Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Inland Watercourse Commission approves Newport Realty 18-unit wetland permit for Covey Road
Summary
After a public hearing, the commission approved Newport Realty Group LLC's wetlands permit for an 18-unit adult housing development on Covey Road, finding no direct wetland impacts and accepting a stormwater plan with about 0.42 acres of upland disturbance for a retention basin.
The Inland Watercourse Commission voted to approve application 26-05W from Newport Realty Group LLC for an 18-unit adult housing development on Lot 3, Block 122 (Covey Road), following a public hearing and a presentation by the applicant's engineer.
Andrew Quirk, professional engineer and principal with Crater Jones & Associates, described the 9.87-acre parcel and said the Rocky Hill portion would be excluded from the development site. He told the commission the proposal would create a common-interest community of 18 single-family units served by public water and sewer and managed by a homeowners association.
Megan Fogarty, a registered soil scientist with SOR Consulting, said the on-site field delineation identified two forested wetlands and estimated “in total, wetlands occupied about 8 tenths of an acre on the site.” Quirk told the commission there would be no direct impacts to those wetlands; about 0.42 acres of the upland review area would be disturbed to construct a stormwater basin and related access, with restoration and planting plans outlined on the project sheets.
Commissioners questioned setbacks, grading and the maintenance plan. Quirk said Unit 6 is the closest to wetlands at about 70 feet, that site grading had been balanced so no net import of fill is planned, and that the homeowners association will be responsible for stormwater-basin maintenance and periodic reporting to the town.
A member of the public, Josepha Sehera, asked about unit pricing; a project representative said pricing was not finalized but expected to be in the low $500,000s. After the hearing was closed, the commission moved and seconded a motion to approve application 26-05W; the motion carried on a voice vote.
The approval was granted subject to the plans and conditions on record, including erosion-control measures and restoration work described on sheet D3 and S2 of the applicant's plan set. The commission did not record a roll-call tally in the transcript; the decision was made by voice vote.
