Litchfield commission seeks fence resurvey, revised restoration plan after unauthorized clearing

Chad Brandon, a civil engineer and principal owner at Fieldstone Land Consultants, told the Litchfield Conservation Commission on June 4 that a logging contractor cut beyond approved clearing limits at Litchfield Estates (Tax Map 1, Lot 32), prompting a town enforcement letter and a cease‑and‑desist issued in early May. "We are before you tonight to talk about —the enforcement order or notice of violation and cease and desist order that was issued on May 5th," Brandon said, adding that his team was asked to prepare a restoration plan and present proposed measures.

The commission's site visit and aerial imagery presented at the meeting found "about 107 mature trees" removed inside the buffer, with some trees showing ring counts indicating ages above 85 years, commissioners said. George Lavash, chair of the commission, summarized the panel's limited role: "As the conservation commission, we can't weigh in on any of the bond stuff ... We can write a letter of recommendation for or against, you know, based upon your restoration plan."

Fieldstone proposed planting 24 four‑foot eastern white pines around the edge of the disturbed area and installing about 20 placards reading "wetlands buffer do not disturb" to reestablish the non‑disturbance boundary without further disturbing the wetland soils. "Our proposal is try to disturb the least amount and define the border," Brandon said, noting that the project is bonded and that the developer has performed substantial cleanup and permitting work on the broader site.

Commissioners questioned whether white pines alone would restore the area's preexisting species mix. "I tend to lean more towards ... the inner part is missing other types of species," said a member who inspected the site, urging that interior plantings include hardwoods and understory species. Members suggested a staged approach: install perimeter markers and trees now, allow natural regrowth for a season, and then reassess the interior with a landscape architect or county forester to recommend supplemental seedlings or saplings.

The commission raised a second, separate concern: the location of the silt fence as placed in the field does not consistently match the approved 50‑ft buffer on the plan. Commissioners asked the applicant to resurvey and move the silt fence to the correct surveyed 50‑ft line so the disturbed area is contained while a more complete restoration plan is prepared.

At the meeting's close the commission voted to send a letter to the Board of Selectmen asking that Patriot Holdings / Olsson Mobile Home Park and Fieldstone Land Consultants (1) revisit and correct the silt fence location to match the approved 50‑ft buffer, (2) return to the conservation commission with a revised landscape and restoration plan addressing the impacted north section and the interior vegetation, and (3) include monitoring provisions on the plan (for example, a five‑year check and replacement of dead plantings). The motion passed with a recorded tally of five in favor, one opposed and one abstention.

The commission also asked the applicant to pursue a second technical review, either by the county forester if available or by a landscape architect paid by the developer, and agreed that the applicant may proceed with other bonded construction work so long as activities remain outside the delineated buffer and the silt fence is corrected. Fieldstone said it would provide a revised plan and return to the commission at the July meeting for further review.

Next steps: the selectmen will receive the commission's letter and the commission will inspect the resurveyed silt fence and the applicant's revised restoration plan when returned to the commission; the applicant expects to present updates at the July meeting.