One notable matter discussed was the clear-cutting activities at the end of Highland Circle in the Hampton Heights development. The commission expressed concerns about the lack of necessary approvals for tree cutting on property owned by developer Alustin Graham. The property is under the protection of Natural Heritage due to its wetlands and the presence of rare and endangered species, necessitating approval every five years. It was revealed that Graham had not sought recent approval from Natural Heritage, raising compliance concerns as approximately 30 acres had been clear-cut. This non-compliance with Natural Heritage’s regulations prompted the commission to deliberate on issuing a violation notice.

One commission member shared a response from Melanie Cheeseman at Natural Heritage, confirming that no recent approval had been submitted by Graham. Despite the significant clearing, the state forestry program did not apply, as the cutting prepared the land for future home construction. The commission noted that Natural Heritage was monitoring the situation, which somewhat alleviated the need for immediate enforcement. Nonetheless, the potential violation of wetland and natural heritage protections remained concerning.

After a thorough debate, the commission decided to issue a violation notice to prevent further damage to the area. A motion to issue this notice was proposed, citing that the cutting violated natural heritage protections, regardless of wetland boundary infringements. The commission members expressed unanimous support for the motion, which was passed without dissent.

The commission agreed that the violation notice would be sent via certified mail, and plans for a site inspection were also discussed. There were logistical considerations regarding signatures for the notice, as some commission members would be unavailable the following week. The commission aimed to prepare the necessary documentation promptly to facilitate their actions before further developments occurred.

In addition to the Highland Circle issue, the commission addressed a proposed property expansion on Stony Hill Road. A resident attended the meeting to discuss their plans to extend the back of their garage, which resides in a 100-foot buffer zone. The resident explained that the well is located on the opposite side of the house from the proposed expansion area, while the septic system is to the east. A discussion ensued regarding whether the house was constructed before the river protection act, which could impact the approval process. The resident believed their house was built in 1996, likely before the regulations were enacted.

Commission members deliberated on the environmental implications of the expansion, noting that the new slab would be six feet deep for load-bearing purposes, while the slab itself would be four to six inches deep. Concerns about the proximity of the proposed addition to the wetlands were highlighted, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of environmental impacts. The conversation focused on ensuring compliance with regulations and minimizing potential harm to the surrounding ecosystem.

Another agenda item discussed was a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) for a new gas line installation at Echo Valley Drive. Although the submission was too late for the current meeting, the commission agreed to schedule it for the August meeting. They discussed the necessity of a site visit to assess the area, ultimately deciding that an inspection would be beneficial for understanding the culverts and wetland areas involved. A site visit was scheduled for Monday, July 20th, with one member volunteering to inform the relevant personnel.

Additionally, the commission reviewed an after-the-fact letter from National Grid regarding maintenance activities along Chapen Road, Fairfield Manor, and Northview Terrace. The work, which involved utility pole installations and tree removal within a 100-foot buffer zone, had been completed the previous winter. As these activities had already been approved, the commission concluded that no further action was necessary.

The meeting concluded with a decision to enter an executive session for a matter requiring confidentiality under the attorney-client exemption to the open meeting law. A motion was made to adjourn the public meeting, which received unanimous approval.