New Canaan IWC approves permit for shared driveway, stormwater and wetland restoration at Brookwood Lane

The New Canaan Inland Wetlands Commission voted unanimously April (public hearing closed) to approve an inland wetlands permit for work tied to a proposed nine‑lot subdivision at 82 Brookwood Lane, authorizing construction of a common driveway, stormwater best‑management practices and wetland restoration work while placing eight special conditions on the permit, including preconstruction meetings, a phasing plan and long‑term stormwater maintenance requirements.

The commission’s approval followed a contested public hearing in which intervenors argued the commission must evaluate whether the proposal may have a “significant impact” and must consider “inevitable” future development of the individual lots. The intervenors presented two alternative site layouts (one by SC Miner for seven houses and a separate six‑house plan prepared by landscape designer Lindsay Byrne) intended to eliminate or reduce the proposed shared driveway. Attorney Gelderman, the town attorney, and the applicant’s experts told the commission the body should determine whether the proposed regulated activity is likely to have an adverse impact on wetlands and that feasible and prudent alternatives are considered only if an adverse impact is found.

Why it matters: the permit authorizes a common infrastructure package (driveway, utilities, stormwater controls and wetland mitigation) that the applicant and intervenors agreed is central to how the nine lots would be accessed. The commission’s decision clears the immediate path for the applicant to proceed with the infrastructure review and to later present individual lot development plans to Planning & Zoning.

Applicant presentation and expert findings

Applicant counsel (Attorney Sabotakis) and project engineers described a plan that, the applicant said, avoids any wetland elimination and expands wetland restoration and daylighting of a piped stream. Engineer DeAndrea said the design uses redundant controls (micro‑pools, infiltration systems and nutrient uptake basins) and that the scheme reduces post‑development runoff volume and controls peak flows to no greater than existing conditions. Wetland scientist Bill Kenny testified it is his professional opinion the proposal will not cause an adverse impact to inland wetlands or watercourses and that the project will improve wetland function, restore roughly 17,700 square feet of wetlands and expand the planted/enhanced area to roughly 61,600 square feet.

Intervenors’ case and alternatives

Intervenors Rob Freeman and Spencer Grimes argued the commission should treat the application as a matter that may have a “significant impact” and therefore evaluate feasible and prudent alternatives, including eliminating the shared driveway and reducing the number of lots. Freeman and Grimes said the regulations require consideration of impacts from activities that are “inevitable” consequences of the proposed work and that two alternative layouts they submitted would avoid the shared driveway and reduce tree removal. Landscape designer Lindsay Byrne explained her alternative would retain the existing driveway, route new access from Brookwood Lane for several lots, and minimize wetland disturbance. Several neighbors, including Justin Lloyd and Patrick Donovan, and John Herron (president of the New Canaan Field Club) testified about concerns for tree loss, increased impervious surface, and downstream flooding.

Town attorney and legal framing

Town Attorney Gelderman advised the commission the controlling legal standard after a public hearing is whether the activity is likely to have an adverse impact on wetlands and watercourses and that a finding of “may” have an impact is only used to decide whether to hold a public hearing. He told the commission that feasible and prudent alternatives are considered only after a finding that the proposed activity is likely to have an adverse impact. He also noted that determinations about future, undefined lot‑level development cannot supply the substantial evidence needed to deny the present application.

Deliberation and conditions

Commissioners who spoke in deliberation described the site’s wetlands as degraded by prior modifications (piping, channelization) and said they found the applicant’s restoration and stormwater measures would improve wetland function. Commissioners asked staff to include special conditions. Director Holland proposed standard but detailed conditions: a preconstruction site meeting; a phasing and construction logistics plan; on‑site oversight by the engineer of record and landscape architect; monthly site‑monitoring reports and after‑storm inspections; a final as‑built survey; and a recorded legal maintenance agreement that names the party responsible for long‑term stormwater maintenance and that transfers with ownership. The commission added a requirement that trees proposed for removal within the upland review area be tagged and that staff be notified before removal.

Votes and next steps

The commission voted unanimously to: (1) close the public hearing; (2) approve application IW‑24‑4382 for the proposed regulated upland activity (shared driveway, utilities and stormwater improvements) subject to the eight special conditions discussed on the record; (3) find that the intervenors did not meet their burden to show the proposed activities were reasonably likely to unreasonably pollute, impair or destroy public trust resources; and (4) submit only the commission’s resolution and findings to the Planning & Zoning Commission (the commission declined to add any additional report items beyond its formal resolution). The applicant may proceed with the permitted infrastructure after satisfying the special conditions; individual lot development will later come back before Planning & Zoning and, where applicable, the Inland Wetlands Commission.

What the commission said it will monitor

Staff and the applicant said the maintenance plan and the homeowners association documents (to be reviewed by Town Counsel and the town engineer) will spell out long‑term inspection and maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater measures. The commission requested interim reporting on restoration plantings during the first three years and a final certification by the engineer and landscape architect that the mitigation and roadway were implemented per the permit.

Ending

The commission closed the hearing and began deliberations at the same meeting, then recessed and later returned to adopt the approval with the conditions and the finding that intervenors had not met their burden. Planning & Zoning will receive the IWC resolution as the subdivision process proceeds; future individual lot work will be reviewed separately.