Darien EPC closes hearing on 30 Plymouth Road plan after engineers present drainage, mitigation in flood zone

The Darien Environmental Protection Commission voted to close the public hearing on an application to build a two‑story attached garage, an in‑ground pool and associated drainage on a property located at 30 Plymouth Road, a parcel entirely within a special flood hazard area, and set a 35‑day window to render a decision.

Environmental Protection Officer Richard Talamelli summarized the application and the regulatory record, noting the site lies in FEMA Flood Zone AE (base elevation 14 feet NAVD‑88) and that the dwelling and garage have first‑floor and crawlspace elevations below the base flood elevation. Talamelli said the applicant provided soil and site assessments and plans designed to limit wetland impacts and manage flood risk.

Project engineer Patrick Shurr, P.E., of Redniss & Mead, and the project team — including soil scientist William Kenny and architect Mark Sorosiak — described a multilayer approach to stormwater management and mitigation. The submitted plan uses two structured drainage systems: a crushed‑stone reservoir and a second system with slot drains and roughly 60 linear feet of Cul‑Tec C‑100 HD chambers to detain and treat runoff, plus deep‑sump yard drains and inlet controls intended to capture sediment before discharge. The engineer reported soil testing to confirm system feasibility, and a town peer reviewer (Canas) endorsed the drainage and water‑quality conclusions.

The team also proposed sediment and erosion controls during construction, removal of non‑native invasive plants, replanting with native species (including red maples and arrowwood), boulder demarcation near the watercourse and tree protection fencing. The plantings and other measures were presented as mitigation to offset temporary and permanent impacts to the upland review area.

Shurr described a basic flood contingency plan for construction that assigns responsibilities, outlines storm forecasting sources and sets pre‑ and post‑storm procedures. Because the project’s cost of improvement does not exceed the town’s threshold for a “substantial improvement,” the applicant said the entire dwelling need not be brought to current floodproofing standards, but that pool equipment, the pool equipment platform, conduit and other flood‑exposed features will be detailed for compliance in building permit plans.

Commissioners pressed the team about the relative proximity of the garage and paved areas to wetlands and watercourses and about whether alternative garage orientations or driveway layouts could reduce encroachment; the applicant said alternatives had been evaluated but dismissed to preserve large trees and maintain functional driveway access. Several commissioners expressed continued concern that the garage and pavement remain fairly close to regulated resources.

No members of the public spoke at the hearing. The commission closed the hearing and noted that a formal decision would be issued within 35 days unless the applicant requests or grants an extension.

Next steps: the commission will review the record and vote on the permit in a future meeting; conditions on drainage maintenance, final floodproofing details for exposed equipment, and specified plant species will be required if the permit is approved.