[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6482252,"mediaKeyId","5550510-75b2f74b6e9c46254f297b41ce3b911f","parentId",5550510,"title","Torrington commission approves re-subdivision of 660 Touringford Street into two lots with conditions","audioSeconds",611,"startMs",4160000,"endMs",4771000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550510-75b2f74b6e9c46254f297b41ce3b911f&start=4160&end=4771","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550510-75b2f74b6e9c46254f297b41ce3b911f/thumbnail_4160000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6482252/Torrington/Northwest-Hills-County/Connecticut/Torrington-commission-approves-re-subdivision-of-660-Touringford-Street-into-two-lots-with-conditions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6482252-371a50d6c24747eb4548c2b369bbce1b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167507&Signature=ds~FBsRGi~~wVsir1cnbzDfwrcP3pLjgrrEKZjVABqrGWWnEr0ZxgRx70FlE~eV--7v-wmFbYhhU9UoBuJCJAtOzNFS0gI9BIcWhfwHas5iABn6pOOuZmurZ8PM4HzCmXCoOPgaj7bEN10sRg28Qht2PtN1Th45AVnK-3FK2ORVHbF9F4SHhGK0XK13zSEMuCbHk8FXm89fe6fnAlksVq8Yv8aul65WqmJA12a~jBeRF6Ib7~jO1n5DVuuEBkpmKYvhxyffR5z7djEXWR16bxtXfi00adhd7TEN7io2LuAZxseBZ99~mMnR2rjZeVzru-gKEHEWpu7zMBcYBcGXgCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Torrington CT","date","2025-08-06T16:35:39Z","article","The Torrington Inland Wetlands Commission on Aug. 5 granted a permit to re-subdivide 660 Touringford Street (Assessor’s Map 143, Block 003, Lot 007) into two building lots, subject to standard conditions and additional requirements intended to protect adjacent wetlands.

Why it matters: The approval clears the way for future single-family development on a 4.7-acre parcel that is largely surrounded by mapped wetlands. The commission attached conditions designed to reduce future disturbance: markers, a recommendation for greater separation between houses and wetlands when those applications return, and physical barriers to limit yard creep.

Applicant William Todd Clark (representing Korka Enterprises) told the commission the concept shows two house sites on the eastern side of Touringford Street. He said the conceptual house footprints on the plan were about 2,500 square feet each and that the layout was meant to show feasibility rather than a final construction plan. The commission and staff noted that separate inland-wetlands applications will be required for any future house construction and emphasized that a subdivision approval does not imply approval of the conceptual home designs.

The commission adopted the permit with the standard 11 conditions plus three additional items included in the staff memo: 1) the field survey of wetland boundaries must be posted with metal markers within 30 days of filing the map with the city clerk, with design and spacing to be approved by the inland-wetlands enforcement officer; 2) a statement clarifying that wetlands approval of the subdivision does not imply approval of any conceptual house design and a recommendation that the applicant propose greater separation between future homes and the wetlands when submitting future applications; and 3) placement of boulders or similar permanent barriers at the wetland edge when the future house applications are submitted to prevent yard creep.

The motion to grant the permit carried on a voice vote; one commissioner abstained, citing absence for earlier parts of the file review. The applicant and his engineer confirmed they would supply required survey markers and would return with detailed wetland applications for each proposed house, at which time the commission can impose additional conditions specific to the home footprints and any needed mitigation.

Clarifying details recorded at the hearing include that the parcel is about 4.7 acres and the applicant presented conceptual house footprints of roughly 2,500 square feet; commissioners requested that the final house plans minimize footprint size and increase buffer distances to wetlands.

Next steps: The applicant will file required markers and then return with individual inland-wetlands applications for the two house sites; those future applications may include additional requirements for permanent barriers or plantings as needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","August 5, 2025 | Inland Wetlands Commission Regular Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The commission granted wetlands relief to subdivide a 4.7-acre parcel at 660 Touringford Street into two building lots, imposing conditions requiring wetland boundary markers, recommending greater separation of future homes from wetlands, and requiring boulders as barriers to prevent yard creep.","taxTitle","Torrington, Northwest Hills County, Connecticut","taxId",52777,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6482256,"Torrington wetlands hearing continued after debate over industrial expansion and mitigation",4040,106000,4146000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550510-75b2f74b6e9c46254f297b41ce3b911f&start=106&end=4146","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550510-75b2f74b6e9c46254f297b41ce3b911f/thumbnail_106000.jpg","/articles/6482256/Torrington/Northwest-Hills-County/Connecticut/Torrington-wetlands-hearing-continued-after-debate-over-industrial-expansion-and-mitigation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6482256-445ca5410b2aab318d099d29bf663d93/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167507&Signature=Yl4AF5o-r3le3JRqI6SgJlOictgmo-dIKDUVDl8FupnZeDCwXc8XSdxkrnxGfolCVjwWPl4up78aWytOirMl5Dv42O1C~o3dP6CVEeXkxTpVfLtZBrkHkqyB7lCyjLcmmOKG8hmIGZ2LaZvGJQqwjoLW69TNxP3ZXD9LFYcs5pufokSygYTFKOK63Y~yAZCNEMnpjZ~NQBndD5NlI1xeHL2gMRCujvgixNYugkNvRxBq0U7DF9yZOrls5fLy833iOO9LH1eARjxCeo9DdNbJYHux0gyZ5Me~k~yI4MmvTrB5dRBWgQOkJgahlpTpYGiGstGENdrqoi0JGDANB747iQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City of Torrington Inland Wetlands Commission on Aug. 5 continued a public hearing on an application by Alan Borghese to expand an industrial building and construct a parking lot at 3651 Touringford Street, citing the need for a revised plan showing planting and low-impact design details.

The application covers a roughly 4-acre parcel zoned for industrial use adjacent to an existing 93,000-square-foot building owned in part by Borghese. Borghese told the commission his tenant has about 130 employees and that the lot could allow an addition only if compensatory mitigation around wetlands could be accommodated; he said if the required mitigation reduced the developable area too much he might not proceed with purchasing the property.

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff said the proposal raises the usual tradeoffs for inland-wetlands review — protecting wetland functions while allowing industrial development that could preserve local jobs. The hearing drew technical testimony about soils and hydrology and at least one resident raised groundwater concerns.

Tom Stansfield, a professional soil scientist with Stansfield Environmental Science Services LLC, summarized the site assessment for the commission. Stansfield said soils on the parcel meet Connecticut’s definition of poorly drained soils and that long-term agricultural use — including compaction by animals and placed fill — has degraded the soils’ ability to perform wetland functions. “They are considered wetland soils because they are poorly drained,” Stansfield said, adding many areas are so impacted he described them as “man-made wetland soils.”

Stansfield and the applicant discussed where mitigation might be located. Borghese showed two conceptual layouts: one intended to attach to the adjacent building if that tenant expands, and an alternate stand-alone building to show what would be feasible if his tenant did not expand. Borghese told the commission he spent about $400,000 to pursue the purchase and an additional $25,000–$30,000 on engineering; after accounting for required mitigation he calculated the largest feasible new building would be about 20,000 square feet and said, “If I have to have this mitigation, I will not proceed with this purchase.”

Commissioners and staff pressed details about the proposed stormwater design. The plan presented shows a wet-bottom water-quality basin for runoff from new pavement; commissioners asked whether roof drains would route to that basin and the applicant’s consultants explained the basin will capture pavement runoff while most roofing runoff will bypass the basin to match existing drainage patterns.

A local resident, Laura Sanderson, asked about groundwater impacts and whether filling the mapped wetland would alter local groundwater levels. Stansfield said, based on his observations, the wetland is a seasonally perched system and not directly tied to deep bedrock wells; he said the site’s hydrology would not likely directly affect a typical domestic well. He added he had not done formal hydrologic modeling and that more testing could be requested.

Commission discussion focused on whether a modest mitigation approach — for example, planting fringe wetland species in a southeast corner of the parcel and integrating low-impact development elements into landscape islands — could offset wetland loss without requiring excavation and large-scale mitigation that Borghese said would render the purchase uneconomical. Stansfield said creating a small, meaningful pocket of wetland vegetation in the heavily compacted area would be difficult without substantial grading and additional water inputs, and that the proposed detention basin may offer a more reliable place to encourage wetland species.

Nate Nardi, the city’s inland-wetlands enforcement officer and assistant city planner, told the commission he and the applicant could develop a species list and planting scheme for the next submission.

Action: The commission voted to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting to allow the applicant to submit a revised plan with planting/species details and notes on low-impact development measures. The hearing remains open and no final permit decision was made.

Looking ahead: Commission members and staff said any wetlands approval should be coordinated with future planning-and-zoning review; commissioners emphasized that a wetlands conceptual approval should not authorize grading or site work until planning-and-zoning approvals and detailed construction permits are issued.","The Torrington Inland Wetlands Commission on Aug. 5 continued a public hearing on Alan Borghese’s application to expand an industrial building and add a parking lot at 3651 Touringford Street after debate over the condition of mapped wetlands and what mitigation would be effective and feasible.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Torrington commission approves re-subdivision of 660 Touringford Street into two lots with conditions

Torrington wetlands hearing continued after debate over industrial expansion and mitigation