commissioner Mary Curran, Mr DeAngelis explained that the stormwater system is secondary to an on-site drainage system that would act to catch and filter any water or other liquids that might come from the apparatus parked within the proposed station.

Any such interior runoff would travel through shallow troughs or drains, through a supplemental required filtration system, before discharge into the sanitary sewer system serving the facility.

Another matter of contention came after fine details about a retaining wall were discussed. That wall, constructed from one of a number of available interlocking systems, would in effect shape and contain the fill that would be trucked into the site to create a level and supportive surface on which to construct the building and surrounding parking and driveway areas.

Mr DeAngelis indicated that at its top height, the wall would be between 7.5 and 8 feet high, but would apparently only rise up a few feet from the existing water course that runs behind the proposed site. Commissioner Philip Kotch was particularly interested in seeing even finer detail about the wall construction and engineering.

His concern was echoed a short time later by Alan Shepard, an engineer who resides in the neighboring home at 1 Glover Avenue. Referring to plans he brought to the hearing, Mr Shepard indicated to the commissioners that all 325 running feet of retention wall would be constructed on or in designated wetlands.

He pointed out that based on the earlier presentation, “There is not a clear understanding of where the wall is in relation to the wetlands.” With that in mind, he urged the commission to study detailed “shop drawings” of the wall before rendering any decision on the development.

“Just follow the wetlands regulations and have the wall design looked at by a structural engineer,” he concluded.

Resident Francois de Brantes of 13 Sugar Street, which lies across the road from 12 Sugar Street, returned to the second hearing Wednesday evening with three aerial photos that were modified to illustrate the proposed development’s potential encroachment to the adjacent wetlands, versus two optional uses, which would be constructing a residential home on the lot or leaving it alone.

“It’s preposterous to say we have a lot of land here, don’t worry about it” Mr de Brantes said in rebuttal to the earlier assertion about the one-and-a-half percent encroachment. “The owners have made a conscious choice to destroy the wetlands.”

Local attorney Robert Hall, who also resides in the area of the proposed fire station, instead implored the commission to balance the impact on the wetlands to the community benefits the project will deliver. At several points, Ms Salling indicated Mr Hall’s comments were out of line because they involved advocacy for the project versus strict commentary on the commission’s purview, but she allowed him to wrap up his statement.

“It’s clear to me the need [for the new fire headquarters] is present,” Mr Hall said. “It’s clear there is damage to the wetlands. I’m saying the need outweighs the damage.”

Attorney Catherine Cuggino of the Chipman, Mazzucco, Land & Pennarola law firm of Danbury, representing Mr de Brantes, said her client’s engineering expert would reserve comment until the next scheduled hearing on the matter, to allow time to review the latest plan revisions and additions.

Ms Salling told The Bee prior to the hearing that at least one or more continuations would occur before the project went to a vote, but the next meeting was not yet scheduled.