Torrington wetlands hearing over Borghese expansion ends; commission delays decision after neighbors object

The Torrington Inland Wetlands Commission closed a public hearing Sept. 9 on an application by Alan Borghese to expand a manufacturing building and construct an adjacent parking lot at the Torringford/Torrington Street property, but postponed a final decision to the commission's next meeting.

The project, listed in the hearing record as a building expansion and parking-lot construction involving a wetlands impact at an address shown in the file (variously spoken as 2651/265120 Fourth/Torringford Street), would add a 36,000-square-foot addition to a roughly 80,000-square-foot building and construct a new parking area immediately over an existing wetland area, the applicant said.

Commissioners and staff focused on whether the parking footprint represented a feasible and prudent alternative to filling wetlands, the adequacy of mitigation, and whether a professional parking study had been performed. The applicant, Alan Borghese, identified himself as chairman of Borghese Building and Engineering Company and a registered civil engineer and said the parking count was based on an extrapolation of the site's existing parking ratio rather than a separate parking-demand study.

"What I was trying to accomplish in this drawing, we know that the present parking lot for the present use of the building is undersized," Borghese said, adding that he calculated additional spaces by applying the existing ratio to the proposed addition and adding a small buffer. He said the proposed mitigation included a seeded water-quality basin and native facultative wetland plant clusters around the detention basin; he told the commission the mitigation basin totals 1,890 square feet and said the remaining on-site wetland area is about 0.38 acres.

Neighbors and an author of a written comment urged the commission to reject or delay the proposal. The commission read aloud an Aug. 26 letter from Laura J. Sanderson, who said the project would disrupt the neighborhood, cause increased traffic and noise and pose safety risks; the letter also criticized comments by a consultant the writer said appeared biased. Multiple residents testified in person that headlights, noise and encroachment into wooded areas were concerns, though commission staff noted traffic and zoning issues fall under planning and zoning rather than wetlands review.

Commission members discussed options to increase on-site mitigation, including additional plantings along the basin and low-impact development measures within parking islands. Staff and one commissioner noted site constraints — in particular the site's slope and drainage — could limit where additional mitigation is feasible.

The commission's enforcement officer and assistant city planner, Nate Nardi Cyrus, read procedural options on keeping the hearing open: an applicant may request an extension in writing to allow submission of revised plans, usually for a minimum of 35 days and up to 65 days. Borghese told the commission he would not request an extension.

Commissioners then voted to close the public hearing. After closing the hearing, the commission agreed to deliberate and issue a decision at the next regular meeting, giving members additional time to review the record and for one member, Steven Thompson, to complete a review of the prior meeting recording and minutes before participating in the final vote. No permit or final determination was made Sept. 9.

The commission recorded no final permit; staff said any revised plans would have to follow the public hearing procedure and be resubmitted in writing if the applicant sought to reopen the hearing.

Going forward, commissioners asked the applicant to consider whether more mitigation could be added around the water-quality basin and along the pipe outlet, and to evaluate whether a parking configuration with in-island rain gardens or other LID (low-impact development) measures could reduce wetland impacts while meeting the site's parking needs. Borghese said he would look at adjustments but again declined to request the statutory extension to reopen the hearing.

The item will return on the commission's agenda at its next meeting for deliberation and a vote.