OLD LYME—UPDATED 3/25: At its last meeting, the Old Lyme Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission (IWWC) decided to postpone a vote on the gravel pit operation at 304 & 308-1 Mile Creek Rd. until its next meeting on Tuesday, March 25. The Commission meets at 6 p.m. this evening in Old Lyme Town Hall.

It is unclear from the published Agenda whether or not the IWWC will vote in person at tonight’s meeting.

We have been sent a copy of the letter submitted to the commission in advance of its meeting, which had 53 signatories.

The letter is now part of the public record. It represents a comprehensive summary of the ecology, infractions, rulings and more related to the gravel pit and so we are publishing it in full below in order to give our readers a better understanding of the situation.

February 14, 2025
To the Old Lyme Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission:

Greetings and thank you all for your work.

The current application 24-32 to this commission by 308-1 Mile Creek Road, LLC is intentionally limited to the items expected to allow the owner to avoid the consequences and particularly the town litigation prompted by their actions and lack of cooperation. If the current application is approved and related enforcement actions dropped, the town’s Zoning Commission, deferring to this commission, will understand that all related environmental concerns have been answered and not entertain any objections on such grounds to granting the owner a new special permit to operate under the plan this commission accepted in October of 2022. This would be deeply problematic, for since that plan was approved (to the consternation since of the many neighbors who were not notified, without the applicant submitting a proper application, completing a survey or wetlands assessment, or notifying abutters, and as a condition of the lifting of a previous cease and desist) the following things have occurred or are apparent from the record:

1. Numerous violations of the terms and scope of the plan have been committed by the applicant and documented by this commission. Some are the subject of the application. They constitute multiple blatant violations of the Town of Old Lyme Wetlands Regulations within both the wetlands and its buffer. These are in addition to previous violations, such as placement of large mounds of material still directly adjacent to the river, that are not a part of this application or related litigation, but were observed by the commission and subject of a prior 2022 cease and desist order, which was only lifted on the condition that a plan would be submitted and presumably adhered to.

2. The critical importance of this portion of the Three Mile River and its riparian corridor to the community and the region, and the remarkable, truly rare and unique, fragile and irreplaceable natural assets it encompasses have been made at least somewhat clearer, including by expert testimony and a perfunctory wetlands assessment.

3. The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection has designated the area that the work site is in as a known location of state listed species on its Natural Diversity Data Base map.

4. Potential cryptic vernal ecology has been identified in the wetland formed by the river, with numerous probable spotted salamander egg masses documented (separately submitted, also viewable online at tinyurl.com/2t747pts), including some less than 400’ from the current worksite, but this vernal ecology has not been properly mapped, indeed the applicant’s soil scientist did not even acknowledge the presence of readily apparent egg masses anywhere outside of a single recently over-excavated (in violation of the October ‘22 plan) depression in the far northwest of the property not connected to the river, which he subsequently discounted on questionable grounds.

5. No acknowledgement or analysis of the severe hydrologic and environmental impacts of rock crushing has been offered, despite repeated and reasoned calls from the community and experts, including Save the Sound staff, for their consideration.

6. The applicant’s zoning permit has expired.

7. Storm water approvals from CT DEEP have been shown to be out of date and none have since been granted or sought.

8. By the applicant’s actions, his own admission in email correspondence with Old Lyme Land Use Coordinator Eric Knapp, and through statements by his engineer to this commission, the October ‘22 plan is not an accurate representation of work being done or intended to be done on the site. Repeated reference to a forthcoming application for far more expansive and even more impactful work has been made.

9. This commission has taken the extraordinary step of commencing litigation because the applicant has been less than forthright or fully cooperative with the commission.

10. The record gives grounds to doubt that either he or the previous owners, of whom he was an agent, have dealt with town commissions, including this one, in good faith. (This on top of inaccuracies and failures prior to the October ‘22 approval, including several statements by then part owner Peter Alter; for example, the guarantee by him that only earth materials were being processed was contradicted by the presence of construction debris. Of the seven conditions for lifting a previous cease and desist order in July of ‘22, only two were fully complied with: one was the submission of the October ‘22 plan, the violation of which initiated the current enforcement cycle, and which after 90 days turned out at the last moment to be little more than a letter accompanied by a very approximate markup by Mr. Alter of an out of date map.  The only other condition fully complied with was keeping contact information up to date. Numerous applicable zoning and additional violations will not be covered here, but demonstrate a disregard for the environment, town regulations, aquifer protection, and the rights of neighbors.)

11. Mr. Alter assured the commission that the berm adjacent to the river was stable and sufficient to protect the river, but the current owner subsequently had to elevate it (not that we believe any such berm could ever provide a sufficient wetland buffer for the actual impacts of strip mining and rock crushing).

12. This unpermitted work was described by the applicant after the fact as intended solely to prevent flooding and protect the river. However, many trees along the riverbank were removed and still unknown fill was placed along and in the wetland in order to widen the road as evidenced on site walks and by satellite and aerial photography. There is no acknowledgment by the applicant or his agents that the road was in fact widened and at the expense of the wetland. (Why indeed would road widening be necessary for an operation simply continuing historic activities as claimed?) 

13. In dissembling about the removal of trees to the commission, the applicant stated over the phone at the most recent hearing that a chainsaw hasn’t been used on the property, which may be true, but neighbors witnessed trees all along the wetland edge and elsewhere outside the permitted area and within the upland review area simply being uprooted with heavy equipment.

14. The soil scientist hired by the applicant has staked his professional reputation on denying facts and crimes that neighbors and the commission’s enforcement officer, Mr. Knapp, witnessed first hand, including specifically the dumping of fill over the riverbank.

15. Though a chemical and physical analysis of materials illegally placed in and along the wetland by the applicant is required and has been requested by the commission, none has been submitted.

16. Any intervention by the EPA for federal violations seems unlikely under the current administration.

Frankly, we would find the suggestion that this commission would be fulfilling its mission by permitting a strip mining and rock crushing operation directly adjacent to one of the most significant inland wetlands that Old Lyme is graced with—a remarkably pristine, incredibly diverse, and highly functioning river-fed wetland that serves as habitat for multiple listed species and as a critical wildlife corridor—laughable, if steps along those lines had not already unfortunately been taken with the October ‘22 plan. We are hopeful that the commission now shares our understanding of the situation, and that the pattern of exploiting the individually limited but interlocking jurisdictions of the Wetlands and Zoning Commissions that was clearly evidenced in 2022 will not be allowed to escalate in 2025.

Therefore, and given all of the above, independent of how it resolves to handle the ongoing litigation, but certainly before the cease and desist order is lifted, or the current (we believe, for reasons already stated elsewhere, inadequate)application is approved, we respectfully suggest that it is incumbent upon this commission to revoke its October ‘22 permit, in accordance with §14.5 of the Town of Old Lyme Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, and to require a truly complete application representative of the owner’s actual intentions before allowing resumption of work or any representations by the applicant to the Zoning Commission that he has Wetlands Commission approval for his planned activities.

We find the proposed mitigations odd and grossly inadequate.  However, we do not believe any likely to be proposed additional mitigation would alter our above assessment and request.

Additionally, we believe the contention made by the Carons as intervenors, that the public trust in our air, water, and environment will be unreasonably damaged if the application is approved (or in this case has already also been unreasonably impacted by the actions for which after-the-fact approval is being sought) has been borne out by comments and testimonies submitted by them and others, notably wetlands scientist Raina Volovski. We are grateful for all their efforts.

We are also concerned that the curtailing of commission member Michael Aurelia’s summary of his research into the parcel’s history at the last hearing was inappropriate, and may have constituted an undue infringement of the full deliberation required by Robert’s Rules of Order and the Old Lyme 2024 Guidebook for Boards, Commissions and Committee Members. Though we very much appreciate Attorney Cassella’s work and expertise, and his intention to keep the hearing on track, and we understand that the current application is carefully tailored, we believe the history is, as to some extent we allude to above, directly relevant.

Thank you all very much for the crucial work you do. As residents dependent on your conscientiousness for our continued ability to enjoy our lives and homes in this amazing town, we are grateful for the time and attention you dedicate to this important matter, and for your service to the town. Happy Valentine’s Day!