Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers describe 20‑unit East Rutland Road proposal; agency requests engineering clarifications and turtle protections
Summary
A proposal for a 20‑unit affordable housing project at 83 East Rutland Road drew questions about stormwater, snow storage and protections for an off‑site wetland and eastern box turtle; the agency received the application and asked the applicant for further engineering and operational detail.
The Milford Inland Wetlands Agency on June 18 received an application (IW250029) for a 20‑unit 8‑30g affordable housing development at 83 East Rutland Road that includes grading and stormwater work within 150 feet of an off‑site wetland in the Wepawaga River watershed.
Mary Rose, staff, told the agency the site has no on‑site wetlands but off‑site wetlands are roughly 50 feet to the rear; on the submitted plans the closest silt fencing is 39 feet from the wetland edge, grading and a landscaping wall 41 feet away, the parking edge 49 feet away, the nearest building 55 feet away, and the stormwater system about 80 feet away. She also reported the natural diversity database flagged the eastern box turtle on nearby land and that the applicant proposes Connecticut DEEP turtle protection protocols.
Why it matters: the project alters upland review areas near an off‑site wetland, and commissioners pressed for engineering details on stormwater infiltration near bedrock, an operational snowstock plan and confirmation of turtle protection measures.
Ron Wassmer, the applicant’s engineer representing Smiles Property LLC, described a plan for townhouses (referred to in materials as “22‑bedroom townhouses” and described orally as a 20‑unit proposal), two parking spaces per unit (51 spaces provided vs. an indicated requirement of 40), and on‑site infiltration using two gallery systems and water quality chambers designed to attenuate a 100‑year storm. He told the agency the design intends to retain and infiltrate stormwater on site rather than connect to municipal drainage systems.
Wetland biologist Matthew Popp said the existing chain‑link fence along the northern property line likely deters turtle movement onto the lot but noted fallen trees have breached the fence in places. Popp recommended a small extension of a proposed landscaping/retaining wall — a low, loose‑boulder addition about a foot high extending 10–15 feet to join an existing boulder row — to improve a wildlife barrier to the off‑site wetland.
Commissioners and staff asked for additional materials: the city engineer requested a hydrology report and an operational plan for snow stockpiling and removal; design engineers were asked to review infiltration rates given local bedrock; and Mary Rose said any planting or turf/seed revisions should be shown on plan sheets or conditioned if not currently included. The agency did not vote to approve or deny the application; staff said the matter will return after the applicant addresses engineering comments and provides the requested plans.
