Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant details wetlands demarcation plan; commission grants 45‑day extension for Saddle Rock Road review
Summary
An applicant engineer described updated drawings and proposed conservation-easement markers for a Saddle Rock Road project; Danbury City staff said corporate counsel will revise easement language and commissioners voted to extend the review period 45 days and continue the public hearing.
Dynas Vervicas, a professional engineer representing the applicant, told the Danbury City Environmental Impact Commission that the applicant provided a draft conservation easement to staff and corporate counsel and submitted updated plans to show the limits of nearby wetlands.
Vervicas said the design team proposes a mix of boulders and plantings along the wetland edge and three placards placed at intervals to mark the conservation‑easement boundary, and offered to share the revised drawing with staff and commissioners for review. “We provided some stuff to Larry, which he, I believe, was going to share with the corporation council,” Vervicas said.
Staff said corporate counsel requested revisions to the easement’s wording. Staff member Larry said he would send a revised conservation‑easement draft in the legal format counsel requested and asked the applicant for a planting cost estimate so the town can set an appropriate bond. “If you can give me a cost estimate, then I can work that in,” Larry said.
After the presentation and staff update, a commissioner moved to extend the review period for the Saddle Rock Road regulated activity for 45 days to allow staff time to prepare a report and for counsel to review easement language; another commissioner seconded the motion. The commission voted by voice and the motion passed. The chair then opened the hearing to the public; no members of the public spoke and the commission voted to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Why it matters: The commission’s decision to extend the review gives staff and counsel time to finalize legal language for the conservation easement and for the applicant to provide cost and mapping details that would define protections for the wetlands. The commission did not take a final approval vote on the project; the next procedural step is the continued public hearing.
What remains open: The transcript contains inconsistent numeric references for the regulated‑activity identifier (the staff read “123845” at one point and another speaker referenced a slightly different number). The commission’s action was procedural (an extension and continuation), not an approval of final work permits. Exact bond amount, final easement text and final plan approval were not specified in the meeting record.
