Residents urge denial of 19‑lot Teakwood Estates subdivision; hearing continued after technical review

A continuation of the public hearing on a proposed 19‑lot subdivision north of Broadbridge Avenue drew a packed audience Tuesday night as the applicant’s team described revisions designed to reduce wetland impacts while town consultants flagged outstanding technical concerns.

Attorney Chris Russo, representing the applicant, told the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission the revised plan reduces the project from 20 to 19 building lots, increases permanent conservation easements and expands open space from about 87,800 square feet to roughly 107,500 square feet. Russo said the property is more than 11 acres and that 14 of the proposed building lots would have dwellings entirely outside the regulated area.

Engineer Gregory Pidluski said the only direct wetland disturbance would be a sanitary sewer trench crossing of about 30–32 linear feet through the upper fringe of the wetland on Lot 12; he said the trench would be backfilled with salvaged wetland soil and revegetated and that each house lot would include underground infiltration chambers sized to retain runoff from a 100‑year storm.

"We're not disturbing any wetlands areas except for the 32 feet of sanitary sewer line," Pidluski said, adding the design uses SDR‑35 PVC with gasketed joints and pressure testing prior to backfill.

Bill Kenny, the wetland scientist retained by the applicant, said his team delineated two primary forested wetland areas on the parcel, prepared planting plans to mitigate increased sunlight and proposed demarcation (split‑rail fences) and a monitoring and reporting plan for three years after construction to ensure buffer plantings establish.

"With adherence to town and state standards, it is our professional opinion that the wetlands can be protected and there won't be an adverse impact from stormwater," Kenny said.

But LandTech, the town’s third‑party reviewer, told the commission its February 12 technical memorandum raises concerns about the stormwater quality train, grading plans and other design elements. Brian Carey of LandTech said some items are substantive and will require field work and detailed follow‑up before the commission can find designs adequate.

"We provided comments and some of them are game changers — they need to be addressed," Carey said.

Dozens of residents spoke during the public comment period, pressing the commission to deny the application. Speakers described chronic flooding in nearby neighborhoods, loss of mature tree canopy and potential habitat loss for local wildlife. Tyler Bunch, who said he had attended multiple hearings on the project, told the commission the development will change light and sound conditions and kill fauna that currently use the site.

"It's impossible that this development will not impact the environment around it," Bunch said.

State Representative Laura Dancho urged denial on grounds the property connects to larger natural corridors and that past nearby developments have caused erosion and drainage problems.

Many residents asked who would maintain private infiltration systems and sand‑and‑grit separators and whether homeowners would bear the long‑term costs — questions the applicant said would be handled through homeowner responsibilities and private maintenance agreements.

After hearing the presentations, the commission decided it did not have enough information to reach a decision. Chair and members voted to table further deliberation and invited the applicant to submit revisions responding to the consulting memorandum and town staff comments at the next public hearing.

What happens next: The public hearing remains open and the applicant will provide revised plans and responses to LandTech and staff comments; the commission will review those materials at its next regularly scheduled meeting.