Stratford commission allows limited clear‑cut at 195 Candlewood Road with restoration and pollution controls

The Stratford Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission voted to allow limited clearing at 195 Candlewood Road, approving a permit for removal of dead and invasive vegetation in the lot’s upland review area while imposing conditions to protect adjacent wetlands.

David Decilio, owner of 195 Candlewood Road, told the commission he sought permission to remove trees and dead growth that have made the lot impassable and said he had “added 2 acres of additional land” to create septic capacity. He said a wetland scientist, William Kenny, had identified dying beech trees and invasive species on the property and that he plans to seed disturbed areas, possibly with a mix of wildflower seed to support pollinators.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant about potential impacts to wetland hydrology, the history of fill on the parcel and future development. Kelly Kerrigan, staff member, recommended conditions and advised the commission that historical documents referenced possible fill on the site and that a restoration plan should be required if the property is not developed. She told the commission the restoration timeline and specific planting requirements could be spelled out in a future plan provided by the applicant’s wetland scientist.

The commission approved the clear‑cut permit with conditions. The motion was made by Commissioner Angela (surname not specified in the record) and seconded by Dr. Ches (listed in the record as a commissioner). Commissioners amended the motion to include requirements that disturbed soils be reseeded, silt fencing be installed to prevent sediment entry to the wetland, pesticides and chemical lawn treatments not be used near the wetland, and that the applicant file a restoration plan if the property is not developed within three years. The amendment was recorded as made by Commissioner Joe Kurisky. The vote carried unanimously.

During discussion, members noted that the lot has been cleared in the past and that some fill material on the property dates to earlier development; the applicant said he had not yet tested the fill but planned test holes if he proceeds with development. Commissioners and staff clarified that any future construction would require a separate full application and review by the commission.

Decilio withdrew his original standalone application for unconstrained clearing after commissioners raised concerns, then accepted the conditions and the requirement that a full development application would be required before construction. He also said he would not spend large sums on clearing if the lot remained unbuildable; he told the commission he did not “want to clear a lot that I can't build on and spend $11,000.”

The commission’s approval is limited to the clear‑cutting activity described at the meeting and is conditioned on the record‑ed items; any future site work or construction will require a separate full application and review.