“We Wholeheartedly Disagree:” IWC Hears Debate Over School Sisters Project’s Impacts, Alternatives

Advocates and opponents of the proposed redevelopment of the former School Sisters of Notre Dame property on Belden Hill Rd. debated the project’s impact on nearby wetlands and answered probing questions from members of the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) during a freewheeling, nearly three-hour public hearing on Thursday, May 14 that set the stage for the IWC’s deliberations at its next meeting.

Engineering experts from Tighe & Bond, hired by the IWC to independently review the stormwater plan submitted by developer Hines SL Wilton Associates LP, called the design “forward-thinking” and said it would not adversely affect the 10 acres of woodland on the 38-acre site proposed for a 280-unit senior living community.

Attorney Perley Grimes Jr. and Rema Ecological Services, representing intervenor Kari Roberts — an abutting neighbor who is challenging the project — countered that Hines has not demonstrated that the proposed redevelopment will not disrupt the wetland’s ecosystem, and therefore the IWC is obligated to consider “feasible and prudent alternatives.” [Editor’s note: Roberts, a member of Wilton’s Board of Finance, is participating in the proceeding as a private property owner, not as a Town official.]

Throughout the months-long public hearing process, Redniss & Mead, the land engineers that developed the stormwater management plan for Hines, have maintained that their plan — which incorporates underground infiltration systems, a rain garden, permeable pavers, invasive species management, and buffer zones — will provide an “incremental net benefit” to the wetlands.

With the public hearing now closed, it will be up to the IWC to weigh the extensive evidence submitted by all three parties and decide who is right.

Independent Reviewers Emphasize Regular Maintenance, Inspections

Joe Canas, a principal engineer with Tighe & Bond, said that Redniss & Mead has responded to all of the questions it raised about the project’s stormwater management, sediment erosion control and wetland impacts — some of which were raised in public comments received by the IWC during the public hearing process.

“We can say that we do not believe that the application will have a significant impact on the wetlands, an adverse impact on the wetlands, I should say,” Canas concluded.

Tighe & Bond recommended that the IWC impose several conditions of approval on Hines to ensure the stormwater management system is maintained in good working order. These include filing the stormwater system’s operations and maintenance plan with the city’s land records and with the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (CT DEEP), keeping maintenance records on site for inspection by the town, and providing the town with electronic copies of regular inspection reports.

Tighe & Bond wetlands scientist Rick Canavan further recommended that Hines be required to monitor the plantings in the site’s two buffer zones designed to prevent the spread of invasive plants and report annually to the IWC on their condition.

Canas also addressed concerns raised in the public comments about the potential for contamination by stormwater runoff from the proposed underground garage on groundwater. He explained that DEEP policy is to channel roof runoff into storm drains, while internal runoff — which is likely to have more contaminants such as leaking motor oil and hydraulic fluids — is considered industrial or processed wastewater and is directed to the sanitary sewer system, resulting in little to no effect on groundwater or the wetlands. Furthermore, drainage onto Belden Hill Rd. should be significantly reduced by the reduction in impervious surface area and the number of curb cuts.

With regard to public comments expressing concern about potential impact of the project on endangered species, Canavan said that he believed the risks were low because there is no evidence of endangered species within the wetland boundaries, the areas of proposed work have been developed already, and endangered species on adjacent properties are unlikely to migrate to the wetland due to existing barriers such as roads.

Public Comments Nearly Evenly Split Between Support, Opposition

Eleven Wilton residents spoke during the public hearing, six in favor of the proposal and five opposed to it or urging additional surveys of potential wildlife impacts before coming to a decision.

John Brady of 302 Belden Hill Rd. pointed out that Wilton’s water treatment capacity is “severely limited” and the town is very close to its maximum capacity. “Every gallon counts,” he said.

Alissa Brady of 302 Belden Hill Rd. and Nicki LaMonica of 296 Belden Hill Rd. supported the idea of additional studies to determine the potential impact of lighting and to definitively establish whether endangered species are present in the wetland.

Ted Young of 85 Highfield Rd. said the Hines proposal offered “a ton of benefits” to the neighborhood, and given the apparent lack of adverse impact on the wetland was “clearly an improvement” for the property. Allan Kleban of 20 River Ridge Ln. said he was “particularly impressed by the fact that the improvements on the property will make an existing situation better.”

David Rintoul of 358 Belden Hill Rd., who supports the Hines proposal, argued that “the science of the Hines people is sound” and that the need for alternative designs does not arise if the IWC finds that the proposal does not have an adverse impact on the wetland.

Counsel Clarifies Requirement for “Feasible and Prudent Alternatives”

During the public hearing process, Grimes argued that the IWC is legally required to consider “feasible and prudent alternatives” to the Hines proposal, including a lower density of residential units. Grimes claimed Redniss & Mead did not offer any alternatives, while Redniss & Mead countered that its proposal represented the best alternative of several that it had explored prior to applying for the wetland permit.

During the May 14 public hearing, IWC vice chair Frank Simone requested clarification from counsel Pete Gelderman on whether the IWC was obligated to require Hines to provide alternatives should it find the proposal to have no adverse effect on the wetlands.

“When the reason for a public hearing is that [a proposal] may have a significant impact” — as in this case — “the statute says that a feasible and prudent alternative should be explored,” Gelderman explained. “However, the feasible and prudent alternative has to reduce or eliminate a significant adverse impact. So, if there’s no adverse impact to the wetlands through a project, then feasible and prudent alternatives are irrelevant or not necessary because you can’t lessen no impact.”

“Clearly a building of this sort has an impact on the wetlands. It has positive and negatives. And what I understand our experts to have told us is that on balance, they think that the application will not result in an adverse impact,” said commissioner Janis Sposato. “That doesn’t mean there couldn’t be a better situation.”

“It’s not up to an applicant to improve a situation,” Gelderman said. “There’s no obligation for an applicant to improve an existing situation. The standard is whether or not … the activity is creating [an] adverse impact, or will have an adverse impact, on wetlands or watercourses. So, if you make a determination that there is no adverse impact, then there’s no feasible and prudent alternative that can reduce anything below zero.”

Intervenor Stresses Disruptions to Wetland as Ground for Requiring Alternatives

The intervenor’s argument for requiring an alternative hinges on whether the proposed stormwater management system would actually disrupt and harm the wetland, rather than help restore it. George Logan, a senior ecologist with Rema Ecological Services, said the “fundamental question” facing the IWC is whether the applicant has successfully demonstrated that the proposed system will preserve the “existing hydrologic regime presently … sustaining the wetland and the watercourse system.”

Logan said that the answer to that question was “a resounding no” because the proposed system would divert rainwater that is needed to periodically refresh the wetland, and Redniss & Mead had not performed sufficient groundwater monitoring to buttress its claim that the design will restore and improve the wetland.

“At the end of this long process, the central issue identified by us … from the very, very beginning remains unresolved and, if I can be bold enough, ignored, and hopefully not on purpose,” Logan said.

Grimes argued that the applicant has failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that the proposed stormwater management plan is “the only alternative plan of development that is both feasible and prudent,” and therefore the IWC was required by statute to consider alternatives that could include fewer units, a new design with single-family units, or a smaller overall project.

Grimes noted that, in addition to seeking the wetlands permit, the applicant will also be applying to Wilton’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) for exemptions from the building density limits in the residential zone in which the parcel is located. He argued that granting the wetland permit before the zone change is approved would be “inappropriate” and that the applicant should obtain the zone change first.

“Some Change is Good”

Craig Flaherty, senior engineer and principal at Redniss & Mead, took strong exception to Logan’s and Grimes’ claims, noting that the proposed stormwater management system follows the current state Stormwater Quality Manual, significantly reduces the amount of untreated surface area on the property, and safely channels and filters contaminated water away from the wetland area behind the developed portion of the property.

“The basic premise of … Mr. Logan’s argument is that we are reducing the water in the ditched channels and increasing the groundwater inputs, and that’s a change, and all change is bad,” Flaherty said. “That’s where we disagree wholeheartedly with the premise of the argument. Some change is good.”

Flaherty disagreed strongly with Logan’s argument that the diversion of stormwater from the wetland would be a net negative for the wetland.

“We wholeheartedly disagree with the basic premise of the argument,” he said. “We are not ignoring it. We disagree with it. And the record shows that your peer-review engineer [Tighe & Bond] disagrees with it as well.”

Flaherty also took exception to Grimes’ claim that Redniss & Mead did not provide an alternatives analysis, saying that rather than relying on “some imagined conversation that we had during the first hearing” he would “let the … record speak for itself” that alternatives were presented. For example, Hines looked at surface parking but opted for an underground garage even though it was more expensive because it would mean less impervious surface. Likewise, they had considered leaving the existing drainpipe into the pond behind the developed portion of the property, but opted for an open watercourse.

“In my professional opinion, the proposed plan is not reasonably likely to unreasonably pollute, impair, or destroy the public trust in the inland wetlands or watercourses on or adjacent to the site,” Flaherty said. “And that’s my final testimony.”

Responding to Grimes’ argument that the zoning change should occur before the IWC can grant the wetland permit, attorney Lisa Feinberg, representing Hines, called it a “red herring” and a “distraction,” saying that P&Z would not entertain an application without a prior IWC permit.

“When complete, the naturalized areas on the site will increase by 1.7 acres,” Feinberg said. “When complete, the site will retain and enhance 18 acres of wooded wetland and upland. That’s equivalent to roughly half of the site. The project will result in restoring the drained wetlands hydrology, removing and controlling invasive species, and enhancing wildlife habitat.”

Feinberg concluded by saying Hines believes the proposal is environmentally sensitive and economically feasible, follows the historic use of the site, will help provide housing for the town’s aging residents, and is in accordance with Wilton’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD).

Due to the lateness of the hour after the closing of the public hearing, IWC chair Jason Terry tabled the scheduled discussion and vote on the application until the commission’s next meeting on Thursday, May 28.