To the Editor:

The process seems so tilted, that it might be broken.

Last week, the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) held their final public hearing on the proposal to build 117 cluster homes on Castle Hill in and among wetlands and vernal pools, and upslope from neighboring properties, including the NFA’s Nettleton Preserve, a project the applicant characterizes as “low impact development” (LID).

Characterizing this plan as LID is an insult to the public’s intelligence. Any development that involved moving 3,500 dump truck loads of earth across town roads should automatically trigger an extra level of scrutiny and review. But it didn’t. So the public demanded an independent 3rd party review of the proposed engineering plans and potential wetlands impacts. In response, the IWC, at the town’s recommendation, required a 3rd party review of just the engineering portion and the reviewer the town chose was quick to rubber stamp the applicant’s plans, without ever attending a public hearing or the opportunity for the public or the commission to ask them any questions.

The Castle Hill neighbors weren’t satisfied with the town’s choice of reviewer or the limited scope of the review, so they hired an expert in Low Impact Development to review everything, at their own expense. Their engineer identified significant problems, including non-compliance with state stormwater management guidelines that will cause significant erosion and pollution on-site and downstream, including an almost 50% increase in stormwater runoff and increased pollutant loads onto the Nettleton Preserve. This professional LID expert shared his findings and concerns at the hearing last week, as did a representative from the Forest Association. Their testimony seemed to be ignored however, with not a single question posed by the IWC or Land Use staff. The only acknowledgement came from the applicant’s hired guns, who, believe it or not, stated that the state stormwater management guidelines are just guidelines and such, it’s up to the discretion of qualified professionals such as themselves to decide if their own plans are good enough!

Hopefully, the IWC has recognized how irresponsible this plan was from the start, and will deny the incomplete and out-of-compliance application at their March 27th meeting.

It’s bad enough that taxpayers had to dig into their own pockets to conduct a thorough, comprehensive review in defense of their property, quality of life and our wildlife. But if the commission and town employees were to ignore the significant concerns the neighbor’s engineer revealed, and default to the “professional opinions” of those on the developer’s payroll, including a 3rd party reviewer who never showed up in public, it would be a shameful, insulting disservice to future of the entire town.

Dave Ackert

Sandy Hook