Brookfield, landowner in dispute over ‘enormous mountain’ of soil dumped on his property
“I am a good citizen of this town. I am not trying to cause trouble. Certainly I had an objective to make our backyard more usable. I didn’t have any malcontent in mind.” Scott McGovern, Brookfield property owner at the Nov. 10 Zoning Commission meeting where he was ordered to remove the fill and obtain proper permits
BROOKFIELD —The town’s Zoning Commission has ordered corrective action be taken after finding a resident has for years improperly dumped fill and performed grading work on his property without obtaining necessary approvals from town officials.
The owner of a property on Greenknoll Drive is accused of violating zoning regulations limiting the amount of fill used for grading purposes to no more than 100 cubic yards within one year, constructing a second driveway without approval, and depositing material in the Aquifer Protection District without a permit or agent determination, which is a violation of Chapter 5 of the town’s charter, according to a letter sent by Land Use Director Richelle Hodza on Oct. 12.
“I am a good citizen of this town,” said property owner Scott McGovern at the Nov. 10 Zoning Commission meeting where he
was ordered to remove the fill and obtain proper permits. “I am not trying to cause trouble. Certainly I had an objective to make our backyard more usable. I didn’t have any malcontent in mind.”
In her letter, Hodza said she visited the site in August “to witness and photograph the enormous mountain of material whose origin is unknown, and which appears to contain debris,”
adding that while it had rained “infrequently and lightly” a plume of eroded material and deposits of sediment could be seen on the forest floor.
In addition to the fill, Hodza said the property owner also filled in a drainage swale and cut down “countless trees” while causing potential harm to the remaining trees by covering their roots and lower trunks.
“It would be difficult to find anyone seeing with their own eyes, who would not agree that the neighbors’ ability to enjoy their property has been wantonly
destroyed,” she wrote.
“The effect of the monumental change in landscape is hard to characterize as anything but astonishing,” added Hodza.
Dumping the soil
McGovern, said during prior visits to the zoning and planning office, he was assured “there was not wetlands so there was no issue” and that he understood he could perform the filling and grading work.
“When this was brought to my attention this year, I again went back in and talked to Ms.
Hodza directly and she made no mention of any other issue — that the aquifer protection district was an issue with what I was doing,” he said.
He noted he had email communications showing he invited zoning officials to examine his property and “took issue” with some of the charges laid out in Hodza’s letter, including a charge that he “ramped up” what he was doing after being made of enforcement actions being taken by the Land Use Office.
“That is patently false, I did not ramp up, in fact the exact opposite would be true — I didn’t do anything for at least two weeks, waiting for any word from Ms. Hodza who had already told me if there was an issue she would contact me again,” he said.
He said he heard nothing until receiving the cease-and-desist letter. He added didn’t understand what part of the town’s regulations he had violated.
McGovern said the “clean fill” soil dumped on his property had not been tested, and he told the Zoning Commission he did not pay for the materials, only for trucking costs to a contractor with whom he had no formal written contract.
McGovern could not provide the specific number of truckloads of fill but said the first time a truck arrived at the property was sometime around February 2019. This year, he said he began the fill and grading work on June 9 before visiting the Land Use Office on June 24, then stopping the work for two weeks and later finishing the job on July 25.
By that point, most of the fill had been delivered, McGovern said, adding that he never applied for a permit for any of the work.
“You state that it’s clean fill — how do you know that it is clean fill if you didn’t have a contract?” asked Andy Koehm, who sits on the Zoning Commission.
“I don’t know exactly how to give you the answer on that — I would not know if its clean fill either way, with a contract or not, I was assured that it was clean fill as it was coming in,” McGovern said.
Koehm explained the contractor needed to test the soil and certify in writing to McGovern that the fill was in fact “clean.” He added the Land Use Office found no record that the previous land use director had given McGovern clearance.
Given the extent of the work, the members of the Zoning Commission agreed simply removing the fill would not be satisfactory and unanimously passed a motion directing the zoning enforcement office to issue a letter to McGovern requiring that the fill be removed, the proper permits be obtained, and that a place of testing and remediation be followed to accomplish that goal.
“I think the operative thing here is there was no building permit obtained, and a significant amount of work was done on the property — in fact, the property was completely reshaped far above the 100 (cubic) yards that is normally allowed for minor grading of a residential property,” Koehm said.
“It is in the aquifer protection zone which is incredibly disturbing due to the fact that the nature of the fill is unknown,” he added. “I think the fact that fill was provided for, essentially free, speaks to the quality of it.”