Clinton Wetlands Board OKs Bridge Replacement

Inland Wetlands · Meeting of September 2, 2026

CLINTON — The Clinton Inland Wetlands Commission voted unanimously to approve replacement of the Country Village Lane bridge, a 1970s culvert crossing state inspectors rated critical after five decades of deterioration. Project engineer David Ciccio of VL Companies said the new 20-foot box culvert will take six to nine months to build, with water diverted through a bypass pipe "sized for the two-year storm event." A resident identified only as Jack asked whether the project would fix years of pothole damage near the bridge; VL Companies said road repairs outside the bridge footprint remain the town's responsibility. The commission also approved a restoration plan for a Killingworth Turnpike property cited for unpermitted wetlands filling, set an October 1 deadline for a Three Brooks Drive owner to remove stored materials from a wetlands buffer, and continued a 32 Old Nod Road case to October.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 3,175 words

Source: the Inland Wetlands meeting of September 2, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Roll Call and Minutes

The Clinton Inland Wetlands Commission opened its September 1, 2026 regular monthly meeting with a roll call showing members Scott Harley, Mike Florio, Amy Handler, Christopher Horvath, Thomas Welch and Mark Burna present, along with alternate Douglas Elliott sitting in for absent member Larry Edwards. The board approved minutes of its August 4, 2026 regular meeting and its August 13, 2026 special site-walk meeting without discussion, both by unanimous voice vote.

Public Hearing: 10 Country Village Lane Bridge Replacement (IWC 26-6)

Background and stakes: Bridge No. 6956, carrying Country Village Lane over an unnamed brook, was built in 1970 using four corrugated steel arch culverts. Recent state inspections assigned the structure a condition rating of 2, described in the presentation as critical, citing rust holes, section loss, perforations through the culvert invert and undermining at the inlet. The application came to the commission as a regulated-activity permit because the replacement work falls within 50 feet of inland wetlands and a watercourse. David Ciccio is listed as the applicant's engineer of record; the Town of Clinton is the property owner, since the bridge carries a town road.

The question before the body: whether to approve a regulated-activity permit allowing replacement of the existing culvert crossing with a new concrete box culvert and associated roadway, drainage and utility work.

Substantive content: Daniel Pinto, presenting for VL Companies, described the proposed replacement as a single 20-foot-wide by 6-foot-tall precast concrete box culvert that would be embedded below the streambed and backfilled with natural streambed material "to allow the road to pass through the structure in a manner that more closely resembles the existing natural channel," he said. The project raises the roadway profile about one foot over the crossing and shifts the roadway's low point roughly 50 feet to the west to address existing ponding near driveways. Wetland and watercourse impacts were shown on a table displayed during the presentation; Pinto said total impacts exceed 4,000 square feet, with a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit already received. David Ciccio, identifying himself as VL Companies' principal engineer, described the water-handling plan: sandbag dams upstream and downstream directing flow into a 36-inch bypass pipe sized for a two-year storm event, with construction proceeding in two stages, the south side of the bridge first and the north side second. He estimated full construction, including utility relocation, at six to nine months, with the in-water excavation and culvert-setting phase taking about three months of that span.

The deliberation: Commissioners asked about traffic management, utility impacts and whether the project would correct existing road damage. Pinto confirmed two nine-foot travel lanes, one in each direction, would be maintained during construction. On utilities, Ciccio said Eversource, Frontier (formerly Southern New England Telephone) and Comcast facilities run along the project area and will be relocated and later restored to original locations; property owners have been compensated for temporary use of their land. A resident who identified herself only as Jack, saying she lives nearby with her husband, Carl, raised concerns about years of pothole damage near the bridge and asked whether the project would fix it.

"The road has been really getting a lot of pot holes near the bridge area and the driveways have been impacted by a lot of water that's there. Is that going to be corrected in this process?" — Jack, area resident, public comment

Pinto responded that the reconstructed area is limited to the bridge zone itself, not the full roadway, and that damage from construction trucks elsewhere "would have to be the town" to repair, though contractor contracts include provisions addressing incidental damage, a pre-construction condition survey, and limits on vibration affecting nearby wells. A commissioner also asked about protections for residential wells; Ciccio said a special contract provision requires a pre- and post-construction well condition survey with vibration limits.

Procedural steps and outcome: Member Mark Burna recused himself before the item began and did not participate in the discussion or vote. The commission voted to open the public hearing, took testimony, then voted to close it, all by unanimous voice vote with no recorded opposition. The board then approved application IWC 26-6 with ten conditions, including a pre-construction meeting with the wetlands enforcement officer at least two weeks before work begins, submission of final approved water-handling and erosion-control plans, identification of any temporary soil stockpile or staging areas for separate approval, an as-built plan within 90 days of completion, and a restriction limiting in-water work in the brook to between June 1 and September 30. The vote was unanimous.

Implications and what is next: Construction is expected to begin once utility relocation is complete, with the project taking six to nine months overall. Residents along Country Village Lane will experience temporary two-lane traffic patterns and utility service interruptions during relocation work, which Frontier and Eversource will coordinate with affected property owners.

Old Business: 32 Old Nod Road Continuance and Site-Visit Protocol (IWC 26-7)

Background and stakes: This case stems from an earlier wetlands violation matter involving the same Old Nod Road property, documented under file IWC 26-6 (a separate docket number from the bridge application despite the shared prefix), which included a show-cause hearing. Applicants Robert and Brianna Godsey are now pursuing a wetlands determination application under Section 4 of the regulations, and had previously been asked by the commission to submit additional mapping materials.

The question before the body: whether to grant a one-month continuance of the application and, as a preliminary step recommended by the town attorney, whether to formally add the prior violation file and show-cause hearing record into the record for the new application.

Substantive content: Attorney Dubitski, appearing on behalf of the Godseys, told the commission the applicants are "putting together the materials that the commission had asked for" but are having difficulty producing the requested graphics and maps, and requested a continuance to the commission's October meeting. Staff relayed that Town Attorney Jennifer Coppola, who was not present, recommended the commission first vote to incorporate the violation record, including the show-cause hearing materials, into the IWC 26-7 file "because there is relevant information in that previous file" relevant to what the application is required to demonstrate.

The deliberation: Commissioners asked whether incorporating the record was simply administrative housekeeping; staff clarified the violation file "has not yet been formally incorporated" and that doing so ensures whatever the applicants submit is "consistent with what was required out of that show cause hearing." A separate and more extended discussion concerned how the commission could conduct a site visit to the property, since, according to staff, "the Godsies will not open up their property to the general public" and will not allow a public meeting on site. Staff explained that under the town attorney's guidance, any site visit limited to fewer than a quorum of members (no more than three) would not constitute a public meeting and would not need to be posted, but the town attorney recommends both she and Attorney Dubitski attend any such visit "to make sure that there's no question in the record of whether or not different information was received by different members." One commissioner asked whether this would set precedent; staff responded, "You're not obligated to replicate this in the future" but noted it would be the first time the board allowed a site visit the public could not attend, adding, "I wouldn't recommend it" generally, though "you do have the rights" to proceed that way. No vote was taken on the site-visit question; staff asked members to indicate by the end of the week if they wanted to see the property.

Procedural steps and outcome: The commission voted, by unanimous show of hands, to add the violation record and show-cause hearing materials from the earlier file into the record for IWC 26-7. It then voted, also unanimously, to continue the application to its October 2026 meeting.

Implications and what is next: The application remains pending a month longer than requested materials would otherwise require, and the commission has yet to decide whether to pursue a limited, attorney-attended site visit or wait for additional submissions before resolving access questions.

Show-Cause Case: 87 Killingworth Turnpike Restoration Plan

Background and stakes: Property owner Cameron Barrera received a cease-and-desist order on July 16, 2026, and a show-cause hearing followed on July 23, 2026, after unpermitted cutting, grading and filling of inland wetlands was documented on the roughly one-acre parcel, previously a lot within a residential subdivision. Barrera hired Double B Design LLC of Madison on July 28, 2026, which flagged wetlands on site July 31 and completed survey fieldwork by August 11.

The question before the body: whether to approve a wetlands restoration and enhancement plan resolving the violation, including planting, fencing and septic-related conditions.

Substantive content: Sarah MacDonald, identifying herself as a soil scientist and survey chief at Double B Design, presented a revised plan submitted the day of the meeting. The site is divided into three planting areas within the 100-foot upland review area: Area A, within the wetland itself, covering 80 square feet of disturbance, to be planted with berry-producing shrubs and a wetland seed mix; Area B, a 2,900-square-foot zone to be bounded by a split-rail fence because of a recorded conservation restriction easement on the deed; and Area C, the full 100-foot area at 6,070 square feet, where a proposed septic leaching field will be located, to be planted with berry- and shelter-producing shrubs, perennials and a wildflower/grass seed mix. MacDonald said she used LIDAR data to reconstruct pre-disturbance grading because her firm had not visited the site before the violation. She recommended monitoring vegetative cover every other month during the growing season until the site reaches 75 percent cover, then every six months afterward, with removal of erosion controls only once that threshold is met and confirmed by the wetlands enforcement officer. MacDonald noted Area A within the wetland lies partly in a state right-of-way, requiring a separate state encroachment permit, which Barrera indicated he would pursue.

The deliberation: A commissioner asked about the timing of the proposed plantings relative to septic approval; MacDonald said her written plan calls for seeding "no later than" a date tied to seasonal germination limits, but acknowledged the schedule depends on when the state-required septic approval comes through, since the commission had previously voted that Barrera must obtain a separate wetlands permit for the septic system before remediation planting could proceed in that area. Staff noted the conservation restriction is also enforceable by the Clinton Planning and Zoning Commission, which will need to concur with whatever plan the wetlands board approves and has a related item on its September 14, 2026 agenda.

"I want to clarify that some area outside of the wetland review area is disturbed, but that is not being remedied as well." [00:35:20] — Sarah MacDonald, soil scientist, Double B Design

Procedural steps and outcome: Commissioners agreed to use the plan version received at the meeting rather than an earlier dated draft. Member Christopher Horvath made the motion to approve the restoration and enhancement plan, with findings that Barrera met a 60-day deadline (measured from the July 23 show-cause hearing) to submit a soil-scientist-cleared remediation plan, that wetlands were delineated by MacDonald, and that Barrera contacted the wetlands enforcement officer August 3, 2026, to inspect the site. The approval carries ten conditions, including a separate wetlands permit requirement for the septic system, completion of remediation planting within 30 days of septic approval, a two-year monitoring and replacement period for plantings, advance notice of contractors to the commission, wetlands enforcement officer inspection of the split-rail fence installation, and submission of a licensed surveyor's as-built plan confirming work matches the certified remediation plan. The motion passed; the recorded discussion around the second and final tally was difficult to parse from the audio, but no opposition was noted.

Implications and what is next: The restoration work remains contingent on septic approval from the Connecticut River Area Health District and a state encroachment permit for the wetland-area plantings within the state right-of-way, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's concurrence on the conservation-easement enforcement.

Enforcement Review: Three Brooks Drive Materials Removal

Background and stakes: The commission previously issued a cease-and-desist order against property owners Tito Guerriere and Fanny Ortiz for storing commercial equipment, heavy-duty metal drums, cinder blocks, concrete barriers and rebar within 100 feet of wetlands, work tied to an apparent unpermitted commercial operation on a residentially zoned, flood-zone AE parcel. Staff read from the commission's August 2026 order, which required an inventory of materials by September 1, a town review of an existing-conditions plan, and, pending that review, a 30-day deadline to remove regulated items.

The question before the body: whether the inventory and existing-conditions materials submitted met the commission's prior order, and what the next compliance deadline and site-protection measures should be.

Substantive content: The property owner presented a numbered inventory of stored items, including a shed, panels and a drum stored upside-down to prevent water collection, and said some items could not yet be relocated because he had not found a disposal site. He asked for additional time to hire a certified soil scientist if the commission required one. Staff noted the order already calls for a certified soil scientist to prepare a restoration plan by October 5, 2026, reviewed by the town's consulting soil scientist, with costs paid by the property owner, and said the wetlands enforcement officer would inspect for any sheen or other pollution evidence before deciding whether a licensed environmental professional needs to sample soils.

The deliberation: Commissioners debated whether to require a silt fence near the wetlands before removal begins, noting the materials sit close enough to the water that fence installation itself could cause disturbance. One member asked, "Is it reasonable to think that after you have removed some of your stuff, you cannot" place the fence, suggesting a staged approach: removing accessible materials first, then placing erosion controls before completing the rest of the removal. The group agreed to defer to the wetlands enforcement officer's judgment on the specific type and placement of sediment controls, including a possible on-site meeting with the property owner to mark locations. The property owner separately raised a dispute with the Connecticut Department of Transportation over an encroachment permit; staff clarified that work previously done within the state right-of-way, including digging and rock placement, is what triggered the state's encroachment-permit requirement, distinct from the wetlands matter.

Procedural steps and outcome: The commission voted to accept the submitted existing-conditions inventory and to modify its original order, directing the property owner to install erosion controls adjacent to the wetlands as directed by the wetlands enforcement officer, with the officer to inspect both before and after placement. The removal deadline for all regulated materials was set at October 1, 2026, replacing the prior 30-day window with a specific date. The requirement to hire a certified soil scientist by October 5, 2026 to prepare a restoration plan remains unchanged from the prior order. The vote was unanimous with no discussion of opposition.

Implications and what is next: The property owner faces an October 1 hard deadline to clear the site, alongside a separate zoning enforcement matter for operating a commercial business in a residential zone, and an October 5 deadline to retain a soil scientist regardless of whether removal is complete.

Administrative: 2027 Meeting Calendar

Staff asked the commission to decide, for planning purposes, whether its November 2027 meeting should move to Thursday, November 4 to avoid conflicting with Election Day (the first Tuesday of the month), consistent with past practice, or shift to the following Tuesday, November 9. Members expressed a preference for keeping the Thursday date. The chair also asked members to notify staff promptly if they expect to miss a meeting so staff can track quorum availability in advance. No formal vote was recorded on the calendar discussion; the meeting adjourned by unanimous voice vote.

Scott Harley, member, present Mike Florio, member, present Amy Handler, member, present Christopher Horvath, member, present Thomas Welch, member, present Mark Burna, member, present (recused from IWC 26-6 bridge item) Douglas Elliott, alternate, present, sitting for absent member Larry Edwards Larry Edwards, member, absent

Staff identified in transcript as "Eric," apparently conducting roll call and clerk-type duties; surname and formal title not stated in available sources. Staff identified in transcript as "Kara," handling meeting scheduling and calendar matters; surname and formal title not stated in available sources. Unnamed wetlands enforcement officer role referenced throughout; speaker not identified by name in available sources.

Daniel Pinto, VL Companies, presented the Country Village Lane bridge replacement project; specific job title not stated. David Ciccio, principal engineer, VL Companies, presented water-handling and permitting details for the bridge project. Attorney Dubitski, appearing on behalf of applicants Robert and Brianna Godsey for 32 Old Nod Road, participated remotely. Sarah MacDonald, soil scientist and survey chief, Double B Design LLC (Madison, Conn.), presented the 87 Killingworth Turnpike restoration plan on behalf of property owner Cameron Barrera. Cameron Barrera, property owner, respondent in the 87 Killingworth Turnpike enforcement case. Robert and Brianna Godsey, applicants, 32 Old Nod Road. Tito Guerriere and Fanny Ortiz, property owners, respondents in the Three Brooks Drive enforcement case; the owner present and speaking was not clearly distinguished by name in the transcript. Jack, public commenter, identified only by first name, said she lives on or near Country Village Lane with her husband, Carl.

VL Companies — engineering firm retained for the Country Village Lane bridge replacement design and permitting. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — issued a federal permit for wetland impacts associated with the bridge project, cited by VL Companies. Connecticut Department of Transportation — administers State Project No. 0027-0129 for the bridge replacement and separately required an encroachment permit for work in its right-of-way at Three Brooks Drive. Eversource, Frontier (formerly Southern New England Telephone Company), Comcast — utilities with facilities to be relocated during bridge construction. Double B Design LLC — Madison-based firm that prepared the wetlands survey, remediation plan and septic repair design for 87 Killingworth Turnpike. Connecticut River Area Health District — authority that must approve the replacement septic system at the Killingworth Turnpike property before planting can proceed in that area. Clinton Planning and Zoning Commission — must concur on enforcement of the conservation restriction easement tied to the Killingworth Turnpike property; related item listed on its September 14, 2026 agenda. Harbor News — newspaper where the legal notice for the Country Village Lane public hearing was published August 20 and August 27, 2026. August 4, 2026 commission minutes — cited by staff for the terms of the original Three Brooks Drive enforcement order. Cease-and-desist order (July 16, 2026) and show-cause hearing (July 23, 2026) — enforcement actions underlying the 87 Killingworth Turnpike restoration case. Declaration of conservation restriction easement — recorded deed restriction cited as the basis for the required split-rail fence at 87 Killingworth Turnpike.