Expansion of lake, wetlands oversight back on the burner

SALISBURY — Extending the Upland Review Area for Salisbury’s lakes was the focus of a two-hour discussion during an Aug. 8 meeting of the Salisbury Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission (IWWC).

During the forum, held via Zoom, a subcommittee comprising members of Planning and Zoning (PZC) and IWWC unveiled a draft rewrite of regulations that has been in the works for two years.

Last year, public input on strengthening lake and wetlands oversight revealed a deep divide. The controversy centered on a proposal to expand the scope of the commission’s authority by extending its Upland Review Area (URA) to 300 feet from water or wetlands and to 750 feet around vernal pools. The review area as it now stands is 75 feet from water or wetlands.

URAs are defined areas of land outside of but adjacent to inland wetlands and watercourses in which the commission has the authority to review activities. They are not a prohibitory setback or ecological buffer, but merely trigger a review of activities proposed within the area to determine whether the activity requires a permit.

The 2021 proposal sparked protest from some property owners around Lakeville’s Lake Wononscopomuc and around the Twin Lakes in the northern edge of Salisbury, resulting in legal intervention and a petition with 500 signatures circulated by a citizens group, Salisbury Lakes Homeowners. The group advocated for more research and broader input before the regulations are adopted.

In response, a newly formed subcommittee went back to the drawing board and, on Aug. 8, presented the IWWC with a first look at an updated regulations rewrite that members said addresses prior concerns.

During the virtual session, commissioners aired key topics such as regulated activities, routine activities that do not require application to the IWWC, and expansion of URAs surrounding septic systems, fens, vernal pools and cold water streams.

Member John Harney questioned the validity of having conversations with lake owners early in the process “to find common ground so they don’t feel ostracized.”

Abby Conroy, the town’s land use administrator, suggested commissioners first focus on the “meat and direction, and then there may be specific topics we will want to hear from the experts and the public about.”

Some commissioners questioned whether expanded oversight is excessive and burdensome to landowners, while the majority supported expanded authority and said the town should embrace its critical natural resources.

Most towns in Connecticut have 100-foot URAs and many have extended the review area around specific and significant water resources.

John Landon explained that there was “pretty strong consensus” from the subcommittee that the current 150-foot regulation area for septic systems should remain.

Peter Neely noted that he is in favor of  “scientific backing, and there is a clear one for 100 feet, but not for 150 feet.” He referenced statistics indicating that of 169 towns in the state, 110 of  them identify 100 feet as the distance from watercourses.

Vivian Garfein, who served on the regulations rewrite subcommittee, said she did not consider 150 feet to be a high benchmark for oversight of septic systems. “We’re losing the ability to capture some things that might be happening. We set a high bar on some things, but not on the 150.”

Lengthy discussion also centered on the proposal to expand the scope of the commission’s authority by extending its URA from 75 feet to 300 feet from water or wetlands, and to 750 feet for vernal pools.

Neely said he felt that a 100-foot extension would be sufficient, prompting IWWC Chairman Larry Burcroff to respond, “I think we can do it better at 300 feet.”

A consensus was reached on a proposal for a 300-foot buffer for fen habitats, as well as cold water streams originating on the Taconic Plateau.

Vernal pools, too, were identified as resources deserving of strict oversight. Neely expressed concern that a 750-foot regulated area around vernal pools could pose an unfair burden on property owners.

“What do we choose, comfort or science?” Sally Spillane asked.

The group also unveiled a list of routine activities occurring in the Upland Review Area that do not require application to the commission or its agent, which was a major bone of contention last year.

“During the first go-around, before the subcommittee was formed, we heard some of the biggest criticisms, and we took them into consideration,” said Garfein.

The IWWC plans to continue the draft regulations review on Monday, Aug. 22.

The joint land use subcommittee consists of six members. From IWWC: Vivian Garfein, Peter Neely, and Maria Grace. From PZC: Michael Klemens, Debra Allee and Cathy Shyer.