Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Fence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School’s fence plan put off after commissioners raise wetlands, access and consistency concerns
Summary
A proposed security fence at Candlewood Lake Elementary would cross created‑wetland and enhancement areas; commissioners asked for alternatives and historical maps and continued the application to allow staff and the applicant to rework alignment and provide additional materials.
A school representative told the Inland Wetlands Commission on July 13 that the proposed security fence at Candlewood Lake Elementary is intended to prevent students from accessing adjacent trails during school hours and to improve on‑site safety.
The applicant described a fence line 3–5 feet behind the tree line, with a gate at the trailhead. Commissioners and staff said the proposed alignment intersects previously created wetlands and wetland enhancement areas established during the school’s earlier project, and cautioned about consistency with past commission decisions. Commissioners asked if the fence could be shifted, whether a lockable gate and higher latch would reduce risks to children, and how the fence might affect wildlife and the function of the created wetlands. One commissioner said, “we can't tell one person they can't put a fence to the wetlands and tell someone else they can,” urging a consistent approach.
A representative for the school said the fence is part of a safety strategy for a campus with a large enrollment; the transcript quotes the representative saying the school has "over 1,000 kids" and that the fencing is part of ensuring student safety. Commissioners recommended site re‑inspection with staff (including Sharon, who has historical knowledge of the project) and requested the applicant look for alternatives that avoid created wetlands if feasible.
Because this is a new application, the commission continued W26‑42 (Candlewood Lake School fence) to the next scheduled meeting to allow the applicant to provide additional mapping, historical wetland documentation and consider alternative alignments. The motion to continue carried 5–2, per the meeting record.
Why it matters: the proposed fence would intersect areas that the commission previously designated as created or enhanced wetlands; any permitted work in those areas could affect the function of the created wetlands and sets a consistency precedent for future applicants.
What comes next: the applicant and staff will review the original plans and flagging maps, look for possible alignments that avoid wetlands, and provide additional documentation at the commission's next meeting.
