Charlton conservation commission pauses enforcement as runoff investigation continues at 62 Old Spencer Road

The Town of Charlton Conservation Commission on an ongoing enforcement item concerning stormwater runoff at 62 Old Spencer Road heard extended testimony from the property owner and abutters and voted to continue the matter to the commission’s July 16 meeting while staff pursues further investigation.

The property owner, identified in the meeting as Mister Gauthier, told the commission he installed and then extended a discharge pipe to keep water off his own yard and a neighbor’s, but that the redirected flow now reaches the road. “I put in a pipe and diverted the water so it wouldn't go across my property and the neighbor's property,” Gauthier said. He said he extended the pipe to about 100 feet after being asked by a commissioner to add 50 feet, and that the volume of water remains large enough that it still reaches the road when saturated.

Conservation staff and board members reiterated the commission’s enforcement point: the town’s regulation prohibits directing a point discharge onto a public road. A staff member summarized the violation as not being the presence of water per se but “the fact that [the water] was directed to the road through a trench.” The commission’s agent said she had inspected the site, noted a wetland or wet area upslope of the parcel, and sent a certified letter to the owners of the parcel behind Gauthier’s property to request site access for investigation.

Neighbors pressed for a faster resolution. One resident, identified as Ed, said his property has lost trees and is regularly flooded and asked what the town would do if roadway drainage continues to destroy private property. “You cannot allow someone's private property to be the landing zone for all of this water,” he said, describing repeated damage and dead trees on his land.

Conservation Agent Bennett (meeting presenter) recommended giving recent on-site work time to show results and pursuing permission to inspect abutting parcels. He told the commission he had mailed certified letters to the uphill property owners and was awaiting a response. Bennett recommended against starting enforcement fines immediately because Gauthier had extended the pipe and staff was close to identifying the origin of the flow.

After discussion about potential consequences of filling the trench and about the risks of flooding adjacent septic systems if the trench were filled, the commission voted to continue the matter to July 16, 2025, to allow staff to complete the investigation and to observe whether the pipe extension reduces water flowing onto the road during upcoming rain events.

The commission did not adopt a new remediation plan at the meeting and did not initiate fines; staff was asked to attempt inspections of the abutting parcels, coordinate with public works for any related roadwork, and report back at the July 16 meeting.

The continued item remains open; the commission recorded that additional rain events later this year may be needed to evaluate whether the property owner’s work reduces roadway discharge and to confirm whether the upslope parcel is the origin of the runoff.