Inland Wetlands Commission approves Grassy Road housing plan with conditions after split vote

The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission on Feb. 5 approved application 2056, a proposal for two residential units at 45 and 51 Grassy Road, but only after adopting a package of stipulations intended to address conflicting wetland delineations and site‑specific environmental concerns.

Chair Zachary Fisk, who led the special meeting, framed the issue as a records question: "The applicant has not met its burden under the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses regulation," Fisk said in presenting a written finding that the commission needed to weigh two competing wetland delineations entered into the record. He said the applicant declined to extend the timeline for additional study and that the commission must decide based on the existing evidence.

The case turned on two field delineations in the record: the applicant’s soil scientist (referred to in discussion as McManus) and an intervenor’s soil scientist who mapped wetlands closer to the proposed work. Commissioners disputed which delineation should govern the decision and whether human‑altered soils identified on the site retained wetland function.

"We don't know how far it's gonna extend into it," Fisk said of the upland review area under either delineation. "Based on the evidence before us, I do not believe that burden has been met," he added when explaining an initial motion to deny the application.

Several commissioners said the intervenor’s witness had not convinced them. Commissioner Jim Carish said he found the applicant’s soil‑science report "defensible" and was inclined to approve. Commissioner Mike Robinson and others supported requiring the applicant's delineation to be drawn on revised plans and for protections to be incorporated into the project design.

Staff recommended a set of stipulations the commission ultimately included with approval. Director Janet Littlestaff told the commission the applicant should submit engineering materials and reports for review, including "a drainage report confirming the size of the sedimentation chamber in accordance with the Connecticut DEEP stormwater control manual" and "a geotechnical report associated with slope stability." Littlestaff also described monitoring and enforcement steps and noted that detection of groundwater should trigger a stop‑work requirement.

The commission agreed to require revised drawings that reflect the applicant soil scientist’s wetland boundary and the associated upland review area; identified two conservation‑easement areas on the property (northeast and southwest corners) to remain outside excavation; a $20,000 erosion‑control bond; silt fencing limited to the applicant’s property; and post‑excavation slope‑stability monitoring. The chair said the approval is "subject to the following conditions" and that the full list of stipulations would be incorporated into written permit conditions.

Commissioners also voiced neighborhood concerns beyond wetland jurisdiction. Commissioner Danny Massaro highlighted potential traffic, dust and road damage from heavy trucks during construction and urged protections to avoid siltation entering the nearby pond and impacts to nearby residents.

A motion to deny the application was moved and seconded early in deliberations but did not carry after commissioners clarified votes. The commission then considered and passed the approval motion with the stipulations described above; the chair declared the motion carries after verbal voting.

The commission concluded by instructing staff to draft the written decision and permit conditions consistent with the motion. The meeting adjourned immediately after the vote.

What happens next: staff will circulate the written decision and the applicant will be required to submit the specified revised plans and technical reports for engineering review before work is authorized under the permit conditions.