Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission presses developer on contamination history for Great Pasture Road industrial proposal
Summary
At a Danbury EIC meeting, engineers presented a four‑building light‑industrial plan for Great Pasture Road; commissioners pressed the applicant for documentation about an Environmental Land Use Restriction (ELOR), past toluene contamination and underground storage tanks and asked that the ELOR limits be transposed onto the site plan; the application was tabled pending follow‑up.
Steve Sullivan, a professional engineer with CCA LLC, presented a proposal for 15 Great Pasture Road that would add four light‑industrial buildings on an already developed site that straddles Danbury and Bethel. Sullivan said the development would disturb about 0.8 acres within the regulated 100‑foot upland review area and rely on a combination of vegetated basins, a buried infiltration gallery and hydrodynamic separators to meet water‑quality and peak‑runoff requirements.
Commissioners raised a lengthy set of environmental‑history concerns about the site. One commissioner flagged an Environmental Land Use Restriction (ELOR) tied to past industrial operations and noted "residual contamination, mostly toluene" and the prior use of two 15,000‑gallon underground storage tanks for solvent recovery. "There's been quite a bit of soil that's been removed in conjunction with the environmental conditions on the property," the commissioner said, and asked that ELOR limits and any engineering controls be transposed onto the proposed site plan so the commission could understand what areas are off‑limits to disturbance.
Sullivan responded that his client has represented the ELOR as closed out and that an LEP (licensed environmental professional) was engaged. "My client has told me it's closed out," Sullivan said, and offered to coordinate the LEP's attendance at a future meeting and to provide mapping and documentation. Commissioners asked for a clearer record: a legible copy of the ELOR/eLOR, the location of engineered barriers and a summary of historic remediation and any remaining monitoring obligations. Several commissioners urged that the LEP or remediation consultant be present to answer technical questions and asked Sullivan to forward the materials to staff in advance of the next meeting.
The commission also discussed flood‑zone mapping and base flood elevations shown on the plan; staff and commissioners confirmed that base flood elevations were present for the site and asked the applicant to confirm proposed activities will avoid floodplain encroachments.
After extended questioning on contamination history, LEP involvement, stormwater design and intermunicipal coordination with Bethel, commissioners moved to table the application until the next meeting pending receipt of the ELOR/eLOR documents, LEP attendance or report, and transposed site plans.
The commission did not vote on approvals; the item was tabled for further review and documentation.
