Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing continued on Bright Ravens’ Damien Drive plan after pond, easement questions
Summary
Danbury’s Environmental Impact Commission continued the public hearing for Bright Ravens Development’s application for 1254 Damien Drive after commissioners probed wetland buffers, pond management and an amended conservation easement; staff will draft a report for the Dec. 10 meeting.
The Danbury Environmental Impact Commission on Nov. 12 continued the public hearing on application 1254 for Damien Drive, a Bright Ravens Development proposal that would rebrand the site as “Ridgetop” and add a cluster of new single-family homes.
Steve Sullivan, a registered professional engineer with CCA Engineers, told the commission the project covers about 14.44 acres and proposes new single-family units, underground detention systems and four discharge points using linear level spreaders. He said homes would connect to city water and sewer, erosion controls would be in place and the developer proposes to amend an existing conservation easement so that the total protected area increases from 4.26 acres to about 4.58 acres while shifting the easement boundary away from some wetland margins.
Why it matters: commissioners pressed the applicant on whether the proposed swap of easement area would protect the wetland resource most at risk. Larry Liebman, the commission’s compliance inspector, asked that the replacement planting area be “more vigorous” than the area being removed so the change does not weaken the resource protection.
Commissioners and the applicant also discussed a pond on the property that has recurring algae/duckweed problems. P.J. Prontheem, director of development for Bright Ravens, said the developer consulted an aquatics company and plans to perform chemical treatments three times a year along with aeration. Dan Bertram, also speaking for the developer, said previous aeration alone led to heavy duckweed growth, and supported combining aeration with targeted chemical treatment to preserve the pond fountain’s appearance.
Several commissioners cautioned that chemical treatment addresses symptoms rather than root causes. One commissioner suggested investigating dredging or deepening the pond to encourage thermal stratification and natural turnover; the applicant and commissioners discussed pond depth estimates of roughly 5–6 feet and whether creating deeper holes would reduce algae recurrence.
With no members of the public present to speak for or against the application, the commission voted to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Dec. 10 so staff can draft and circulate a staff report and the applicant can respond to any additional staff recommendations.
The commission asked the applicant to provide more detail on the proposed conservation-easement amendment, planting specifications for replacement areas, and a pond-management plan that clarifies whether chemical treatments will be combined with other remedies. The hearing will resume on Dec. 10 and the staff report will be available for review prior to that meeting.
