Concerns continue for proposed home near Smyrski Farm
NEW MILFORD — Residents and officials remain concerned about a proposal to build a four-bedroom home with an in-ground pool adjacent to the Smyrski Farm Preserve.
They say they have more questions than answers following a second public hearing during the New Milford Inland Wetlands Commission regular meeting on April 14. Another hearing has been scheduled for 7 p.m. May 12 at Town Hall.
If an online petition started by concerned resident Keri Wheeler is any indication, residents’ opposition to the development has grown, with the number of signatures rising from 250 in March to 714 as of 4 p.m. Friday.
“NCLC is reviewing the proposed development’s environmental impact to determine if it meets, or can ever meet, the requirements of state and federal law protecting wetlands,” Northwest Connecticut Land Conservancy Executive Director Catherine Rawson said. “Our wetlands and watercourses are indispensable natural resources that control flooding and erosion, protect the quality of Connecticut’s rivers, lakes, streams, and sources of drinking water, and support many forms of animal and plant life.”
The owners of the 4-acre parcel of land, Arthur Klebanoff and Susan Hirschhor, have submitted an application to the New Milford Inland and Wetlands Commission laying out the plan for the development.
John Smyrski and his sister Sophie sold the development rights to their 205acre farm on Merryall Road to the state, ensuring developers would never be able to build there, according to a 1988 News-Times article. John Smyrski died in 1999 and Sophie died in 2006. But before they died, they decided to take the next step to preserve their land — they gave it to the Weantinoge Heritage Land Trust, which has since become the Northwest Connecticut Land Conservancy.
Dainius Virbickas, who represented the Artel Engineering Group, which has put together the plans for the development, stated at the public hearing there are no plans to disturb the wetlands, according to the April 14 meeting minutes. Virbickas said a soil scientist did two soil tests and determined there was no impact on wetlands and watercourses.
“The missing information includes the recognition of a watercourse, correct stormwater calculations and a comprehensive stormwater management plan,” Rawson said. “Missing information also includes the accurate identification of wetlands on the site and immediately adjacent.”
Environmental concerns
According to the minutes, the argument from the public speakers and NCLC’s lawyer is based on the constant wetness on the property. The wetness of the land is due in part from two open outflow pipes that allow storm waters to run off the sloping hill on the other side of the road onto the couple’s property.
There are two main concerns. One is placing a swimming pool and house foundations into what is often wet, muddy and spongy soils. Another concern is the outflow of water, fertilizer, pesticide and insecticide residues onto the surrounding Smyrski Farm Preserve wetlands from the couple’s proposed four-acre plot onto Preserve acreage sloping down to the West Aspetuck River.
“NCLC is concerned that the proposed development does not meet, and may never meet, the requirements of state and federal law protecting wetlands,” Rawson said. “The bottom line is that some properties are undevelopable because of their environmental limitations.
“This lot with two watercourses, substantial areas of wetlands, stormwater management issues, apparently high groundwater levels, saturated soils, and important habitat may be undevelopable. In its natural state, it is of irreplaceable value to the community.”
Rawson said her group’s soil scientist reviewed the applicant’s soils report, observed the development site from NCLC lands, and identified wetlands on NCLC-owned land abutting the development site. Based on this review, the soil scientist found the possibility of unidentified wetlands and recommends re-examination of the site:
According to the NCLC’s soil scientist report, three lowland areas on the Klebanoff and Hirschhor property were observed to be of particular concern. It was not possible to ascertain from the developer’s soil report whether these three areas were sampled intensively or not. There is a possibility that those three areas are wetland, subject to field confirmation.
“To provide itself and the public with a full and fair review, NCLC has urged the Inland Wetlands Commission to engage its own soils scientist to identify the wetlands on the site and nearby,” Rawson said.
Virbickas said the developer’s soil report focused on the rear and brushy area of the property, but wetlands weren’t noted in these areas, according to the minutes. He also noted discrepancies in the flow calculation that his team provided and the NCLC. He said he’d check those discrepancies.
At the hearing, NCLC attorney Dwight Marriam suggested that the Inland Wetlands Commission public hearing option remain open until all the concerns were addressed. He also believes alternative proposals should be submitted.
Virbickas said he would discuss the concerns with the property owners.