Hearing Held On Fairfield Affordable Housing Plan, Nearby Wetland

FAIRFIELD, CT — A public hearing for a controversial affordable housing proposal began with a Fairfield employee explaining why the town recommends denying the project and ended with a wetlands official chiding the applicant's attorney for what the official perceived to be negative comments.

The meeting Wednesday marked the third time the Inland Wetlands Agency attempted to complete the hearing on the proposal — and the first time it did so successfully. Two previously scheduled hearings were delayed when the developer presented new plans with little or no notice. In keeping with that trend, the applicant submitted a remediation plan Tuesday for soil containing pesticides and lead on the property.

"The wetland on site is very important," Conservation Administrator Annette Jacobson said of the property at 980 High St.

Wildlife in urban areas tend to have limited places they can go, so wetlands in those locations are particularly valuable, she said. Jacobson also voiced concerns that the applicant's planned drainage system will become clogged, creating uncontrolled runoff and "unacceptable" damage.

The High Street site is about 2.5 acres, and is occupied by an open meadow, a wooded area and more than 4,000 square feet of wetlands, as well as an 1895 Queen Anne-style home, a garage and two sheds. The property was purchased for $2.1 million in late 2018 by the Fairfield Housing Corp., a nonprofit controlled by the Fairfield Housing Authority. The proposed development would include 40 apartments in five buildings, 80% of which would qualify as state-designated affordable housing. The corporation plans to restore the lot's existing home as office space and a community room.

In addition to her environmental worries, Jacobson took issue with the absence of official town mapping in the application and the presence of a 15-foot topographical inaccuracy in the plans.

"Fifteen feet is not a little bit, I believe it's a major concern," Jacobson said.

Nearby residents have resisted development on the property, forming the corporation Fairfield Neighbors United and hiring a lawyer with thousands of dollars in donations. Residents' concerns include the potential for increased flood risk and wildlife displacement.

"It's too intense a development on too small a site," said attorney Joel Green, who is representing Fairfield Neighbors United.

Green asked the agency to grant notices of intervention on behalf of two abutting property owners and to deny the application.

He also called civil engineer Steve Trinkaus to speak before the agency. Trinkaus said the housing corporation's water management systems won't function as intended and will lead to overflow and runoff on High Street. The soil in the area is not ideal for the planned permable pavement, he said, and the applicant provided no evidence to prove the pavement will successfully infiltrate water.

Civil engineer Brian Baker disagreed. Speaking for the housing corporation, he said percolation tests were conducted on the site, measuring infiltration rates of 6 inches per hour.

The Fairfield Housing Corp. also responded to an alternative proposal that was presented by Jacobson as a more prudent option located outside the regulated area near the wetland.

Architect Paul Bailey noted that Jacobson's plan for a three-story, 40-unit building on the site was close to the property line and included 200 feet of uninterrupted structure, maximizing the affect of the building on nearby houses.

"This plan is not a reasonable alternative for this neighborhood," he said.

Several residents spoke during the hearing. Addressing the agency on behalf of conservation group FairPLAN, Alexis Harrison questioned how the wetlands and wildlife will be protected during construction. Resident Kasandra Marshall expressed similar concerns.

"There is potential for increased flooding, worse water quality and fewer habitats," she said, adding the many abutting neighbors already experience flooding during major rain events.

As the hearing neared its end, agency member Felicia Watson, a Republican, expressed displeasure about a comment made by housing corporation attorney Bryan LeClerc earlier in the meeting. LeClerc had stipulated that it was not the agency's role to consider traffic, size and zoning issues, which fall under the purview of the Plan and Zoning Commission.

"You get a lot more bees with honey than you do with vinegar," Watson said. "... We know what we're doing up here."

LeClerc replied that he addressed the difference between the two bodies because he didn't think the public understood the agency's role, a statement that was met with murmurs from the audience.

The agency is expected to vote on the project at its next regular meeting Oct. 2.