Easton conservation panel unanimously denies Mill River Park project over wetlands, stormwater concerns

The Easton Conservation Commission voted unanimously on March 24 to deny application #25-726, the Mill River Park proposal for construction that included an apartment building (70 units across Easton and Trumbull) and nine townhouses in Easton. Commissioners said peer reviewers and conservation experts raised unresolved hydrologic and ecological problems that made approval inappropriate on the record.

Commissioner Dave Logie told colleagues that peer reviews indicated the northwest corner of the site could become oversaturated while much of the development would be "starved for water," a pattern he said would be detrimental to nearby wetlands. Commissioner Kevin Kilner raised separate engineering concerns, saying the stormwater management scheme would not prevent increased runoff, higher sediment loads or river-temperature changes that could degrade the Mill River. Both Logie and Kilner said available filtration and separator measures were unlikely to remove all suspended solids, phosphorus and nitrogen the runoff could carry.

Commissioner Cathy Alfandre summarized multiple factors weighing against approval: LandTech and consultant Stephen Trinkaus questioned the applicant's infiltration testing and calculations; WSP field notes showed near-surface water levels even during drought conditions; the Southwest Conservation District warned that removing roughly 300 trees would reduce canopy cover, harm slope stability and degrade habitat; and peer reviewers flagged insufficient study of vernal-pool indicators (for example, wood-frog habitat). Several commissioners said studies had been conducted only during dry conditions and that additional, seasonally representative hydrologic monitoring was needed.

Commissioner Karin Niesyn urged more field study to determine whether a channel on the property qualifies as an intermittent watercourse, noting conflicting testimony and a neighbor's statement about a nearby manhole that may reflect underground flow. Chair Dori Wollen and other members also noted the application lacked a DEEP filing and that the Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) report was still pending; several commissioners said those open items contributed to the decision that the application record was incomplete.

A motion to approve the application (moved by Cathy Alfandre and seconded by Karin Niesyn) was called to a vote and failed; the Commission recorded a unanimous NAY (6 NAY, 0 AYE). The denial comes after an extended public‑hearing and peer‑review process that spanned multiple meetings, filings and technical rebuttals dating to mid‑2025. The applicants had previously offered fee/escrow proposals and submitted revised plans and testimony from engineering and environmental experts, and LandTech and other peer reviewers presented critical assessments during earlier hearings.

The Commission's decision means the developer may elect to revise and resubmit with additional hydrologic data, seasonal fieldwork, revised stormwater treatment capable of demonstrably reducing suspended solids and nutrients, and further ecological study of vernal pools and wildlife corridors before reconsideration. The record notes the project would connect to a Trumbull sewer system for the overall development; that connection and cross-jurisdictional issues were part of the multi-agency review history but not determinative for the Conservation Commission's wetlands decision.

The meeting minutes show the application had received multiple continuances and extensions while peer reviewers and the Commission examined the engineering and ecological record. The Commission's vote was presented as the body acting in its role under the Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses provisions to protect wetland function and downstream water quality.