Madison wetlands agency approves Hammonasset River dredging permit

Inland Wetlands · Meeting of September 14, 2026

Madison's wetlands agency approves Hammonasset River dredging after quiet public hearing. The agency voted unanimously to permit the Hammonasset Fishing Association to remove about 700 cubic yards of silt from a fishing pool near Bunnell Bridge Road, matching a permit Killingworth's wetlands agency issued the prior week. Project engineer Roger told the agency suction dredging would cost more than $75,000 and take four weeks, versus roughly a quarter of that cost and four to five days for a long-reach excavator method, "if allowed." Club member Joe Agro, fishing the river "since 1978," said the association's 536 riverfront acres sit under what he called the largest private conservation easement transfer in Connecticut history, held by The Nature Conservancy.

No residents spoke at the public hearing. The agency also approved a new home on Railroad Avenue with an added condition for posted boundary markers every 50 feet near a 12-acre wetland, cleared a tabled shed permit on Sunny Hill Drive, and voted to let natural regrowth close out a clearing violation on Kimberly Lane pending a report due June 27.

In the full story:

• Three new items were received without formal action, pending further review
• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 2,946 words

Source: the Inland Wetlands meeting of September 14, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Public Hearing: Maintenance Dredging at 26-27 Bunnell Bridge Road

Background and stakes: The Hammonasset Fishing Association sought a regulated-activity permit to dredge a single fishing pool on the Hammonasset River that members say has filled with silt and sand over roughly the past two to three years. The pool straddles the Madison-Killingworth line, so the club needed approval from both towns' wetlands agencies. Killingworth's agency approved the same work the previous Tuesday.

The question before the agency: Whether to permit removal of roughly 700 cubic yards of accumulated silt from the pool, restoring it to a historic depth of about seven feet, and which of two proposed dredging methods to allow.

Substantive content: Roger, the applicant's professional engineer, said the club's parcel covers about 536 acres of a much larger holding, and that the work area is a roughly 90-to-100-foot section of river. Two methods were proposed. Suction dredging would use a pump on a trailer at the bank, with a workman guiding a hose to pull silt into a geosynthetic "geo tube" bag about 100 feet long, 30 feet wide and up to six feet high, positioned roughly 1,000 feet from the work site and more than 300 feet from the river in an existing maintained field. A contractor quoted this method at over $75,000 and about four weeks of work, with three turbidity curtains and a combination silt fence and hay-bale barrier downstream for erosion control. The alternative, long-reach excavation, would use an excavator on a stabilized pad of synthetic fabric and riprap, direct-loading material into watertight trucks for the same disposal field, with no stockpiling at the bank. Engineers estimated the excavation method at roughly a quarter of the suction method's cost and four to five days of work. The regional water authority, which reviewed the application because the site sits in its watershed, took no position on which method the agency should prefer, according to Roger.

Engineer Ian Gessick previously surveyed the stream bottom and topography in April 2026, which the applicant used to set a benchmark water elevation and calculate a proposed streambed seven feet below it, based on long-term club members' recollection of the pool's historic depth. Joe Agro, a Hammonasset Fishing Association member since 1978 and its stream chairman and former club president, told the agency the club's roughly 536-acre riverfront holding is under a conservation easement with The Nature Conservancy of Connecticut that he said was, at the time it was granted, the largest private transfer of land into a conservation easement in Connecticut history. He said the club retains recreational rights — hunting, fishing, hiking and camping — but gave up mineral and gravel rights.

The deliberation: Agency members pressed on the cause and recurrence of the siltation. One member asked whether the erosion was "an abnormal event" tied to construction, or an ongoing natural process the club should expect to manage repeatedly. Agro said the club could not conclusively attribute the material to construction on a nearby bridge, but noted turbidity issues were observed by club members during that work. He added that a walk of the club's six miles of riverfront with Nature Conservancy staff found evidence of stream channels that had filled in and shifted over centuries, suggesting some siltation is a natural, recurring feature of the river. "This is going to be an ongoing problem, but it's hard to predict on how frequently it'll need attention," Roger said, adding the club has other pools with similar issues and wants to build "a track record of credibility" with this first dredging permit.

A member also asked whether Killingworth had required an as-built survey after dredging to confirm restored pond depth; Roger said it had not, though Killingworth's approval requires the applicant to meet all recommendations in the regional water authority's review letter, including a turbidity-monitoring program with a stop-work trigger tied to a measured increase over a pre-construction baseline. Roger said the applicant is still determining what additional state and federal permits may be required, expecting a Connecticut DEP water quality certification and possibly a nationwide permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Procedural steps and outcome: The chair read the legal notice and opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. on a motion that passed unanimously. No members of the public raised hands to speak for or against the application when the floor opened for comment. The agency voted unanimously to close the hearing on a motion by member Anna Loss, seconded by member Joseph Boudreau. Members then reviewed a draft resolution prepared by town staff that incorporated the regional water authority's recommendations, matching conditions in Killingworth's approval, and allows the applicant to choose either dredging method with notice to the town before construction begins. Members voted to delete a sedimentation and erosion control bond originally drafted into the resolution, reasoning that all erosion controls will be staged on the Killingworth side of the river. A member also flagged that the engineer's surname was misspelled in several places in the resolution document and asked that it be corrected. The amended resolution was approved unanimously.

Implications and what is next: The club can begin work once it secures the additional state and possibly federal permits it is still pursuing. Agro said the club sees this as a template for eventually addressing silt buildup in its other river pools.

Continued Application: Shed at 52 Sunny Hill Drive (26-21)

Background and stakes: The application to install a pre-built shed within the 100-foot upland review area was tabled at the agency's August meeting when the applicant did not attend.

The question before the agency: Whether the proposed shed location, the only practical option on a pre-zoning lot, should be approved.

Substantive content: The applicant explained the lot predates zoning and much of the yard falls within the wetland review area. The town's wetland scientist, Michelle Ford, had suggested moving the shed north, but that location did not meet the required 15-foot setback from the house given the lot's tight, pre-1923 configuration. The applicant said the east side of the house lacks access, and the rear yard is blocked by a well near the southeast corner of the house. The family said the shed is intended to store children's bicycles and yard equipment, reducing the need for kids to range across a tick-heavy yard the family does not treat with pesticides.

The deliberation: Agency members said they had no questions for the applicant and appreciated the earlier site feedback from Michelle Ford. "I appreciate getting the feedback from Michelle Ford," one member said, with another agreeing it was helpful.

Procedural steps and outcome: A member moved to approve application 26-21; the motion was seconded and approved unanimously with no special conditions.

Implications and what is next: The homeowners can proceed with shed installation at the previously proposed site.

New Single-Family Dwelling: 54 Railroad Avenue (26-25)

Background and stakes: This was the agency's first hearing of application 26-25, received the prior month, to build a new single-family home with associated site improvements on a vacant lot.

The question before the agency: Whether the proposed house, septic system and grading plan adequately protect an adjacent 12-acre wetland, and whether any additional conditions were needed.

Substantive content: Ryan Thompson, the project's engineer and land surveyor, said the house is sited close to the road and set against the front setback line to minimize impact within the upland review area, with a shallow drainage swale directing stormwater around the building toward the wetland along the lot's existing natural drainage path. Soil scientist Ian Cole, who delineated the wetlands in November 2025 and filed an impact assessment dated June 8, said the 12-acre wetland extends south and drains to Fence Creek, and that no direct wetland disturbance is planned. He said the site soils are mapped as Hinckley sands and gravels, transitioning sharply to organic muck at the wetland boundary.

Test pits near the road showed fill material that did not provide the 18 inches of separation needed above underlying soil mottling, pushing the septic system's design closer to the wetland than engineers would have preferred. The system will use a GST (geosynthetic) leaching design, which Cole described as a higher-efficiency, more modern alternative to traditional concrete leaching galleries, with some incidental nitrogen-reduction benefit though it is not marketed as a nutrient-removal system. The reserve leaching field's closest point to the wetland is 24.1 feet; the primary system sits roughly 45 feet away. The homes on the street, including this one, are served by public water rather than private wells.

The deliberation: A member asked whether the proposed lawn might eventually extend to the property line rather than stop at the shown limit of disturbance. Thompson said that was not the plan he designed, but acknowledged he could not bind future homeowners without a formal condition. Soil scientist Cole added that the rear slope toward the wetland steepens beyond the clearing line, making it unlikely anyone would extend lawn or cut trees there. Staff had separately recommended in its report that the agency require a permanent physical delineation of the limit of lawn. The chair agreed, noting fertilized lawn near the slope could add nutrient loading to the wetland: "Any kind of vegetative buffer between this development and the wetland on that slope would be helpful." Cole recommended simple posted boundary markers rather than plantings or boulders, since there is little usable land beyond the clearing line for anyone to encroach into. Staff noted the property was previously cited for a vegetation-clearing violation within the upland review area under a prior owner, requiring stabilization and seeding rather than a full restoration planting.

Procedural steps and outcome: A member moved to approve application 26-25 using the agency's standard resolution language, amended to require permanent boundary markers — wooden posts, roughly four inches, spaced about every 50 feet or at changes in direction along the property line — marking the limit of lawn at the limit of disturbance. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously. The agency noted partway through the meeting that member Anna Loss had left and was no longer present for this vote.

Implications and what is next: The homeowner must install the boundary markers as a condition of the permit; staff will provide a template marker design.

Tabled: Longshore Lane (26-28)

The applicant for 26-28 Longshore Lane requested that discussion be tabled to the agency's October 5 meeting. A member moved to table the item; the motion was seconded and approved unanimously with no substantive discussion.

New Receipts

Three new items were received without formal action, pending further review

1093 Durham Road (26-30): An application to remove a dead or diseased beech tree. Staff visited the site with the property owner, identified only by her first name, Deborah, in the meeting, and confirmed the trees in question are on her property rather than adjoining Madison Land Trust land. The wetland boundary was not formally delineated but is visually apparent near marked trees; the agency opted to review photographs and encouraged members to drive by individually rather than schedule a formal site walk.

21 Race Hill Road (26-31): A subdivision referral, not yet a regulated-activity application, proposing seven lots on an 18-acre parcel. Staff said it is still working with the project's engineering firm, Nafis and Young, to determine whether the proposed road construction would trigger a regulated activity. A member raised an unresolved question about whether wetlands on the adjoining Madison Land Trust property to the east, including a series of vernal pools and a possible intermittent stream, extend a review area onto the subject lots. Staff recommended holding off on scheduling a site walk until October, after meeting further with the applicant's team. A resident who identified himself only as Steve, a neighbor who said he is "very interested in the wetland protection around that property," asked about next steps during the meeting; staff told him the matter would return at the October 5 meeting and invited him to contact staff with questions in the interim.

21 Liberty Street (26-33): A revised or additional application on a lot the agency has reviewed previously, an interior lot backing to the Boston Post Road, distinct from a separate Liberty Street property the agency has handled as a violation. Staff indicated the proposal appears to fall within the same disturbance footprint as a previously approved plan, which will be uploaded for members' reference. Member Steve Lowry said he may not have visited the property during a prior site walk and would view it independently.

Staff also reported two administrative-level approvals issued without a full hearing: removal of oak trees at a previously received application, and a deck addition within the upland review area.

Enforcement: 18 Kimberly Lane

Background and stakes: The agency has an open corrective-action order tied to unpermitted vegetation clearing within the upland review area and wetland at 18 Kimberly Lane. The property owner was not present.

The question before the agency: Whether the cleared area has sufficiently regrown to close the enforcement matter, or whether additional restoration plantings should be required.

Substantive content: Staff presented a memo from environmental consultant Rich Snarsky, who found the cleared wetland area regrowing with species including sensitive fern, goldenrod, American burreed, bitter dock, bittersweet nightshade and red fescue. Staff said Snarsky's memo describes the area as "stabilized with a healthy strand of vegetation" and recommends no additional plantings.

The deliberation: A member asked whether closing the case meant simply accepting the consultant's opinion without further checking. Staff said the agency could instead amend the order to let the wetland continue regrowing through the next growing season and require a monitoring update, an approach members said was consistent with how the agency has handled similar enforcement cases. Members settled on requesting a report at the agency's June 27 meeting, giving the site a full growing season, including this spring, to demonstrate stabilization.

Procedural steps and outcome: A member moved to amend the corrective action to allow continued natural regrowth of wetland vegetation, with a monitoring report due at the agency's June 27 meeting; the motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

Implications and what is next: The property owner must submit an updated vegetation report by the June 27 meeting for the agency to consider closing the violation.

Administrative Matters

The agency approved minutes from its August 3 regular meeting and an August 22 site walk, both unanimously. Staff reminded members that a wetlands-related training requirement must be completed by the end of the year, offering both in-person and online options to be circulated by email; members were asked to send proof of completion to staff for the agency's records. The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m. on a unanimous vote.

Commission members present: Lee Schumacher; Steve Lowry; Anna Loss (left before the final vote of the meeting); Joseph Boudreau; and the chair of the agency, whose name was not stated in the meeting audio.

Town staff present: Erin Mannix, identified as representing the town; her formal title was not stated in the meeting.

Applicants and their representatives: Roger, professional engineer for the Hammonasset Fishing Association (surname rendered inconsistently in the audio and in the agency's own resolution document); Rich Snarsky, environmental consultant to the Hammonasset Fishing Association application (did not appear to join the meeting); Joe Agro, Hammonasset Fishing Association member, stream chairman and former club president; a second Hammonasset Fishing Association member present but not clearly identified by full name; the applicant for 52 Sunny Hill Drive (not named in the audio); Ryan Thompson, engineer and land surveyor for 54 Railroad Avenue; Ian Cole, professional soil scientist and wetland scientist for 54 Railroad Avenue; the property owner for 54 Railroad Avenue (not named); a person identified only as "Hunter" connected to the 54 Railroad Avenue application, role unclear.

Public commenters: A resident identified only as Steve, described as a neighbor of the Race Hill Road subdivision site and "very interested in the wetland protection around that property." (This is a different person from commission member Steve Lowry.)

Organizations and outside parties referenced: The Hammonasset Fishing Association; the Killingworth Inland Wetlands Agency; the regional water authority overseeing the watershed in which the Bunnell Bridge Road site sits; The Nature Conservancy of Connecticut; Nafis and Young, the engineering firm for the Race Hill Road subdivision; Michelle Ford, the town's wetland scientist consulted on the Sunny Hill Drive application.

Killingworth Inland Wetlands Agency — approved the same Hammonasset River dredging work the week before, giving the applicant the option of two dredging methods, a condition mirrored in Madison's own approval.

Regional water authority — reviewed the Bunnell Bridge Road application because the site lies in its watershed; its review letter set recommended conditions, including a turbidity-monitoring program, that both towns' agencies incorporated.

The Nature Conservancy of Connecticut — holds a conservation easement over roughly 536 acres of the Hammonasset Fishing Association's riverfront land, cited by club member Joe Agro as historically the largest private land transfer into conservation easement in Connecticut.

Nafis and Young — engineering firm for the proposed seven-lot Race Hill Road subdivision; staff said it is coordinating with the firm on whether the project's road construction triggers a regulated wetlands activity.

Rich Snarsky's memo — environmental consultant's assessment of regrowth at 18 Kimberly Lane, cited by staff as the basis for the agency's decision to amend rather than close the enforcement order outright.

Site development plans for 26-27 Bunnell Bridge Road and 26-25 Railroad Avenue — engineering plan sets presented and screen-shared during each application's presentation, including test pit data and contour surveys.