Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inland Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates separating inland wetlands from Conservation Commission; votes to seek input and preserve RTM code options
Summary
Commissioners discussed training requirements, whether to split inland wetlands from the Conservation Commission, and the statutory and ordinance history that tied the inland wetlands agency to the Conservation Commission. They deferred final changes and asked the conservation director to brief the commission.
Commissioners spent a substantial portion of the March 11 meeting on the town’s Conservation Commission and its role as the Inland Wetlands Agency. Members discussed statutory training requirements for wetlands commissioners, the relationship between the charter and town ordinances, and whether inland wetlands duties should be separated from the Conservation Commission.
Why it matters: Inland wetlands decisions include permit reviews and adjudications that carry statutory timelines and legal risk; commissioners noted that training reduces litigation risk and that the statutory inland wetlands agency role can create scheduling pressure that could limit time for conservation-focused work.
What the commission discussed: Commissioners reviewed public comments recommending (1) that inland wetlands duties be split from conservation functions, (2) that commissioners receive formal training, and (3) that appointment or confirmation processes be revised. Several members noted the state statutory role for inland wetlands agencies and a town ordinance that names the Fairfield Conservation Commission as the inland wetlands agency. Participants observed that many towns establish inland wetlands by ordinance rather than the charter and that splitting the commissions would require additional members and more administrative coordination.
Training: Participants agreed training is important. The commission noted a state requirement that one member or staff be trained and that the state (DEEP) provides an online program; commissioners debated whether to duplicate that requirement in the charter or leave it to statute and ordinance. Several commissioners said a charter mandate could create inflexibility if the state requirement later changed; others said memorializing a training requirement could protect the town from legal exposure.
Split vs. leave as-is: Commissioners were divided about separating the inland wetlands agency from the Conservation Commission. Several argued separation could reduce conflicts between the time-sensitive permit decisions (inland wetlands) and the broader conservation agenda; others emphasized loss of synergy and the practical difficulty of filling many more volunteer positions. The commission agreed not to take immediate corrective action. Instead commissioners asked staff to invite Tim Bishop, director of conservation, to explain operational impacts and to provide the CRC with a clearer picture of staffing and ordinance history.
Procedural follow-up: Commissioners agreed to: (a) ask the conservation director for a briefing on the operational effects of splitting the commissions and current compliance with the ordinance; (b) ask the Town Attorney to confirm which statutory requirements must be met by the wetlands agency and whether training or appointment requirements should be memorialized in the charter or code; and (c) leave the current charter text in place for the red-line draft pending those briefings.
Ending: The commission will revisit inland wetlands after hearing from Mr. Bishop and after receiving legal clarification about how much of the agency’s functions are properly set in the charter versus municipal ordinance.
