Stratford Wetlands Panel Denies Teakwood Estates 19‑Lot Subdivision Without Prejudice
March 22, 2024 | Town of Stratford, Fairfield, Connecticut
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Stratford Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission voted to deny, without prejudice, Teakwood Estates LLC’s application for a 19‑lot residential subdivision after hearing technical presentations from the applicant and its consultants and extended public opposition.
Gregory Eric Pawlowski, the project engineer, opened the hearing and read a letter from the applicant’s attorney describing the proposal as a 19‑lot subdivision on about 11 acres that satisfies RS‑3 zoning standards and includes substantial protected open space: Pawlowski said the plan sets aside 107,619 square feet of open space and proposes a 24,470‑square‑foot conservation easement intended to protect the remaining wetlands. The engineer said 14 of the 19 building lots would place proposed buildings entirely outside the regulated area and that the sanitary sewer alignment was revised after an adjacent property owner declined an easement, necessitating a short sewer run through a small wetland fringe.
Why the commission acted: staff and third‑party reviewer comments remained outstanding and several commissioners said too many technical issues were unresolved. Staff member Kelly Kerrigan told the commission that staff comments dating to October 2023 had not been formally answered and that the LandTech third‑party review had not been given adequate time to review the updated stormwater materials. Commissioners raised specific concerns about overlapping conservation and drainage easements, long‑term maintenance access to stormwater infrastructure, and the proximity of stormwater facilities to sensitive wetland edges.
What was presented: Pawlowski described a three‑step stormwater system — catch basins with two‑foot sumps and siphon hoods, a water‑quality chamber and a construction‑phase sediment basin — and said the design reduces total site discharge by 30–50% across 25‑, 50‑ and 100‑year storm analyses and that a water‑quality chamber is rated for about 85% removal of total suspended solids. He also described proposed temporary disturbance of roughly 600 square feet of upper‑fringe wetland soils to install a gravity sanitary sewer connection and said the alternative — a pump system — carried its own risks.
Public opposition: dozens of written and live public comments urged denial. Residents and local experts warned of increased flooding, loss of mature forest and wildlife habitat, concerns about downstream contamination of Lake Success and skepticism that private filtration and homeowner maintenance will prevent future problems. Representative quotes entered into the record included written testimony stating the development “absolutely should not happen” and live testimony asking, “Who will be responsible for remediation downstream when there is a failure and there will be a failure?”
Applicant response: the applicant’s team said it had pursued alternatives, added conservation easements and made plan revisions to limit wetland impacts. Developer partner Joseph Giacoby emphasized local building experience and argued the project would create taxable value and housing stock. The project engineer asked the commission to condition approvals with required geotechnical review and maintenance language where appropriate.
Outcome and next steps: after deliberation the commission’s motion to deny the application without prejudice carried by voice vote; the minutes record affirmative “Aye” responses and the chair announced the application denied. "Without prejudice" leaves open the possibility that the applicant may return with revised plans that address the commission and third‑party reviewer’s outstanding technical concerns. The commission also identified specific follow‑up items—formal applicant responses to staff and LandTech comments, clarified maintenance language for privately‑owned stormwater infrastructure, and geotechnical testing—that it will expect on any future resubmission.
Sources and provenance: the account above is drawn directly from presentations, staff comments, the third‑party reviewer’s statement and public testimony recorded in the meeting transcript and read into the record by staff.
Gregory Eric Pawlowski, the project engineer, opened the hearing and read a letter from the applicant’s attorney describing the proposal as a 19‑lot subdivision on about 11 acres that satisfies RS‑3 zoning standards and includes substantial protected open space: Pawlowski said the plan sets aside 107,619 square feet of open space and proposes a 24,470‑square‑foot conservation easement intended to protect the remaining wetlands. The engineer said 14 of the 19 building lots would place proposed buildings entirely outside the regulated area and that the sanitary sewer alignment was revised after an adjacent property owner declined an easement, necessitating a short sewer run through a small wetland fringe.
Why the commission acted: staff and third‑party reviewer comments remained outstanding and several commissioners said too many technical issues were unresolved. Staff member Kelly Kerrigan told the commission that staff comments dating to October 2023 had not been formally answered and that the LandTech third‑party review had not been given adequate time to review the updated stormwater materials. Commissioners raised specific concerns about overlapping conservation and drainage easements, long‑term maintenance access to stormwater infrastructure, and the proximity of stormwater facilities to sensitive wetland edges.
What was presented: Pawlowski described a three‑step stormwater system — catch basins with two‑foot sumps and siphon hoods, a water‑quality chamber and a construction‑phase sediment basin — and said the design reduces total site discharge by 30–50% across 25‑, 50‑ and 100‑year storm analyses and that a water‑quality chamber is rated for about 85% removal of total suspended solids. He also described proposed temporary disturbance of roughly 600 square feet of upper‑fringe wetland soils to install a gravity sanitary sewer connection and said the alternative — a pump system — carried its own risks.
Public opposition: dozens of written and live public comments urged denial. Residents and local experts warned of increased flooding, loss of mature forest and wildlife habitat, concerns about downstream contamination of Lake Success and skepticism that private filtration and homeowner maintenance will prevent future problems. Representative quotes entered into the record included written testimony stating the development “absolutely should not happen” and live testimony asking, “Who will be responsible for remediation downstream when there is a failure and there will be a failure?”
Applicant response: the applicant’s team said it had pursued alternatives, added conservation easements and made plan revisions to limit wetland impacts. Developer partner Joseph Giacoby emphasized local building experience and argued the project would create taxable value and housing stock. The project engineer asked the commission to condition approvals with required geotechnical review and maintenance language where appropriate.
Outcome and next steps: after deliberation the commission’s motion to deny the application without prejudice carried by voice vote; the minutes record affirmative “Aye” responses and the chair announced the application denied. "Without prejudice" leaves open the possibility that the applicant may return with revised plans that address the commission and third‑party reviewer’s outstanding technical concerns. The commission also identified specific follow‑up items—formal applicant responses to staff and LandTech comments, clarified maintenance language for privately‑owned stormwater infrastructure, and geotechnical testing—that it will expect on any future resubmission.
Sources and provenance: the account above is drawn directly from presentations, staff comments, the third‑party reviewer’s statement and public testimony recorded in the meeting transcript and read into the record by staff.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
