Hook & Ladder—

Firehouse Proposal Promoted, But Opposition Remains

By Andrew Gorosko

At a November 10 Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) public hearing, representatives of Newtown Hook & Ladder Company, Inc, #1, explained that the volunteer fire company’s proposal to build a firehouse at 12 Sugar Street (Route 302) would pose minimal environmental problems, but a man who lives across the street from the site charged that placing a firehouse there would cause unacceptable environmental harm.

The fire company is seeking a wetlands/watercourses protection permit for a proposed two-story, 11,414-square-foot firehouse at 12 Sugar Street to replace the aging, deteriorated town-owned firehouse at 45 Main Street, behind Edmond Town Hall, which is used by Hook & Ladder.

IWC members closed the public hearing on November 10, but did not act on the application. It was the fourth IWC public hearing held on the proposal. Discussion and IWC action on the project is expected an upcoming IWC session.

The Borough Zoning Commission (BZC) is scheduled to resume its public hearing on the firehouse application when it meets at 7:15 pm Tuesday, November 16, at Town Hall South, 3 Main Street.

Under the firehouse proposal, the Borough of Newtown Land Trust, Inc, and the R. Scudder Smith Family Partnership would donate land for the firehouse project. Mr Smith is the owner/publisher of The Newtown Bee.

At the November 16 IWC session, attorney Christopher Smith, representing Hook & Ladder, told IWC members that the firehouse proposal would involve the filling of some wetlands, but such filling is necessary to use the site for a firehouse. Only a small fraction of the overall wetlands on the site would be filled, he said.

Filling would occur on somewhat less than 5,000 square feet of the site. The firehouse project would cover about one acre of the overall 9.4-acre site.

The undeveloped portion of the site would be environmentally protected by a conservation easement, Attorney Smith said. The soil on the site would be physically capable of supporting the weight of a firehouse, he added. The property has extensive wetlands.

The plans for the firehouse have been modified, as needed, in response to various criticisms during the project’s review process, the attorney said. “We’ve tightened up the plans,” he said.

“We feel very confident that we’re not [adversely] impacting the floodplain,” said civil engineer Chris DeAngelis, representing the fire company.

Special measures could be taken during soil excavation as an environmental safeguard, he said. A retaining wall proposed for the site has been reviewed by experts and endorsed, he added. A licensed arborist would be hired to review the tree-related aspects of the project, he said.

Hook & Ladder President Richard Camejo said that the proposed retaining wall would be structurally sound and would be carefully installed to avoid environmental problems.

Soil scientist Megan Raymond, representing Hook & Ladder, said that the proposed stormwater control system meets applicable regulations.

There would be about 30,000 square feet of impervious surfaces on the site, she said. The project poses no prospects for the thermal pollution of waters downstream of the site, she said.

 There would be a relatively small amount of wetlands physically disturbed on the site in relation to the overall scope of the wetlands there, she said. “The proposed project is not going to cause a significant adverse impact on the on-site wetlands,” she said.

Opposition

But Francois de Brantes of 13 Sugar Street views the firehouse proposal much differently.

“This project will result in the removal of some wetlands…It will damage and alter an exiting watercourse,” he said.

The firehouse project has defective plans, he added.

“The construction project would require various earthmoving on the property, the consequences of which are unclear, he said.

“This destruction of wetlands is not mitigated,” Mr de Brantes said, adding that the applicant’s proposal to plant some shrubbery on the site does not amount to “mitigation” for the loss of wetlands.

Mr de Brantes challenged the applicant’s assertions that the project would not cause environmental damage, saying that the extent of the excavation which would be needed to install the proposed retaining wall is unclear.

“There will be lasting damage and disruption to the wetlands…There will be an irreversible loss of wetlands,” he said.

Mr deBrantes said that it is not necessary to build a firehouse at the 12 Sugar Street site, that such a project could be constructed elsewhere.

He asked the IWC to reject the proposal, charging that it has technical flaws and would cause permanent environmental damage.

Mark DeWolfe, a Hook & Ladder member, told IWC members that he does not know of a better use of a property with wetlands than constructing a firehouse that would benefit the public at large in terms of public safety.

Mr DeWolfe said that Hook & Ladder firefighters regularly protect wetlands on their emergency calls when they perform cleanups of toxic substances that might otherwise find their way into wetlands.

In view of various modifications that the applicant has recently made to the firehouse plans, IWC member Philip Kotch asked that the IWC’s environmental consultant, Land-Tech Consultants, Inc, of Southbury, consider the revised plans in reviewing the advisability of the construction proposal.

That consultant has raised environmental concerns about the initial version of  the proposal.