HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS Comments #2 8-14-2025
Wetland Delineations Wetland Evaluations Soil Evaluations
1
____________________________________________________________________
Ian Cole, LLC
Professional Registered Soil Scientist / Professional Wetland Scientist
PO BOX 619
Middletown, CT 06457
Itcole@gmail.com
860-514-5642
August 14, 2025
Ms. Stacy Radford
Zoning & Wetland Officer
Department of Land Use & Development
Town of Montville
310 Norwich-New London Turnpike
Uncasville, CT 06382
Re: SITE PLAN APPLICATION REVIEW FOR:
APPLICATION 25 IWC16
DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
GLEN ROAD (055-051-00A) UNCASVILLE
Dear Ms. Radford and Commission Members:
On behalf of the Town of Montville, I have received and reviewed the subject application
materials and visited the site on July 24, 2025, for the above referenced project.
After completing a site walk and review of the application materials, I am in agreement
with CLA that there is no less impactful way to enter the property. I would also add that
the upper edge of the wetlands that are slated to be impacted are along 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 more sensitive and
beneficial part of the wetland system.
CLA recently provided updated information that the flood storage compensation area is
no longer needed as the site is not located in a FEMA regulated zone that requires
compensation for filling a floodplain. Before this new important update the main concern
with this site was the necessity to clear a well-functioning self-sustaining mature forest
for flood storage compensation. Because of this required disturbance initially it was
going to be recommended that the applicant consider a wetland mitigation plan within
that compensation area to help offset the physical loss of the 4200 SF of wetlands with
the entrance to the property. But with that regulatory requirement absent, there is little
Wetland Delineations Wetland Evaluations Soil Evaluations
2
ecological benefit in disturbing more vegetated land within the 50’ upland review area
that is in good condition in the pursuit of mitigation for an unavoidable wetland impact. I
would suggest that if mitigation is required it could instead of physical replacement other
alternatives could be included like a conservation easement around the existing wetlands
and/or the remainder of the 50’ URA to protect the wetlands in perpetuity, and/or signage
along said easement boundary to protect against potential future encroachments.
Additional comments for consideration:
1. Acknowledging that most activities are outside the 50’ URA where activities are
within 50’ of a wetland resource, a double row of E&S control measures should
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 before
construction, so the wetland boundary is visible and obvious to civil contractors
and inspectors during the construction phase.
In closing, while the proposed activity is significant in the fact it will be crossing a
wetland and will result in the permanent filling, it likely will not have a major effect or
negative impact due to the nature of the subject wetland at the crossing location.
In my professional opinion the proposed regulated activities:
1. Should not result in an adverse impact to the overall wetland function and values;
2. Are consistent with and satisfy the statutory factors for consideration provided by
Section 22a-41 of the Connecticut General Statutes; and
3. Are consistent with and satisfy the criteria for consideration provided by the
Town of Montville’s Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at
itcole@gmail.com or (860) 514-5642.
Sincerely,
Ian T. Cole
Professional Registered Soil Scientist
Professional Wetland Scientist #2006