Roxbury wetlands hearing continued after experts clash over stormwater treatment for proposed 8‑bedroom house

Roxbury — The Roxbury Inland Wetlands Commission opened a public hearing on Sept. 10 to consider an application by BA Weed We LLC to build an eight‑bedroom dwelling at 65 Minor Bridge Road, including associated grading, a private well and a septic/leaching system. Chair Russ Dorenzo said the commission’s role at the hearing was to listen and collect evidence: “You’re basically like a jury where you’re taking in the information,” he told attendees.

The applicant’s engineering team, represented by Paul Li, described a drainage plan that relies on three underground infiltration/detention gallery systems and other measures to capture runoff from the house, driveway and associated impervious areas. Li said the design had been revised since the initial submission to reduce grading, add a retaining wall and greatly increase the size of the infiltration galleries. He presented calculations showing required water‑quality volumes and the volumes the applicant proposes to provide, and said the systems capture and infiltrate the design water quality volume used in the Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual (2023).

“I can honestly say in my 20 years of practicing I’ve never remotely proposed this level of detention for a single‑family home,” Paul said, describing the cumulative storage capacity he estimated for the galleries and noting that the developable area represents about 1.3% impervious cover of the larger property.

Retained consultants raised technical concerns. Steve Trinkus, a licensed professional engineer with expertise in low‑impact development, told the commission that while the proposed galleries provide volume they do not necessarily provide pollutant treatment when installed in sand and gravel soils without appropriate pre‑treatment. “The problem is in the gravel: there is absolutely no treatment of the water running through the gravel material,” Trinkus said, and he cautioned that infiltration practices require pre‑treatment and maintenance to avoid clogging and long‑term performance loss.

Michael Klein, a registered professional soil scientist and wetland scientist retained as an environmental reviewer, said he preferred to review the applicant’s full set of revised plans and reports before offering a detailed written opinion. Klein and Trinkus both asked for electronic copies of the updated plans and data so they could complete their reviews.

Throughout the meeting the applicant’s team and consultants discussed a long list of technical comments, including whether percolation tests used are appropriate for modeling vertical infiltration (consultants flagged double‑ring infiltrometer tests as the preferred method for some practice designs), whether drywell testing should be performed and modeled in the hydrologic analysis, the adequacy and redundancy of erosion and sediment controls, and the placement and sizing of inspection and cleanout access on underground galleries.

Several residents and commission members who visited the site expressed concern about potential impacts to the adjacent watercourse and the steep slope down to the river. Commenters asked why the house could not be sited farther from the lake and urged strict erosion control, ongoing inspections and a landscaping plan to stabilize the slope and protect wetlands.

The commission agreed that more time was needed. Commissioners asked the two experts to confer, identify issues where they agree and list outstanding disagreements for the commission’s consideration. The hearing was continued to Sept. 24, 2024 at 6:30 p.m., and the applicant agreed to provide a full set of revised plans, the drainage report and Dr. Danzer’s supplemental wetland/habitat analysis for consultant review.

Actions at the Sept. 10 meeting were procedural: the commission set a continuance date to allow consultants to review revised materials and to permit applicant‑consultant discussions. No permit decision or formal vote on the application was made at the session.

What happens next: the commission’s retained consultants will review the revised plans and provide written comments; the two retained technical experts were asked to meet and produce a joint summary of agreed and unresolved issues. The public hearing remains open and will resume Sept. 24, when the commission expects to hear follow‑up testimony and technical clarifications before deciding whether to set conditions or move to a permit decision.

(Reporting note: article is based solely on the transcript of the Sept. 10, 2024 Roxbury Inland Wetlands Commission public hearing and the documents and quotations presented on the record.)