Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Environmental Impact Commission tables Danbury-area golf-range project after questions about wetland mitigation
Summary
The commission delayed action on regulated activity 12-58-22 (Jocelyn Road driving range) after members pressed the applicant for clearer wetland-creation methods, stronger mitigation ratios, a grading plan, soil testing and a site inspection; the project was tabled to Jan. 28 for revised plans and a field visit.
The Environmental Impact Commission on Jan. 14 tabled an application for a driving-range and golf-course project (regulated activity 12-58-22, Jocelyn Road) after commissioners said the applicant’s proposed wetland “enhancements” did not clearly replace wetlands the project would remove.
Attorney Charles Lichtenauer, representing the applicants, and project consultants described updated plans and an invasive-species management plan and said most emergency response would be provided by the Brewster Fire Department with Danbury responding as secondary aid. Landscape architect Jamie Lajudis said the plans redirect about 1.15 acres out of one watershed and add vegetative buffers and additional plantings intended to limit impacts and avoid installing an intrusive net.
Commissioner Gary Duffel pressed whether the proposed plantings and enhancements constitute legally compensatory wetlands under Connecticut standards, saying enhancement is not the same as wetland creation and that he was not convinced the submission supplied “new wetlands” equal to those the project would remove. Greg Fleisher of Capital Environmental Consultants said hydrology and subsurface soils could be addressed by grading down to hydric soils or importing wetland soil and that the team could increase planting densities or create wetlands physically.
The commission requested that the applicant submit a final set of construction drawings and limits of grading, a sampling and testing protocol for any imported fill to the Connecticut portion of the site, and an environmental monitor during construction. Commissioners also asked for enforceable contract language (limits of grading and penalties if work exceeds approved limits), a longer invasive-species monitoring period, and clarified that staff would inspect grade stakes during construction.
The commission scheduled a site visit (a field inspection was set for Tuesday at 11 a.m.) and said it would revisit the application after the team provides revised mitigation plans and construction norms. With those items outstanding, Commissioner Jeff Harrold moved to table the application to the commission’s next regular meeting on Jan. 28; the motion passed and the item was tabled.
Next steps: the applicant will deliver revised mitigation and grading materials and a testing plan before the Jan. 28 meeting; commissioners will inspect the site in the field and expect specific, enforceable conditions if the permit is later approved.
