Neighbors at public hearing press developer on wetlands, drainage for proposed Field Street 11‑lot subdivision

An extended public hearing on a proposed 11‑lot subdivision on Field Street drew multiple residents to the Naugatuck Inland Wetlands Commission on Nov. 5, where neighbors urged the developer and town staff to address chronic flooding, the presence of vernal pools and how homeowner‑maintained stormwater chambers will be enforced.

David Napus, a licensed professional engineer representing Total Construction, told the commission the revised plan pulls house foundations outside the 100‑foot upland review area and relies on individual underground infiltration/detention chambers sized to meet the town’s stated standard and to capture runoff for storms up to the 100‑year event. "Each of those detention systems will be responsibility of the individual homeowners to maintain," Napus said, adding the systems are fed primarily by roof leaders and were designed to meet the required 1.33‑inch storage per impervious area.

But the neighborhood response was pointed. "There's a pretty good‑size water problem that exists in this area that's just coming down the hill," said Tom Sullivan, of 122 Field Street, who brought photographs and said a lot adjacent to his house routinely pools and reaches foundation level. "I have some pictures so that you could see that," he told the commission, urging a new soil/wetland inspection to update flagging that the attendees said dated back 15 years.

Nadia Wilcox, of 7 East Drive, said springs and year‑round flows make the site "definitely wetlands," and described frozen driveways and standing water on Field Street in winter. "It's a very active easement and I'm responsible for it," Wilcox said, stressing the potential liability for neighbors if drainage patterns change after development.

Other residents described long‑running problems including flows that have damaged driveways and cracked foundations and questioned whether 11 homeowners can be relied upon to perform the inspections and clearing the applicant says will be required in deed restrictions and maintenance agreements. "Who is going to check these?" asked Rob Dat, of 37 Field Street. Staff and the applicant said enforcement would fall to land‑use staff and that many systems are self‑revealing when they begin to pond, but both acknowledged town staffing and the loss of some homeowners' associations over time create enforcement challenges.

Commissioners pressed the applicant for clearer mapping and plan detail: some early plan sheets showed illustrative sheds and accessory structures, and commissioners said shed locations should be removed or explicitly labeled because any structures ultimately sited within the 100‑foot review area would require a separate wetlands filing. The commission also asked the applicant to place permanent markers and signs on the upslope edge of the conserved/wetland areas and to provide clearer dimensions for the shown accessory features.

Residents pressed for a new, contemporaneous delineation in the spring to confirm the presence of vernal pools where they have been observed, and staff agreed to request a follow‑up letter from the project's soil scientist describing whether the feature meets the technical definition of a vernal pool. Multiple speakers requested that the town investigate whether off‑site sources — roadway drainage or springs higher in the watershed — are contributing to the flooding they see in backyards; staff recommended those concerns be raised with the appropriate town departments (planning/public works) that handle road and stormwater infrastructure beyond the subdivision boundaries.

The hearing was continued to the commission’s next meeting on Dec. 3, 2025, at 6:45 p.m., when the commission will accept additional materials requested from the applicant (a soils report and finalized drainage details) and consider the testimony and updated delineation. The applicant also was reminded that planning and zoning bodies will separately consider the subdivision and any zoning special permits for interior lots.

What happens next: the commission requested the applicant provide the missing soils report, clarify the maintenance language that will be recorded on deeds, show exact locations and dimensions for any proposed accessory structures on plans, and obtain a written letter from the soil scientist addressing the vernal‑pool question.