The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency vowed to take action regarding uncontrolled rainwater runoff resulting from the Sonoma Woods condominium development off of Westfield Street. They also approved an application for environmental remediation, and an application to build a house within 20 feet of wetlands, and agreed to look further into a destruction of wetlands on property owned by Phil Armetta on Newfield Street.Sonoma Woods
Sonoma Woods was built as an "active adult" condominium development, over considerable opposition from residents on the adjacent streets, Lisa Lane and Westwood Lane, who feared the consequences that the development would have on the local wetlands. The development, approved for 85 units, is only partially built and occupied, owing to the financial crisis.
John Coughlin, president of the condo association, told the commissioners that he hoped the development would be completed, but that the only construction activity now occurring was
excavation and rock crushing. He said this activity was causing enormous drainage problems, rainwater clogging the storm sewers and then dumping excessive amounts of silt into the Sonoma Woods detention pond. He complained bitterly about the lack of any erosion controls, such as straw bales or silt fences, and said he was having difficulty getting either the contractor or the city to do anything about it. He said, "I don't see any follow through.... The plan of construction is being ignored."
In a phone interview after the I/W meeting, Cathy Branch Stebbins echoed many of Coughlin's complaints. Branch Stebbins, who grew up on Lisa Lane and still lives there, said that since the developer clear cut the land and moved the earth, the water flow has been completely altered and there are now torrents of rain washing through her property. She said, "Every time it rains, [my husband] has to go out there in his muck boots and has to redirect the water traffic."
She said it was obvious to neighbors on Lisa Lane that Sonoma Woods would cause enormous water issues for everybody downhill from the development, and pleaded for more consideration to be given to local residents, "They need to take the people who have lived here for 50 years seriously."
Joe Carta, chair of Inland Wetlands, promised to make sure that the current runoff issues would be addressed. Matt Dodge, environmental specialist in the Planning Department, said he would contact city attorney Tim Lynch to "see if we can get him involved."
Environmental Remediation on Newfield Street
The commissioners heard a proposal by a consulting firm hired by the city to clean up contaminated soils at 680 Newfield Street (rear), a property formerly owned by Portland Chemical. In removing drums of chemicals in 2001, the state Department of Environmental Protection left holes in the ground which are now considered wetlands. The city has a brownfield remediation grant from the EPA to clean up the property, and proposes to remove the most contaminated soil, and to fill in the holes with clean soil. This application was approved.
House Adjacent to Wetlands Approved
Carl Magnano applied to build a house on a lot with wetlands, west of Atkins Street on Country Club Road. The commissioners were concerned about his plans to place the house just 17 feet away from the actual wetlands, and to drill a well only 12 feet away. However, commissioners approved the application, as long as the construction process was carefully monitored to ensure that no equipment would enter the wetlands, and no debris would be deposited there. Dodge assured the commissioners that he and zoning enforcement officer Bruce Driska would carefully monitor the construction process.
Wetlands Destruction
The Commission considered a report on wetlands owned by Phil Armetta on Newfield Street, which were clear-cut and filled with stone. Armetta told the commissioners at their last meeting that the wetlands were filled to provide more visibility to a car dealership on the adjacent property, also owned by Armetta. These two properties are at the base of a now closed landfill owned by Armetta since the early 1990s.
David Lord, the certified soil scientist and environmental consultant who wrote the report, confirmed for the commissioners that a wetlands had been destroyed, "The subject wetland has been totally impacted by the removal of 1-2 feet of the former wetland surface layers and the placement of a stone surface layer. ... Any and all previous wetland functioning has been removed by the recent earth moving activities..."
The Commission decided not to address the issue at this meeting, and instead voted to put it under "new business" at their next meeting, in November. At that time, it will be scheduled for consideration at their December meeting.
------
Disclosures: Cathy Branch Stebbins and I are on the executive committee of the Westfield Residents Association, which opposed the scale of the Sonoma Woods Development when it was proposed. Carl Magnano is a neighbor of mine. It really is a small city.
2 comments:
The owners of Sonoma woods will not work with anyone. I myself have emailed and sent letters to the owners concerning, the river that now runs through my front yard evrytime we recieve rain. My shed was also struck by debris when they were blasting. There was supposed to be an easment that was supposed to not be touched behind my property. One mourning I awoke to a bobcat and a landscape crew clearing the supposedly buffer zone. Still to this day the "buffer zone" is not present.
At this point, Sonoma is a case study. This was a geographically complicated and environmentally sensitive property. Those in planning authority at the time could have done a lot more to improve that project and prevent these problems. In the face of widely conflicting opinions about the volume and flow of water from the developer and the neighbors during the public hearing process, they could have required an independent engineering evaluation before the plan was approved, ensuring that the water was properly managed and the northern wetlands were not de-watered. The developer originally represented that the project would not require blasting; so how did we go from a no-blast project to around 6 years of blasting and even blasting-for-profit as a rock crushing enterprise? Neighbors should have been clearly notified that the developer was requesting a rock crushing permit with specific notification to abutting neighbors, but that permitting process was kept awfully quiet, leaving neighbors with years of noise, even on weekends, and heavy equipment exhaust, smack dab in the middle of two residential neighborhoods. IW or P&Z should not have allowed the developer to de-forest and clear-cut the land like they did; that vegetation helped to manage the water, and with only a few inches of topsoil over rock left, the water has nowhere to go. They could have required the developer to leave all buffers vegetated in original state and not clear cut them, undoing root systems and making way for erosion and new water paths. And to my knowledge, the detention pond was not properly installed; the developers encountered ledge and instead of blasting and digging down for a proper install and percolation, they built up the berm, letting the detained water sit until a single pipe carries it away, a cheaper alternative for the developer and one that compromises the functionality of the detention pond design and the structural integrity of the drainage pipes.
And I think P&Z should have required the developer to preserve the ancient stone wall that ran through the property, treating it like a historic and cultural asset instead of a raw material. In Fairfield County, folks actually value their stone wall heritage and rich people purchase old stone walls from developers who are working in communities like Middletown, where there are no stone wall preservation requirements, so they can rebuild them in front of their McMansions, adding trompe l'oeil age and instant appeal and value. The public officials in Fairfield County expect developers to preserve old stone walls in their plans as an added-value asset to their plans, if they are lucky enough to have them. Why do we in Middletown tolerate such thoughtless disregard of our agricultural heritage and uniquely New England character?
Middletown should not be afraid to expect the very best from developers all the time. City staff should always provide a balanced point of view and should push us to toward a very high bar of quality and attention to detail. These little details mean a lot and help build the character and quality of life of a community. Developers, give us your very best design, workmanship, and materials from the beginning and you will be respected and welcomed back for that.
The one bright spot is that we have great new neighbors living in Sonoma Woods. I know several Middletown people who sold their single-family homes and moved in there, choosing to stay in Middletown. After the holidays I drove through Sonoma Woods and saw neighbors carrying crock pots and casserole dishes home from the party at their neighbors' house the night before; that made me smile. They have a great community, are invested in their neighborhood, and invested in Middletown. I know we will eventually fix the problems we all were left with but I hope the lessons of the Somona development are not forgotten.
Post a Comment