Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation Commission calls for clearer coordination on shoreline permits and dry‑hydrant work
Summary
At its July meeting the New London Conservation Commission raised concerns about when the state Department of Environmental Services handles shoreline permits versus town review, discussed a planned dry‑hydrant project at Sloping Shore and urged clearer lines of communication with DES to avoid unpermitted work near lakes.
The New London Conservation Commission pressed for clearer coordination with the state over shoreline permitting after members said the commission now often receives only summaries of DES approvals rather than the full permitting package.
Rob, a commission member, said the commission recently learned of a complaint about unpermitted work at Little Lake Sunapee and that DES had sent a stop-and-assist letter and asked for the permit paperwork. He also described an approved proposal to install a dry hydrant at Sloping Shore to improve firefighting access; he said town and fire‑chief sign‑off remain part of that project’s approval chain.
“We had one recently that came in — a complaint … DES sent a letter out and said stop and assist and, you know, send us the permit,” Rob said, describing the state’s role in enforcement.
Other members said the commission used to receive full permit submissions, which were copied and distributed locally, and that the current practice — in which DES approves some shoreline work and the commission only gets a summary — limits the commission’s ability to spot issues before work starts. One member urged the commission to re‑establish a point of contact at DES and to clarify whether shore‑line complaints should be filed with the town or directly with the state.
“It just seems like we should be coordinating with DES to make sure we’re really on board,” a member said, calling for the commission to confirm its role and responsibilities in shoreline review.
The exchange also touched on water‑quality concerns: a short discussion about a recent cyanobacteria patch included a contractor’s claim that a bloom had been blown in from another reach of the lake. Members agreed to follow up with town staff and to try to set a direct line of communication with the relevant DES contacts to avoid future uncertainty.
Next steps the commission identified included the chair and permitting liaison meeting with town staff and trying to secure a named DES contact so future permit flows and complaints are routed clearly to the commission when appropriate.
