HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS Comments #1 8-8-2025From:Stacy Radford
To:Stacy Radford
Subject:FW: 25 IWC 16 - Glen Road, (055-051-00A) Uncasville
Date:Friday, August 8, 2025 9:58:12 AM
From: Ian Cole <itcole@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 9:29 AM
To: Stacy Radford <sradford@montville-ct.org>
Subject: Re: 25 IWC 16 - Glen Road, (055-051-00A) Uncasville
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Stacy, thanks for reaching out.
I was able to get over to the site to get boots on the ground and familiarize myself with the siteconditions. I'm glad to hear the compensation area is no longer needed. I don’t have anysubstantial design requests for the applicant, the proposal seems like a reasonable use of theproperty and should not holistically impact on the wetland functions and values.
I have reviewed CLA’s assessment, and I agree there is no less impactful way to enter theproperty. I would also add that the upper edge of the wetlands that are being impacted arealong the wetland transition and not as highly functioning in comparison to the interior /downgradient portion of the wetland and where Stony Brook flows which are the moresensitive and beneficial part of the wetland system.
Before this new update my main concern with this site was the necessity to clear a nice matureforest stand and excavate for flood storage compensation. Because of this requireddisturbance I was going to suggest the applicant consider a wetland mitigation plan within thatcompensation area to help offset the physical loss of the 4200 SF of wetlands with theentrance to the property. But with that off the table I don’t see a good ecological benefit indisturbing more land within the 50’ regulated area that is in good existing forested / vegetatedcondition in the pursuit of mitigation for an unavoidable wetland impact. Unless thecommission feels strongly otherwise, I would suggest that if mitigation is required it couldinstead include such things like a conservation easement around the existing wetlands and/orthe remainder of the 50’ URA to protect the wetlands in perpetuity, and/or signage along saideasement boundary.
Lastly, my only other 2 comments are the following:
1. Although acknowledging that most activities are outside the 50’ URA whereactivities are within 50’ of a wetland resource, a double row of E&S control measuresshould be installed where appropriate.
2. I have reviewed the wetland boundary and agree with Mr. Russo’s delineation. The wetland flagging was somewhat degraded and should be re-flagged beforeconstruction, so the wetland boundary is obvious to civil contractors and inspectorsduring the construction phase.
I will write this up in a letter to the commission, so you have a record for the file.
Let me know if you have any questions or additional thoughts I should include or focus on for
the commission.
Have a great weekend – Ian