Editor’s Note: We were sent a copy of a letter submitted Monday, June 24, to the Old Lyme Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission in advance of the commission’s Tuesday evening meeting. A violation status update on the 308-1 Mile Creek Road property is included on the meeting agenda.. Letter organizer Peter Caron gave permission for LymeLine to publish the letter in full—he said it had been signed by 60 residents.
June 20, 2025
To the Old Lyme Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission,
Greetings.
We simply wish to convey our dismay at efforts by the owner of 308-1 Mile Creek to once again avoid fulfilling the orders of this commission. Time and again this property has been the site of astonishingly flagrant violations, time and again the town has attempted to bring its owners to operate within the law, yet time and again as cease and desist orders are lifted the conditions ordered with these permissions have gone unfulfilled.
This commission has been incredibly patient. The most recent inadequate application was (despite overwhelming community opposition) approved, but with entirely appropriate conditions requiring the applicant to undo some of the damage illegally done to the wetland. Rather than abide by the terms of that decision or appeal it, the owner instead now proposes to leave most of the most blatant violations in place, and to place additional fill in the wetland buffer. The absurdity of the situation, and the gulf between assertions made in the current owner proposed mitigation plan and reality on the ground were both readily evident at June 10th’s site walk.
Along with equally dominant impressions by many in attendance that the driveway really does not belong there, and that its widening and ad hoc improvement is only making the situation worse (and being struck by the drastically reduced water levels in the siltation ponds, themselves regulated inland wetlands), it was hard to ignore that: between the inadequate culvert (which contrary to promises made to this commission, appeared clogged) and the illegally placed boulders and berm (much of which is now sprouting invasive mugwort), the applicant is engaged in completely under-engineered and unlawful river impoundment impacting the river, its associated wetlands, and neighboring properties, with more severe impacts likely in the future if allowed to continue.
We suggest that, if continued use of the driveway is the objective, the appropriate course of action would be securing the permits required to make the culvert adequate from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The still unmapped but abundant vernal habitat in the floodplain upstream would have to be taken into careful consideration, but, if the driveway were to allow the swollen river to pass, it would go a long way towards handling the natural floodplain inundations currently being regularly experienced, without the damages illegal bandaid solutions are incurring.
We find the arguments made by the owner’s soils scientist for not completing the mitigation steps ordered by this commission entirely unconvincing. Erosion of the “millings” (placed without permit and of unknown origin) was clearly visible. References to elevations and wetland delineations in the owner’s latest mitigation proposal are worth little, since, crucially, the wetland’s extent before the fill violations occurred still hasn’t been properly mapped, and an accurate up to date survey showing the relevant driveway and river elevations still hasn’t been performed (despite the false characterization in Indigo’s WRP-1 plan of Annino Survey LLC’s limited data accumulation work as constituting an A-2 survey, it is actually a class D). While we understand the owner may have thought otherwise when he took the property off his former employer’s hands, the long history of egregious harm being committed on the property cannot and does not justify the further and ongoing injury being done to the land, the river, the town, and the law.
In light of the persistent noncompliance with this commission’s orders and the history summarized in the Valentine’s Day letter to this commission signed by scores of residents, we again urge this commission to commence revocation of the fundamentally flawed October 2022 permit in accordance with §14.5 of its regulations. We also suggest it may be appropriate for the most recent permit to be revoked, as its requirements are not being met. Otherwise, we urge the commission to at a minimum insist that the mitigation work it ordered be fully completed under the oversight of a town contracted professional at the owner’s expense.
Thank you for your work. We very much recognize its importance, are grateful for all of your time and efforts, and wish you a relaxing summer.
Sincerely,
Olaf Bertram-Nothnagel and Peter Caron,
Old Lyme.
