Wetlands panel accepts landfill closure application

Inland Wetlands · Meeting of June 3, 2026

CLINTON — The Clinton Inland Wetlands Commission voted to accept a closure application for the decades-old Old Nod Road landfill without a public hearing, finding it not a "significant activity." Engineer Emily Kelting said the 9.26-acre site, capped non-compliantly by the town in 1980, remains under a 1990 state consent order; the project includes an 18-inch cap, four stormwater basins and two years of quarterly groundwater monitoring, funded partly through tipping-fee revenue to the town. The commission also revised cease-and-desist orders against Maria Xandinella at 17 Pepper Bush Drive and against Robert and Brianna Godsy at 32 Old Nod Road, where attorney Doug Dubitzky argued land-clearing for pasture is exempt "as of right" farming. Town attorney Jennifer Pola disputed the exemption claim, saying, "Saying you have no jurisdiction, I do not believe is accurate." The commission ordered the Godsys to file a formal jurisdictional application by August 2.

Members also approved a 2,664-square-foot supermarket redevelopment on East Main Street and an after-the-fact septic repair on Cal Hill Road, and honored resigning member Edward Alberino.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 2,952 words

Source: the Inland Wetlands meeting of June 3, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Housekeeping: Minutes and Agenda Order

The commission opened by approving three sets of minutes without discussion: the May 5 regular meeting, and two special sitewalk meetings held May 21 and May 28. Members then voted to move the chair's comments agenda item to the end of the meeting. Both actions passed on unanimous voice votes with no debate, consuming only a few minutes.

Old Nod Road Landfill Closure (IWC-26-5)

Background and stakes: The former Old Nod Road landfill operated from 1960 to 1979, accepting municipal and industrial waste from local businesses. The town placed an earthen cap in 1980 that engineer Emily Kelting told the commission "was not in accordance with state regulations," ranging from six inches to two and a half feet thick. The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection issued a consent order on the site in 1990 requiring remediation, and that order has never been closed.

The question before the body: Whether to accept the closure application and whether the project constitutes a "significant activity" under town regulations requiring a public hearing rather than a simpler sitewalk review.

Substantive content: Kelting, a licensed professional engineer, appeared with Kate Endler, a vice president and licensed environmental professional with the same firm, along with team members Steve Diaz and John Sullivan, and James McManis, a certified soil scientist and principal of JMM Wetland Consulting Services who conducted the site's wetland delineation. The 9.26-acre property would receive imported fill brought up to subgrade, then a minimum two-foot cover system: 18 inches of low-permeability material topped with six inches of topsoil and a vegetative seed mix. Existing slopes as steep as 1.5-to-1 would be regraded to a maximum of 3-to-1, with a roughly 1.5-acre area at the landfill's top graded to about 4 percent. Stormwater would be managed through riprap swales and four detention basins designed to the 2-, 10- and 100-year storm standards in the Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual. McManis found the site's wetlands "predominantly forested" with reduced ecological function due to historic disturbance, except for a higher-quality wetland area to the south that will remain undisturbed. The project will disturb about 0.1 acre of an isolated, low-functioning wetland pocket located where landfill waste is buried. Kelting said the town will receive a host fee on tipping fees charged to haulers delivering certified fill, which will also fund construction, estimated at about two years. Fill brought to subgrade must meet industrial/commercial standards, with the top two feet meeting residential standards, under a materials protocol the firm said it developed with DEEP since 2022.

The deliberation: One commissioner pressed on contamination risk from compaction equipment and on whether materials being accepted could include hazardous waste; Kelting said no adverse impacts are anticipated and that the firm had completed similar projects in Plainville, completed in 2024, and nearly completed in West Hartford.

"I just sense that people are going to be walking away from it," Commissioner Christopher Horvath said, asking about long-term oversight once the landfill is capped. Endler responded that quarterly groundwater monitoring would continue for two years, then shift to semiannual sampling "until basically we see that groundwater levels are consistent," along with regular inspections of the landform's integrity, erosion and mowing.

Procedural steps and outcome: Commissioners debated whether the project met the threshold for a "significant activity" hearing. One member argued it could qualify given the scale of disturbance near wetlands but said holding up a necessary remediation was not in the town's interest; Horvath and another member said they did not consider it significant. The commission reached consensus that neither a significant-activity finding nor a discretionary public hearing was warranted. A motion to accept the application, seconded by Mike Florio, passed on a unanimous voice vote.

Implications and what is next: The town can now proceed toward closing out a 36-year-old state consent order while applications proceed separately through the Planning and Zoning Commission and two DEEP permits, including a construction stormwater general permit.

Show Cause Hearing: 17 Pepper Bush Drive (C-25-67)

Background and stakes: The town's wetlands enforcement officer, identified in the meeting only as Kathy, issued a cease-and-desist order April 28 after complaints beginning in October 2025 that property owner Maria Xandinella was depositing gravel and grading within 50 feet of wetlands and encroaching onto Clinton Land Conservation Trust property on Sassafras Lane. A survey submitted in April showed the closest disturbance point was 18 feet from the wetland line.

The question before the body: Whether the cease-and-desist order should remain in effect, be revised, or be withdrawn, and what remediation to require.

Substantive content: The land trust proposed removing all gravel from its property, covering disturbed areas with at least two inches of certified topsoil, planting 20 to 25 native species including chokeberries, buttonbush, mountain laurel and summersweet, and conducting a site inspection 30 days after remediation. Larry Ouellette, identified as a Clinton Land Conservation Trust board member, asked that the plan also require watering until plants establish, and said the clearing "was done without our knowledge or permission."

The deliberation: Commissioners discussed whether removing gravel might also disturb a layer of sand beneath it; staff clarified the sand was separately piled, not mixed with the gravel. Members debated the remediation deadline, settling on 60 days from the order to account for planting-material lead time, while noting the native grass seed mix is better installed in August.

Procedural steps and outcome: The commission added conditions requiring sufficient watering to ensure plant survival and placing the full cost burden on the property owner, numbering the plan as conditions one through ten, with completion required by August 2, 2026. Xandinella did not attend. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.

Implications and what is next: Enforcement proceeds administratively; if the August 2 deadline is missed, the matter would be referred to the town attorney for further action, a step one commissioner urged be prepared in advance.

Show Cause Hearing: 32 Old Nod Road, Farming Exemption Dispute (B-26-6/C-26-1)

Background and stakes: The enforcement officer issued a cease-and-desist order March 31, 2026, against property owners Robert and Brianna Godsy for cutting trees, removing stumps and grading near wetlands without a permit. This was a continuation of a show-cause hearing begun April 7 and continued at the owners' request. Commissioner Edward Alberino recused himself from the matter.

The question before the body: Whether the Godsys' land-clearing is exempt "as of right" farming and grazing activity under state statute and town regulation, placing it outside the commission's jurisdiction, or whether it remains a regulated activity requiring enforcement.

Substantive content: Attorney Doug Dubitzky, representing the Godsys, argued that Connecticut General Statutes and section 4.1A of the town's wetlands regulations exempt grazing, farming and clear-cutting for agricultural expansion, citing Sackler v. Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Woodbridge and Conservation Commission, Town of Fairfield v. Di Maria. "Farmers are entitled to remove trees, remove stumps, remove rocks. All of that is exempt from wetland jurisdiction," Dubitzky said. He argued the commission lacked authority even to require a survey or soil scientist's delineation.

The enforcement officer disputed that any farming use had been demonstrated. "I have nothing in my files to show that this is an agricultural use," she said, noting no cows were currently on the property and that the owners had been "very uncooperative." Town attorney Jennifer Pola, appearing to provide legal guidance, read from a practice treatise on land use and prior appellate decisions, including Rotolo v. Inland Wetlands Agency, Town of Madison, and told the commission that both Dubitzky and the property owners had acknowledged on the record at the April 7 meeting that no formal "as of right" jurisdictional-determination application had been filed, as required under regulation 4.4. "Saying you have no jurisdiction, I do not believe is accurate," Pola said. She read into the record a letter from an attorney identified as Lambert, who had represented the plaintiffs in the Sackler and Di Maria cases, stating that in both of those cases the property owners had cooperated with wetlands agencies and submitted detailed farm management plans, unlike the situation at hand.

Commissioner Horvath cautioned against the commission being drawn into an adversarial dynamic: "I think the process, the proper process is to come before this commission instead of in an adversarial relationship." Public commenter Jeff Cashman, a former Planning and Zoning Board member and farm owner, argued the property carries historical nonconforming agricultural use rights dating to 1750 and cited a state Public Act 490 farmland tax designation; the enforcement officer countered that the town assessor's office had revoked that designation and that a 2026 real estate listing for the property described it as wooded with no reference to farming.

Procedural steps and outcome: Pola presented a draft motion, refined during discussion, to revise the cease-and-desist order to require the Godsys to submit a written application for an as-of-right determination meeting section seven application requirements: a purpose and description of proposed activity, a scaled site plan, marked limits of work, inspection authorization, and the required fee. No further activity would be permitted within 100 feet of wetlands until the application is submitted and acted upon, with a submission deadline of August 2, 2026. On a roll call, Chairman Scott Harley abstained; Horvath and Thomas Welch voted yes; Mike Florio, Robert Corson and Mark Berno's individual votes were not clearly captured on the recording, but the motion carried.

Implications and what is next: The Godsys must file a formal jurisdictional-ruling application by August 2 or face continued enforcement; the dispute could determine how the commission treats similar land-clearing claims from other property owners asserting agricultural exemptions.

Continuance: IWC 26-20

The applicant for a separate hearing, continued from this meeting, asked for another month to address outstanding comments from the town's consulting engineer. Members voted unanimously to continue the matter to next month's meeting.

224 East Main Street Redevelopment (IWC-26-1)

Background and stakes: This was the second and final night of a public hearing on a proposed 2,664-square-foot supermarket redevelopment for owner Alice LLC, continued from a May 5 presentation.

The question before the body: Whether to close the public hearing and approve the application with staff-recommended conditions.

Substantive content: Engineer James Moran, of H&H Engineering Associates, said the only outstanding item was a stormwater wetland added to the design to meet a 40 percent nitrogen-reduction requirement under the Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual's redevelopment standards. Certified soil scientist Michelle Ford recommended a two-year plant monitoring and replacement period, citing survivability targets of 90 percent in year one and 80 percent in year two. Landscape architect Kevin Johnson said the applicant agreed to the two-year monitoring condition "from the beginning anyway."

Procedural steps and outcome: The commission closed the public hearing and voted unanimously to approve the application with the staff-recommended conditions, including the two-year plant survival monitoring period.

Implications and what is next: Construction can proceed once remaining municipal approvals are finalized; a commissioner called the project "a great example of how business interests and environmental interests can work together."

Administrative Review and Correspondence

Staff noted a routine DEEP notification regarding pond treatment submitted by the Silver Brook Homeowners Association for Silver Brook Lane, requiring no commission action.

244 Cal Hill Road After-the-Fact Septic (IWC-26-3)

Background and stakes: Property owner Ericson Investments LLC, through applicant Rodriguez, installed and repaired a septic system within 13 feet of wetlands without a permit, citing extensive ledge on the property that left no alternative location.

The question before the body: Whether the after-the-fact installation should be approved, including whether the commission would exercise discretion under regulation 6.4 to allow a setback closer than the standard 50 feet.

Substantive content: A certified soil scientist, Alexander Mark, filed a June 1, 2026 report finding no adverse impacts if conditions were met, given the ledge constraint. The applicant said he had already begun remediation recommended by the soil scientist, including ordering a New England wetland seed mix overnight.

The deliberation: A commissioner who had visited the site said "there was no other place for a septic system up there," supporting approval. Rodriguez told the commission the delay was costing him about $6,000 a month in carrying costs tied to a pending home sale: "What I'm trying to get is just a C.O. so we can get paid and we can close this deal."

Procedural steps and outcome: The commission approved the application with conditions including silt fencing, a native meadow buffer extending five feet beyond the wetland boundary, boulder markers every 20 feet, contractor notification to the enforcement officer, completion by August 2, 2026, and submission of as-built plans within 90 days. The vote was unanimous.

Baxter Road Access Trail (IWC-26-4)

Background and stakes: Property owner Benjamin Foley sought approval for gravel improvements to an existing trail system on his property to allow vehicle access and turnaround, after the enforcement officer issued a warning for cutting several trees near the upland review area.

The question before the body: Whether the proposed gravel trail work constitutes a significant activity requiring a public hearing.

Substantive content: Foley said he removed about ten trees, three of them substantial, while clearing a turnaround roughly the size of the meeting room, and proposed importing about 60 tons of gravel or asphalt millings. A commissioner objected to the use of asphalt millings as fill material; Foley agreed to use plain gravel instead. The enforcement officer said the nearest cut tree was roughly 10 to 15 feet from the wetland boundary, within the upland review area, prompting her initial warning.

Procedural steps and outcome: The commission found the work did not constitute a significant activity and approved the application unanimously with conditions requiring native meadow restoration, a specified gravel (not milling) material, enforcement officer inspection, and submission of as-built plans.

Chair Comments: Alberino's Resignation

Members closed the meeting by noting that Edward Alberino's resignation from the commission took effect after this meeting, his last. The commission voted unanimously to present him with a certificate of appreciation for his tenure.

Scott Harley, presiding over the meeting throughout and voting as a member; role as chair is inferred from conduct of the meeting and not independently confirmed in available sources. Edward Alberino, member, recused from the 32 Old Nod Road matter, resigned effective at this meeting's close. Mike Florio, member. Robert Corson, member. Larry Edwards, member, absent. Christopher Horvath, member, participated remotely. Thomas Welch, member. Mark Berno, alternate member, seated for Larry Edwards on the 32 Old Nod Road matter. Douglas Elliott, alternate member. Amy Handler, alternate member. Jennifer Pola, town attorney, provided legal guidance during the 32 Old Nod Road hearing. Kathy, the town's wetlands enforcement officer (surname inconsistent across the record), presented reports and proposed motions on multiple enforcement matters. Cara Conlin, commission clerk, referenced once regarding outreach to a property owner. Emily Kelting, licensed professional engineer, presented the Old Nod Road landfill application on behalf of the Town of Clinton. Kate Endler, vice president and licensed environmental professional with Kelting's firm. Steve Diaz and John Sullivan, members of the engineering team for the landfill project. James McManis, certified soil scientist, principal of JMM Wetland Consulting Services, performed the landfill site's wetland evaluation. Larry Ouellette, Clinton Land Conservation Trust board member, spoke on the Pepper Bush Drive matter. Doug Dubitzky, attorney representing property owners Robert and Brianna Godsy. Jeff Cashman, resident, former Planning and Zoning Board member and farm owner, public comment on the Godsy matter. James Moran, engineer with H&H Engineering Associates, presented the 224 East Main Street application for owner Alice LLC. Michelle Ford, certified soil scientist, reviewed plant survivability for the East Main Street project. Kevin Johnson, landscape architect for the East Main Street project. Rodriguez, applicant for the 244 Cal Hill Road septic matter (first name given inconsistently as Penny or Kenny in the record), representing owner Ericson Investments LLC. Alexander Mark, certified soil scientist, authored the Cal Hill Road report. Benjamin Foley, property owner, Baxter Road application.

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) — issued the 1990 consent order governing the Old Nod Road landfill closure and reviews the materials acceptability protocol and stormwater permits for that project. Clinton Land Conservation Trust — property owner affected by encroachment at 17 Pepper Bush Drive; proposed the remediation plan adopted into the revised cease-and-desist order. JMM Wetland Consulting Services — conducted the wetland delineation for the Old Nod Road landfill project. H&H Engineering Associates — engineering firm for the 224 East Main Street redevelopment. Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a-40 — the "farming exemption" statute cited extensively in the 32 Old Nod Road dispute as permitting grazing and farming activity as of right in wetlands. Clinton Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Regulations, Sections 4.1A, 4.4, 6.2, and 7 — town regulations governing permitted/exempt activities and application requirements, central to both the Godsy and Pepper Bush Drive enforcement matters. Sackler v. Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Woodbridge and Conservation Commission, Town of Fairfield v. Di Maria — superior court cases cited by attorney Dubitzky as supporting the farming exemption; distinguished by town attorney Pola and in a letter from an attorney identified as Lambert, who represented the plaintiffs in both cases. Rotolo v. Inland Wetlands Agency, Town of Madison — appellate case cited by the town attorney regarding limits on the farming exemption. Connecticut Public Act 490 — farmland tax designation discussed regarding 32 Old Nod Road; town assessor Donna Sey's letter, read into the record, stated the designation had been removed from the property. Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual — design standard cited for both the Old Nod Road landfill stormwater system and the East Main Street nitrogen-reduction requirement.