Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wetlands enforcement: NOVs issued; commission probes pumping and storage near Baker Road pond
Summary
Roxbury wetlands enforcement reported notices of violation and a high-capacity pump reportedly moving ~97,000 gallons per day; the commission asked for a professional report, will conduct site visits, and declined a premature emailed intervention request pending any formal enforcement order.
John Cody, Roxbury’s wetlands enforcement officer, told the commission that two notices of violation were in process — one sent the prior week and another to be issued the next day — tied to complaints about storage and activities within regulated upland review areas.
Cody described a complaint concerning material (stone piles, a loader, a 55-gallon drum marked 'lubricants') stored near regulated wetlands at 1012 Baker Road and said he confirmed apparent encroachment during a site visit. He also reported a separate complaint involving a property owner running a 24/7 pump that a neighbor and staff estimated could be moving roughly 97,000 gallons per day from a river or pond. “If you do the calculations it’s 97,000 gallons a day,” Cody stated when describing the pump and flow estimates.
Neighbors have retained experts. Jim McManis, a certified professional soil scientist retained by neighbors, said he performed a site visit and will submit a written report for the commission’s review ahead of the next meeting (the transcript indicates he planned to file his report before the August 27 meeting). The commission directed staff to follow up with the state on diversion-permit requirements and to coordinate further on-site inspections. Commissioners asked that the owner (Mark Low / Morgado, as recorded in the transcript) be invited to the next meeting to respond; they also discussed options including requiring updated wetland delineation maps for the property.
The commission discussed a separate emailed request from a resident seeking intervenor status in the matter. Legal counsel and several commissioners explained that intervention under Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-19 requires a verified pleading and that an NOOV is not itself a proceeding; the commission voted not to accept the emailed intervention request at this stage but said proper filings would be considered if a formal order is issued.
The commission asked staff to pursue the complaint with the state where appropriate and to produce enforcement updates at the next meeting.
