James Fitzpatrick and Stratford commission spar over wetland mitigation at 577 Holly Lane

James Fitzpatrick, the owner of the property at 577 Holly Lane, told the Stratford Conservation Commission he has submitted a narrative and site plan intended to finish mitigation work linked to a 2017 permit. Commission members questioned why elements required by the original permit — notably wetland creation and certain wetland scientist reports — were not completed and whether the recent proposal differs from the original obligations.

Commissioners said the permit issued in 2017 and construction that began around 2018–19 left several obligations unfulfilled, principally the creation of a designated wetland area. ‘‘The permit was violated,’’ staff told the commission, and members said they were weighing options that range from negotiating a new permit that reflects current state standards to enforcing posted remedies such as the performance bond on file.

Why it matters: The site discharges to a wetland area and commissioners emphasized protecting water quality. They pressed the owner for engineering or consultant proposals that would either produce the physical wetland creation originally required or provide compensating stormwater treatment that meaningfully improves water quality before runoff reaches the wetland.

Earlier in the meeting commissioners and staff described the site conditions observed during a recent sitewalk: an area originally shown as lawn has naturalized with hydrophytic vegetation but does not meet the technical definition of a wetland without excavation and soil modification. Fitzpatrick said he had previously installed erosion controls and that portions of the drainage infrastructure (sump and stone spreader) remain but are overgrown; commissioners noted a lack of documentation showing regular maintenance of those features.

Commission members and staff outlined two main mitigation pathways. One is targeted wetland creation — excavating and regrading a small upland ‘‘island’’ so that hydric soils and wetland hydrology can be reestablished — coupled with the planting and invasive‑species management listed in the original permit. The other is upgraded stormwater treatment to reduce pollutants reaching the wetland, with suggestions such as hydrodynamic separators or other pre‑treatment measures upstream of the outfall. Staff and commissioners emphasized that some treatment technologies may be infeasible at the outfall given the high water table and site elevations and asked the owner’s engineer and soil scientist to evaluate feasible designs.

Fitzpatrick said he and his consultant (George Logan was repeatedly referenced as the soil scientist/consultant) had discussed relocating creation work to a less disruptive area of the lot and that the sitewalk attendees had considered doing supplemental planting and hand‑work instead of heavy equipment in sensitive spots. Commissioners responded that any path forward must both satisfy the original mitigation objective (creation or equivalent water‑quality gains) and include monitoring or maintenance commitments in a new permit.

There is a $20,000 performance bond associated with the file, and commissioners discussed enforcement options including forfeiture of the bond or daily fines if compliance cannot be achieved; they said they preferred to resolve the matter by negotiation if possible. The commission asked Fitzpatrick to coordinate with his engineering team and the referenced soil scientist so staff can review a concrete proposal. Several commissioners said they wanted firmer documentation of maintenance (for example, records showing regular sump or catch basin cleanouts) to be included if stormwater measures are used as mitigation.

Next steps: The commission agreed to table final action while the owner and his consultants prepare a more detailed mitigation proposal and work with staff (Kelly) on draft permit conditions. Commissioners asked staff and the owner to aim for resolution at the next regular meeting in July or at a special meeting if a timely consultant response is available. No fines or bond calls were made at this meeting.

"It's my project and I protected that project all the way," Fitzpatrick said, defending past practices. Commission members replied that the missing wetland creation and required monitoring are the missing pieces they need to see addressed before they will close the file.

The commission repeatedly urged that any new permit include specific monitoring and recordkeeping requirements so future compliance can be verified.