Mystic ― The Stonington Inlands Wetlands and Watercourses Commission has continued a public hearing to Feb. 2 on a controversial application for work on a property behind an Old Mystic home after receiving a report from a wetlands scientist hired by critics.

The application by Coast Development Group of Newport proposes ecological improvements to the property through the removal of invasive trees and plantings from within the 100-foot buffer along the wetlands. The work is in preparation for construction of a single-family home at 16 Smith St.

“Evidence points to significant inaccuracies and insufficiencies in baseline information about the site. The proposed conceptual restoration scheme is expected to harm rather than enhance the existing wetland resources, but in any case, details are lacking for the proposed restoration,” wetlands scientist George Logan wrote in his report to the commission.

He told the commission that he had reviewed the plans and reports associated with the initial application as well as the new application, at the request of abutting property owner Jonathan Fontanella.

The initial application was denied in September after neighbors testified that Old Mystic contains an inland, freshwater marsh that is the largest in southeastern Connecticut and is crucial in preventing widespread flooding in the village. They said it also filters groundwater that drains into the Mystic River and provides habitat for birds and wildlife.

The northern part of that wetland extends up into properties on the south side of Smith Street, where 16 Smith St. is located.

In Logan’s review and site inspection, conducted from outside the property lines, he said he found reason to question the accuracy of wetland boundaries on the property. He also cited a rise of the water table due to recent tree cutting, and that proposed future tree cutting could exacerbate the situation. He also cited evidence of vernal pool habitat on the eastern edge of the property.

Logan also stated the commission had a legal basis to deny the application by deeming the area a watercourse.

During a public hearing Thursday, William McCoy, attorney for the developer, pushed back on a number of points made by Logan and the public, including the lack of evidence that vernal pools exist on the property.

“Speculation is not the same as evidence,” he said.

He addressed concerns about insufficient drainage and increased risk of flooding as not within the purview of the commission which he said is tasked with protecting wetlands and watercourses.

“It is not about drainage; it is not about flooding. It is about whether this specific activity has the likelihood of adversely impacting the adjacent wetlands and watercourses,” McCoy said.

“I don’t deny that there are problems with flooding issues downstream from this property. That is not, however, what your charge is, as a commission,” he continued.

Commission member Dennis Unites requested the hearing be continued to allow time for the commission to thoroughly review the new information.

Chairman Howard Reichart agreed with Unites, though he reiterated statements made by McCoy that much of the environmental concern expressed by opponents was of critical importance but not within the commission jurisdiction.