IWC Rejects Environmental Permit For Firehouse Project

By Andrew Gorosko

Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) members Wednesday evening unanimously rejected issuing Newtown Hook & Ladder Company, Inc, #1, a wetlands/watercourses protection permit for the volunteer fire company’s proposal to build an 11,414-square-foot firehouse at 12 Sugar Street (Route 302).

IWC members rejected granting the environmental permit at a December 8 session, which followed four lengthy public hearings on the project proposed to create new fire station to replace the aging, deteriorated town-owned firehouse used by Hook & Ladder at 45 Main Street, behind Edmond Town Hall.

IWC members cited a long list of environmental concerns as their rationale for turning down the permit request.

Following the IWC’s action, Hook & Ladder members declined comment.

The group of firefighters appeared upset by their failure to secure the permit, which is a necessary element for any such project to move forward. The firefighters are expected to discuss what they should now do in terms of getting modern facilities for the fire company.

The Borough Zoning Commission (BZC) is scheduled to resume a public hearing on the firehouse proposal at 7:15 pm on Monday, December 13, at Town Hall South, 3 Main Street. The borough zoners have said that they would not act on the zoning application for the firehouse project until the IWC had taken some action on the environmental permit application.

Under the proposal to build a firehouse at 12 Sugar Street, 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. About one acre of the wet 9.4-acre site would be developed with a firehouse and related facilities.

First Selectman Pat Llodra said she fully respects the environmental protection role of the IWC, but the town needs to find some solution for Hook & Ladder’s need for new quarters. If the solution is not constructing a firehouse at 12 Sugar Street, then the town must work hard to find some other solution, she said.

Before the IWC’s vote on the permit application, IWC Chairman Anne Peters said, “We have a fairly substantial disturbance of wetlands” proposed for the site, but very little proposed physical mitigation to compensate for that disturbance.

The application proposed the earthen filling of almost 5,000 square feet of wetlands on the property to create suitable conditions for construction.

IWC member Philip Kotch observed, “The commission has been provided with a marked dilemma.”

The firefighters obviously need a new firehouse, but the IWC must address the proposed loss of approximately 5,000 square feet of wetlands, plus the negative effects of construction on a nearby stream, he said.

“This application [adversely] impacts that stream significantly,” he said.

“[The firefighters] tried to build their new firehouse in the wrong place,” Dr Kotch said.

IWC member Mary Curran said the IWC is dedicated to protecting local wetlands.

“An irretrievable loss [of wetlands] is an irretrievable loss,” she said of the firefighters’ proposal to fill in nearly 5,000 square feet of wetlands. The proposal includes scant mitigation for that wetlands loss, she said.

The wet site allows no space for mitigation and provides no room for potential firehouse expansion, she added.

The firehouse proposal held the prospect of significant environmental damage to the area during construction and afterwards, she said.

“I feel that it’s just not an appropriate place to build a firehouse,” she said.

Ms Peters said, “I don’t feel this [firehouse] plan meets the requirements of [IWC] regulations.”

 

Motion to Reject

Dr Kotch then offered a lengthy, detailed motion to deny the fire company’s request for an environmental permit, which was endorsed by all seven IWC members present — Ms Peters, Dr Kotch, Ms Curran, Sharon Salling, Edward Bryan, Katja Pieragostini, and Kristen Hammar.

Generally, that motion stated that the firehouse project would pose a significant adverse effect on wetlands and watercourses.

The motion cited the findings of a technical report on the project provided to the IWC by its environmental consultants, known as Land-Tech Consultants, Inc of Southbury.

In their motion, the IWC members found that the proposed activities would result in “an irreversible and irretrievable loss of wetlands resources.”

The project would not have sufficient physical mitigation at the site to compensate for the loss of wetlands, the IWC members decided.

Also, the IWC found that the project would have negative effects on flood storage capacity, streambank stabilization, wildlife habitat, aquatic food sources, water temperature moderation, nutrient removal, and sediment attenuation.

Firehouse opponent Francois de Brantes of 13 Sugar Street has charged that firehouse construction would mean the removal of some existing wetlands and would result in damage to an existing watercourse in the area.

The firehouse proposal has drawn criticism from some nearby property owners, who charge that the site is in a residential area, which is inappropriate for a firehouse. They say that the area’s congested traffic would be worsened by the presence of firehouse-related traffic, adding that property values would be damaged by the facility’s presence. The opponents lodged those criticisms at a past BZC public hearing.