Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulations Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stratford Wetlands Commission Hears Petition to Align Local Rules with State Law; Hearing Continued
Summary
Attorney Steven Bellas presented a petition to amend Stratford’s inland wetlands regulations, urging changes to definitions, permit duration, bond authority and penalties to mirror state statute and DEEP guidance; commissioners continued the public hearing to allow members to review Bellas’s written petition and for staff to be present.
Attorney Steven Bellas asked the Town of Stratford Wetlands and Water Courses Commission to update its inland wetlands regulations to match state law and recent case law, arguing several local provisions exceed the town’s authority.
Bellas, who identified himself as representing the applicant (Bluebird/Prestige), said the commission should replace the local definition of “regulated activity” in section 2.26 with the state definition (as cited in his materials: "22 a dash 38 13") and apply a two-part test: whether the activity lies in the upland review area and whether it will have a significant impact on regulated wetlands. "Only activities that have a significant impact on the wetlands is considered a regulated activity," he told commissioners.
Why it matters: Bellas said the current Stratford language effectively treats any construction in the upland review area as a regulated activity, which he argued is broader than state law allows. He also urged the commission to follow DEEP guidance on upland-review distances, noting DEEP considers a 100-foot upland review area generally sufficient and cautions against automatically requiring permits beyond that distance.
Specific changes Bellas recommended included replacing local decision criteria with the state statute’s standards (he recommended copying the statutory language to avoid contradictions), extending permit terms to reflect the state change he cited (from five years under local rule 11.6 to what he said is now 10 years), removing a prohibition on transfer/assignment of permits that he said conflicts with law (11.7), clarifying section 13 on bonds so the wetlands commission does not assume planning-and-zoning bond authority (he cited "8 dash 3 g"), and adopting the state penalty statute for fines (he cited "22 a dash 42 g").
Bellas also proposed that the administrator ('Kelly' in the record) be empowered to sign jurisdictional determination letters for properties that have no wetlands or upland review area, allowing routine cases to be handled administratively rather than requiring applicants to appear before the commission.
The public hearing remained open; Bellas said he had supplied a petition and a concise memo with statutory citations to staff. Commissioners noted Kelly — who Bellas said had received the packet — was not present at the meeting and that not all commissioners had copies. Commissioner motioned and the commission voted to continue the public hearing until Kelly and additional members were available so commissioners could review the submitted materials.
Next steps: The hearing will resume at the next meeting after commissioners have had time to review Bellas’s petition and accompanying statutory citations, and after staff confirms distribution of the materials.
