Wetlands panel upholds stop-work order on owner

Inland Wetlands · Meeting of July 24, 2026

Clinton's Inland Wetlands Commission upheld a cease-and-desist order against a Killingworth Turnpike homeowner who cleared and filled land near a vernal pool without a permit. Property owner Kevin Beret told the board he thought he had followed the proper process to relocate his septic system, but Wetlands Enforcement Officer Kathy said registered sanitarian Rebecca Drew of the Connecticut River Area Health District confirmed no B100A septic application had been filed. Beret said, "I'm not trying to bother anything.

I'm trying to do the right things." The commission voted unanimously to require a restoration plan within 60 days, prepared by a certified soil scientist and reviewed by the town's consulting soil scientist, and added a requirement to install silt fencing within seven days. Professional engineer Tony Baldick was named as the surveyor the owner plans to hire first.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 1,692 words

Source: the Inland Wetlands meeting of July 24, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Roll Call and Seating of Alternates

The Inland Wetlands Commission convened a special show cause hearing to review a cease-and-desist order issued against the owner of 87 Killingworth Turnpike. Roll call showed members Mike Florio, Thomas Welch, Mark Berno and Douglas Elliott present, along with Scott Harley, who helped conduct the roll. Members Lawrence Edwards, Christopher Horvath and Amy Handler were absent. The commission noted that Elliott and Berno were seated in place of the two absent regular members, a procedural step taken before the substantive hearing began.

The Violation: Clearing and Filling Near a Delineated Wetland

The hearing concerned docket V26-22, covering property at 87 Killingworth Turnpike, identified on town records as Map 45, Lot 83-3, in the R-20 zone. Wetlands Enforcement Officer Kathy told the commission she received a tip from a town employee reporting grading, filling and clear-cutting at the site. An inspection from the public way, she said, revealed cleared vegetation and substantial piles of rock and soil along the street line, within the wetlands buffer. The enforcement officer said the wetland boundary was delineated by certified soil scientist Richard Snarski and appears on file plans; staff member Cara displayed the plans and photographs during the hearing showing the delineated wetland immediately adjacent to the road, with extensive tree clearing visible upslope.

"I observed extensive clear cutting of multiple trees throughout much of the property upslope from Killingworth Turnpike," the enforcement officer said, noting that much of the disturbed area falls within the regulated buffer surrounding the wetland. The order itself was read into the record as covering "cutting, grading and filling of inland wetlands" conducted "without an inland wetlands permit," citing sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the Clinton Inland Wetlands Regulations. The enforcement officer's opening summary referenced a 0-to-50-foot distance from the wetland at one point, while the balance of the hearing repeatedly discussed a 100-foot regulated buffer; the discrepancy was not resolved on the record.

The Cease-and-Desist Order and Show Cause Hearing Requirement

The enforcement officer said she issued the cease-and-desist order July 16 and hand-delivered it to the property with Snarski's assistance; the owner was not home, but his wife accepted the order and reached him by phone. The enforcement officer told the commission she later met with the owner in person July 20 to provide him the agenda for the show cause hearing and also sent the materials by certified mail. Under Clinton's wetlands regulations, a hearing must be held within 10 days of a cease-and-desist order to give the property owner an opportunity to be heard; the hearing took place that Thursday, within the required window.

The Property Owner's Account: A Septic Relocation Gone Sideways

Property owner Kevin Beret told the commission he had visited the land use office multiple times before the clearing occurred, seeking to relocate his septic system from the back of his property to the front. He said a soil scientist had tested the ground and told him the location was viable, and that he proceeded to clear trees in that area based on that guidance. "The thing is before that I was coming like a couple of times to the town and I was asking if we need to do something," Beret said, describing his effort to follow what he understood to be the proper sequence: soil testing, a contractor's drawing, then permit application.

Beret also said a separate pile of dirt visible in the photographs, located at the corner of the property near the road, came from backyard fence repair work and was temporarily staged there at his instruction, not excavated from the wetland area itself. "The activity you took the photos is my fault because I tell the guy because we need the dirt to put it back in my backyard," he said, adding he intended to move it back once the fence project was finished.

The Missing B100A Permit and the CRAHD Dispute

A central dispute in the hearing was whether a required health department permit, the B100A application, had been filed. The enforcement officer said she had spoken with registered sanitarian Rebecca Drew of the Connecticut River Area Health District, who confirmed that although soil test kits had been conducted on the property, no B100A application was on file. Beret maintained his contractor had told him the permit was submitted. "No, because the contractor applied for that," he said. The enforcement officer responded directly: "I talked with her and she told me there's no application in the files and I looked. I don't see one either."

Commission members worked through the confusion with Beret during the hearing, explaining that a septic relocation requires two separate approvals: a health department permit for the septic system itself, and, because the proposed location falls within 100 feet of the delineated wetland, a separate wetlands permit from the commission. "You're missing two permits," a commission member told him. "One to actually place your septic, get that approved, and then because you're inside of 100 feet of the wetland line, that's where you need a permit from." Beret acknowledged the gap: "That's the permit that I don't know that I need to do that."

A Vernal Pool Complicates the Picture

Midway through the hearing, the enforcement officer received a text message from Drew, relayed after a phone conversation facilitated by Snarski, stating that the only area on the Beret property outside the home's well radius suitable for a septic system sits near a vernal pool. Drew's message indicated the property cannot use space toward the road for septic placement because of the pool's protected status. This raised a new concern for the enforcement officer: if the septic and pool are ultimately sited elsewhere on the lot, away from the road, the already-disturbed area near Killingworth Turnpike could go unaddressed by any future septic permit and would need to be restored under the wetlands order itself, independent of the septic application.

"If it's a vernal pool, that's a protected area and we can't just dig those up," the enforcement officer told the commission, adding she had no site plan from the owner showing where the septic system would ultimately be located. "I don't have any plan. So I don't know where it's going to be located."

The Restoration Plan: Survey First, Then a Certified Soil Scientist

Commission members and the enforcement officer discussed how the restoration process should be sequenced. The enforcement officer recommended the owner first hire a licensed surveyor to establish existing conditions, then a certified soil scientist to design a restoration plan, which would be reviewed at the owner's expense by the town's consulting soil scientist given the sensitivity of the vernal pool, followed by an as-built survey confirming the work matches the approved plan. Beret told the commission he had already been in contact with professional engineer Tony Baldick to handle the survey portion, though the enforcement officer clarified that Baldick, while qualified to survey the property, is not a certified soil scientist and cannot prepare the restoration design himself.

"I need a survey first," Beret said, agreeing to proceed with Baldick's survey and then hire a soil scientist separately, noting commission members could recommend qualified professionals if needed.

The Vote: Uphold and Amend

A commission member moved to uphold the cease-and-desist order and require submission of a restoration plan within 60 days. The motion was seconded, and after brief discussion over whether 60 or 90 days was more reasonable, the commission settled on 60 days. The motion carried on a voice vote with no recorded opposition or abstention.

A commission member then proposed an amendment requiring the immediate installation of silt fencing adjacent to the wetland to prevent further erosion while the restoration plan was developed. After discussion over an appropriate timeline, ranging from 14 days down to seven, the commission settled on seven days. That motion also passed on a voice vote with no recorded opposition. Beret indicated he intended to install the fencing quickly, saying he had handled similar requirements on a prior project. The enforcement officer said the final written order would incorporate both the 60-day restoration deadline and the seven-day silt-fence requirement, with a copy provided to the owner.

The meeting adjourned following the vote.

Mike Florio, member, present. Thomas Welch, member, present. Mark Berno, member, present (seated in place of an absent regular member). Douglas Elliott, member, present (seated in place of an absent regular member). Scott Harley, present, role not specified in the record. Lawrence Edwards, member, absent. Christopher Horvath, member, absent. Amy Handler, member, absent. Wetlands Enforcement Officer Kathy, staff, presented the violation report and recommendations. Cara, staff, assisted with displaying plans and photographs during the hearing; role not further specified. Richard Snarski, certified soil scientist, delineated the wetland boundary and accompanied the enforcement officer to deliver the order; not a commission member. Rebecca Drew, registered sanitarian with the Connecticut River Area Health District, consulted by phone and text regarding the status of the septic permit application. Kevin Beret, property owner, appeared as the subject of the show cause hearing. Tony Baldick, professional engineer, hired by the property owner to survey the site; not present but discussed as the planned surveyor.

Connecticut River Area Health District — administers the B100A septic permit application; its sanitarian, Rebecca Drew, confirmed no application had been filed for the Beret property. Clinton Inland Wetlands Regulations, sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 — cited by the enforcement officer as the basis for the violation, prohibiting regulated activity without a permit. Clinton Inland Wetlands Regulations' 10-day show cause hearing requirement — the procedural rule requiring the commission to hold a hearing within 10 days of a cease-and-desist order, which set the July 23 hearing date. B100A form — the state-standard septic system permit application referenced repeatedly as missing from the property owner's file. Cease-and-desist order, issued July 16, 2026 — the enforcement action under review at the hearing. Wetland delineation plans prepared by certified soil scientist Richard Snarski — cited by the enforcement officer as the authoritative basis for identifying the wetland boundary on the property.