Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulated Activity Great Pasture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant proposes expanded outdoor storage, wetland mitigation at Great Pasture Road site
Summary
An applicant told Danbury's Environmental Impact Commission the 2 Great Pasture Road plan would add outdoor storage and site work while removing and replacing wetland area under a soil-management plan; commissioners requested reflagging, sample locations and other revisions and tabled the application for more information.
Benjamin Dodo, a licensed professional engineer representing the applicant for 2 Great Pasture Road (Regulated Activity 12282), presented the commission with a site plan that would expand outdoor storage and add a new driveway while modifying on‑site wetlands and floodplain storage.
Dodo said the property currently has about 15,000 square feet of outdoor storage and the proposal would add roughly 66,000 square feet of outdoor storage, add about 650 linear feet of driveway and increase total impervious area from about 31% to an estimated 45% of the 15.6‑acre parcel. He told commissioners the work would remove “approximately 2,900 square feet of wetlands and require 160 cubic yards of flood plain filling” but that the project includes mitigation that would create more wetland area and reduce some flood‑plain fill. “So basically, when it’s all said and done, it’s gonna be better and safer,” Dodo said, adding that a soil‑management plan will govern any disturbance of potentially contaminated soils.
The applicant provided an Environmental Land Use Restriction (ELUR) overlay and a one‑page environmental summary prepared by the project LEP, Paul Tanner of O'Reilly, Talbot & Oaken. The summary reported prior remediation work between 1995 and 2006, identified areas with low PCB concentrations (1–10 mg/kg) beneath the slab and described a prohibition on residential reuse in the ELUR. Dodo said shallow soils will be temporarily disturbed during construction, will be covered by new improvements, and any soil exported from the site must be tested first and sent to an appropriate facility if it exceeds regulatory thresholds.
Soil scientist James McManus reviewed wetland delineation and functions, describing a larger southern wetland system with a perennial watercourse and smaller disturbed wetland pockets in the northwest and northeast corners. McManus said invasive plants are present and recommended targeted invasive removal within the mitigation area; landscape architect Barbara Constable outlined species observed on the sidewalk and said the project team will provide a removal plan for each species.
Commissioners pressed the applicant for quantitative details and requested updates: Commissioner (S6) asked for an overall impervious‑area before/after calculation; staff and the applicant agreed to add sample locations, show where prior testing occurred on the plan, and reflag portions of the northwest corner where boundary confusion exists. Commissioners also sought confirmation that detention and stormwater systems would not increase flows to downstream culverts and asked that sequencing be clarified so floodplain compensation and mitigation occur before fill is placed.
The commission did not vote on merits; after the presentation commissioners moved to table Regulated Activity 12282 to the next regular meeting and requested revised plans, a reflagging of the northwest corner by the LEP, soil/sample locations shown on plan sheets, the invasive‑species removal plan and a draft soil‑management plan that will be coordinated with Connecticut DEEP.
