Norwalk council designates detention area, denies resident request to replant trees

Norwalk City Council voted June 5 to officially designate a disputed parcel as a stormwater detention area and to decline a resident’s request to replant trees within the basin.

Resident Todd Bordenaro asked the council to let him replant trees he had previously installed and to relocate three surviving trees to a nearby gap to screen his yard. “My name is Todd Bordenaro, and I live at 102 Braebelands Circle,” Bordenaro said, explaining he acquired and planted the trees at his own expense and wants to repurpose those that remain rather than see them removed. He asked the city to allow replanting or to let parks staff repurpose the trees where they would not interfere with stormwater functions.

City engineering and parks staff warned that the detention basin and the dam toes are not suitable for trees. City staff pointed to prior mapping showing an approved planting area outside the hundred‑year floodplain and said the trees had been planted in the flood‑plain and on or near dam structure. “If you’re in the hundred‑year flood plain, [trees] are not supposed to be in there,” a staff member said, arguing trees could compromise the detention basin and make maintenance difficult. Staff recommended restricting planting to a green area shown in the packet or identifying a separate red area on city property outside easements where trees could be placed without interfering with utilities or dam access.

Councilor Livingston moved, and Councilor Meineke seconded, a motion to officially designate the parcel as a stormwater detention area so the property’s status is clear. The motion carried on roll call. Council then discussed but did not adopt a motion to allow Bordenaro to plant within the stormwater utility area; after debate members indicated the city would not permit plantings inside the detention basin. Council and staff advised Bordenaro that parks or public works could help repurpose trees into an acceptable area outside easements or that he could transplant them to his private yard at his expense.

Councilors and staff also emphasized maintenance and liability questions. Parks staff said the city typically maintains natural areas on a complaint basis and that planting trees in areas that require regular utility access or dam maintenance is not appropriate. Public works recommended that any planting proposals be overlaid with utility easement data before approval.

The council’s action clarifies the parcel’s official function and leaves the prospect of compensatory screening or relocation to a later staff‑directed solution: staff will identify acceptable locations outside easements where repurposed trees could go, and the resident may also remove and replant the trees on his own property, at his own cost. The resident thanked the council for allowing time to present his plan and for staff’s engagement.

What’s next: Staff follow‑up to map easements and identify off‑easement locations for potential planting and to confirm whether parks will perform relocation work or require the resident to pay for removal and replanting.