Year Later, Tornado Cleanup Still Tricky

When last year’s tornado uprooted her thick canopy of oaks, Moira McCloskey felt lucky; no trees fell on her house. Then, as she began to figure out how to clean up her back woods, she came to realize that her property would give her a unique headache.

McCloskey lives in the West Woods neighborhood of Hamden, an area that saw extensive damage in the tornado of May 15, 2018. Since then, she has been trying to figure out what to do with all the downed trees in her backyard.

Many Hamden residents have spent the last year rebuilding houses and sawing up and hauling out downed trees. Mayor Curt Leng has said that some have spent up to $70,000. Last week, U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro and U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal announced, at a house in West Woods, that they will reintroduce the DEBRIS (Diversifying Emergency Benchmarks for the Recovery of Individuals after Storms) Act to help.

McCloskey estimated that she has spent around $7,000 so far on cleanup since the storm. Though she has had it much better than those who have spent ten times as much, she and many West Woods residents are concerned that their properties have lost value because what was once a beautiful canopy behind their houses is now a mess of trunks and root balls.

Though McCloskey said her house is not currently for sale, she said she is worried that if she decides to sell it, she won’t be able to because of the damage to the canopy behind her house. A neighbor across the street, she said, has been unable to sell his house because of all the downed trees on the property.

McCloskey and other West Woods residents have a meeting scheduled with the town assessor Wednesday evening at 7 p.m. at the West Woods School to further discuss the issue.

Tree Removal Woes

McCloskey, like many in her neighborhood, is now trying to figure out how to get her property back in order. She faces a set of unique challenges.

McCloskey’s house sits on a plot of about an acre. The area behind her house, which accounts for 29 percent of her property, is a wetland; that’s where most of the trees fell. What used to be a thick canopy of oaks has now given way to a large clearing and open sky.

Her house was built on a mound of fill that sits between the road and the wetland. Getting equipment into the wetland to remove trees would be very difficult. She would have to cut a path through the woods, which she said she does not want to do because that would mean destroying more trees.

Even if she could get equipment behind her house, the wetland would pose its own challenges.

In Connecticut, every municipality has its own regulations regarding wetlands. In Hamden, the Inland Wetlands Commission, one of Hamden’s land use commissions, oversees any activity in or around wetlands, and tries to minimize the impact of human activity on Hamden’s wetlands and watercourses.

Wetlands and watercourses are defined by soil type in Connecticut. That means that some wetlands can still appear dry, or have water or visibly wet soil only during some parts of the year, as is the case on McCloskey’s property.

She said she didn’t realize the wetland behind her house could pose a challenge until she called in a contractor to assess the damage in November. He gave her an estimate for removal — somewhere from $10,000 to $25,000, she said — but told her that first she would need to consult with Hamden Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer Tom Vocelli.

She wrote to Vocelli and explained the situation. Vocelli provided her with a list of guidelines she must follow when removing the wood: no dumping of wood chips; the ground must be frozen if heavy equipment is used; only vehicles with rubber tires are allowed; hand tools are encouraged. Chain saws, wheel barrows, and cable and winch, Vocelli told her, are preferable to heavy equipment.

McCloskey said she has given up on thinking she can remove all of the trees. She has had contractors come in to cut up the trunks into smaller logs so that they decompose faster. One of her neighbors who burns wood in the winter comes by from time to time to take some for firewood, she said. Otherwise, they will just have to sit in the wetland and decompose.

Vocelli said that there are different schools of thought on whether it’s best to remove downed trees from wetlands or to let them lie where they fell, and that it depends on the case. If trees fell into a watercourse, for example, that could pose a risk of flooding. ​“On the other hand,” he said, ​“there are instances where acts of nature are perfectly compatible with the needs of nature.”

“If someone wants to remove fallen trees from a wetland, the wetlands agent will work with them,” he said. ​“If on the other hand someone prefers to leave what nature did alone, that’s also fine.”

Usually someone who wants to carry out a regulated activity in or near a wetland must come before the Inland Wetlands Commission. However, Vocelli explained that residents carrying out certain activities, such as tree removal, can apply for an exemption from the regular permitting process. He granted such an exemption to McCloskey, providing her with guidelines about how she can carry out the tree removal instead of having her appear before the commission.

McCloskey said her main gripe was that the town had allowed her house to be built so close to a wetland in the first place. When the house was built, she said, the wetland seems not to have been a problem. ​“Now it’s not OK, and I am discovering all the things I am responsible for.”

Hamden’s inland wetland regulations aim to create a 100-foot non-disturbance buffer zone around all wetlands and watercourses. McCloskey’s house was built well within that 100-foot buffer zone.

Vocelli explained that when McCloskey’s house was built in 1994, the town had not yet adopted the 100-foot non-disturbance buffer regulation yet. At the time, building McCloskey’s house where it is did not violate regulations.

Even now, he explained, construction within 100 feet of a wetland is not necessarily prohibited. The 100-foot boundary is a target, he said. The commission can still approve construction or other activities within the 100-foot zone if it deems that adhering to the buffer ​“would not be feasible or prudent.” For instance, in many parts of southern Hamden, he said, lots are so small that any construction at all would be impossible if the owners adhered strictly to the 100-foot boundary. In northern Hamden, he said that some plots have enough vegetation next to the wetland that building more than 100 feet away is not necessary.

“We’re always striving to minimize impact on the wetland, but we’re also trying to work with people as best we can in a manner consistent with the regulations in order to allow them to deal with the issue of fallen trees,” Vocelli said.