By Susan MacEachron

The matter of significant tree removal along Ashpohtag Road and Doolittle Drive by the Norfolk Department of Public Works (DPW) without prior notice to the Inland Wetlands Agency was addressed by First Selectman Henry Tirrell at the Inland Wetlands Agency meeting on Feb. 2. He also updated agency members on the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s (DOT) response to the town’s request to improve the aesthetics of the end walls on the reconstruction of the Mountain Road bridge near the corner of Westside Road.

At the December 2025 Wetlands meeting, Chair Hartley Mead expressed his displeasure at being blindsided by neighbors’ complaints about the tree cutting along Ashpohtag Road near wetlands areas and noted he had issued a cease-and-desist order to the town. At that meeting, Wetlands Enforcement Officer Stacey Sefcik described an approach she had seen used in other towns. She suggested the town could obtain a multi-year permit for future tree work and mentioned five years as a possible time frame for the permit.

At the February meeting, Tirrell addressed the multi-year permit idea for tree cutting and said he did not think that was an approach worth pursuing. He emphasized the need for better communication between the DPW and wetlands. He also stated that the town’s tree wardens, Matt Klimkowski and Star Childs would be consulted prior to tree cutting, but noted that there was no plan for any further tree removal for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Wetlands members returned to the issue later in the meeting after Tirrell had departed. Several members emphasized that the DPW would have planned this work well in advance to line up the equipment and crew, providing ample time for notice to wetlands, and expressing how it was inexcusable that there had been no notice. There was also a question raised about the implication from Tirrell’s comments that the town needed to improve communication but was not required to obtain a permit. In a follow-up conversation with Tirrell he clarified that the town would obtain wetlands permits whenever working in an area under purview of the Inland Wetlands Agency. After discussion of the tree clearing, Tirrell addressed wetlands concerns about the aesthetics of the proposed Mountain Road bridge and informed agency members that he had approached the DOT, the construction company and the town’s engineer. He said they were not receptive to the idea of adding a stone veneer to the wing edges of the bridge. He said he would try another time and note the vicinity of nearby historic districts, but he was not optimistic that the State would change its plans. Sefcik presented a proposal to revise the wetlands permit fees. The reaction was positive from agency members who praised the work she had done in preparing the proposed schedule. All agreed that the town should cover the costs involved in putting legal notices in the paper and the state filing fee and at least some portion of the time Sefcik spends on permits. They were mindful of finding the right balance between covering the town’s costs and not imposing fees so onerous that residents would be tempted to skip obtaining a permit and hope they wouldn’t be caught. Sefcik was asked to prepare a comparison, using several recent permit applications, on the cost of a permit with the current fee schedule and what it would be using the revised schedule.