Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Easton conservation commission continues Saddle Ridge subdivision hearing after questions on vernal pools, blasting and peer‑review costs
Summary
The Easton Conservation Commission continued a public hearing on a proposed 26‑lot Saddle Ridge subdivision after commissioners and peer reviewers raised outstanding questions about the absence of a vernal‑pool field survey, potential blasting impacts and a requested $17,000 peer‑review fee; the hearing was extended to June 22, 2026.
The Easton Conservation Commission on June 1 continued its review of a proposed 26‑lot Saddle Ridge subdivision after commissioners and peer reviewers flagged gaps in environmental study and asked for additional field work and clarifications.
Chair Dori Wollen opened the continued public hearing at Samuel Staples School Cafetorium and introduced the applicant's team, including Attorney Wilson Carroll of Cohen and Wolff, EG HOME LLC representative Matt Gilchrist and engineer Darin Overton, P.E., of SLR. "This hearing has continued for 8 months," Matt Gilchrist said, adding that "this is a good plan which is ecologically sound" and asking the commission to specify what changes would be needed for approval.
Peer reviewer Matt Regan of Tighe and Bond asked directly whether a vernal‑pool field survey had been completed; Overton said it had not. Regan told the commission that missing a seasonal field survey can leave potential amphibian habitat unverified and that the current timing could be past the appropriate survey window. George Logan (CFE), another reviewer, said the reduced lot count—from 48 in an earlier plan to 26 in the current submission—did not, on its face, resolve his environmental concerns.
Engineer Darin Overton provided written responses to peer comments and described the locations of wetlands, efforts to minimize grading, and intentions to reuse native soils. He said the applicant has met with the Aspetuck Land Trust, which is interested in taking ownership of some open‑space parcels and has requested buffers around conserved areas. Bill Krakel of the Aspetuck Land Trust later proposed a 40‑foot buffer and said he would submit a letter formalizing the request.
Commissioners pressed for additional information. Commissioner Karin Niesyn and others noted that the commission had requested a vernal‑pool survey on March 9, 2026 and asked whether that field work could still be completed; Commissioner Dave Logie also urged another site walk, saying streams and pools differ significantly by season. Commissioner Cathy Alfandre asked the applicant to overlay the desktop vernal‑pool study on the revised site plans so the commission could see how identified pools relate to proposed lots.
Board members also questioned blasting plans. Attorney Wilson Carroll said blasting would be limited to roadway work and individual house foundations. Matt Regan reported the applicant's blasting contractor had stated it would "follow the best practice by doing vibration monitoring," but commissioners asked for more detail, including an estimate of days of blasting and any studies on blasting effects on vernal pools.
Chair Wollen said the commission could fund a vernal‑pool study but requested EG HOME LLC's approval to engage WSP for a peer review at a cost of $17,000. Carroll said he had not previously been notified of that fee and sought clarification about scope and notice. The commission also reminded the applicant that approval of the overall development does not substitute for required permits for individual lots; Wollen said each lot will still require separate review by the Aspetuck Health District and, if upland review areas apply, return to the commission.
Attorney Matt Ranelli spoke for the property owners in favor of development; four other members of the public spoke against the application during public comment, raising environmental and related concerns.
The commission recessed the hearing at 9:40 p.m. and, with the applicant's agreement, continued the public hearing to June 22, 2026 to allow for additional studies, document submission and potential site visits.
Next steps: the commission requested a vernal‑pool field survey or a clear explanation why it cannot be completed, an overlay of the desktop study onto the revised plans, further detail on blasting mitigation and monitoring, and a formal letter from the Aspetuck Land Trust describing any buffer proposal. The hearing will reconvene on June 22, 2026 (place to be determined).
