Public commenter urges clearer open‑space definitions; commission to review wetlands, conservation and public‑hearing rules

At the start of the May 25 meeting, a resident told the Charter Revision Commission she had submitted written comments about how the charter and town practice treat open space and public hearings and asked the commission to clarify definitions and documentation requirements.

Why it matters: residents and some commission members said inconsistent naming and recordkeeping can mislead future decision‑makers and the public about whether particular land actions were legally noticed and what was discussed.

Susie Messino, 41 Madison Lane, told the commission she had supplied written comments and a town open‑space due‑diligence form and said the form should be required practice for the Open Space Committee. "Our land is really valuable. You can't get it back," Messino said, and she asked the panel to ensure the charter and related documents make the processes and definitions clear. She cited multiple town documents and said some hearings had been labeled "public hearings" without the legal notice or minute‑level documentation the state statute requires: "It doesn't say who they were except for their name. It doesn't say their expertise. It doesn't even say what they said," she said of minutes she reviewed.

Franklin (Town staff) responded that the commission had received Messino's written comments and clarified a procedural point about the commission's noon deadline for Zoom registration. Later in the meeting Franklin described state law on inland wetlands, citing Conn. Gen. Stat. 22a‑42 and the Inland Wetlands Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. 22a‑36 to 22a‑45a), and explained that municipalities must establish an inland wetlands agency and generally follow state model regulations; DEEP (state environmental agency) provides model regulations many towns adopt.

Commissioners discussed the distinction between the conservation commission (an advisory/land stewardship body) and an inland wetlands agency (a statutory, regulatory body). Staff noted municipalities vary in how they house inland‑wetlands authority — some towns designate planning or zoning commissions to serve as the inland wetlands agency — and that specific public‑hearing triggers and notice requirements follow state law.

The commission did not adopt charter language at the meeting. Members asked staff to prepare a short, written briefing that: 1) summarizes the statutory differences between conservation commissions and inland wetlands agencies (Conn. Gen. Stat. 22a‑36 to 22a‑45a); 2) explains when a referral or a public hearing is required; and 3) clarifies options for placing open‑space duties in the charter vs. in ordinance or committee rules. The commission scheduled the topic for future discussion and said it would post Messino's written comments to the commission web page.

Ending: Commissioners said they would review the statutes and local ordinances and return with a clear memo so the public can see what charter changes (if any) would be needed to address Messino's concerns.