Public input on strengthening lake and wetlands oversight reveals a deep divide in Salisbury

SALISBURY — The Salisbury Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission (IWWC) sought public input for the first time on its draft regulations rewrite on Tuesday, July 20, during a Zoom workshop that drew 75 attendees, about a dozen of whom spoke within the 15 minutes allowed to each person or group.

Discussion centered on a controversial proposal to expand the scope of the commission’s authority by extending its Upland Review Area (URA) to 200 feet from water or wetlands. The review area as it stands now is 75 feet from water or wetlands.

The proposal has sparked intense opposition from some property owners around Lakeville’s Lake Wononscopomuc and around the Twin Lakes in the northern edge of Salisbury. They have hired legal counsel and organized as the Salisbury Lakes Homeowners. 

Others, including environmentalists and many members of the Lake Wononscopomuc Association, support broader protection of fragile wetlands and erodible soils throughout Salisbury.

At its meeting July 19, the Salisbury Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended that Inland Wetlands consider a 300-foot Upland Review Area for Salisbury’s four large lakes, mirroring Planning and Zoning’s existing Lake Protection Overlay District. 

“It makes sense that both agencies review the same area,” noted Michael Klemens, Planning and Zoning chairman. “This makes not only good administrative sense but, most importantly, ecological sense.

Science — not fear or misinformation

Klemens, who addressed Inland Wetlands on July 20 as a private citizen (and one who is a renowned environmentalist and herpetologist), said the conversation regarding wetlands “is really far greater than the lakes.” 

He suggested that bowing to pressure from a select group of lake representatives is inappropriate. The commission’s decision, he said, “should be driven by science. Not fear, not misinformation.” 

Rather, he said, it is the Inland Wetlands Commission’s duty to “weigh the facts, weigh the needs and write your regulations.”

Klemens suggested commission members take into account Salisbury’s rich, diverse wetlands. “All of them. Not just the lakes. Please do not be distracted from that part of your mission because a lot of people aren’t happy. It is not a popularity contest. You are here to do what is right and you’re not a delegate for a particular water body.”

Critical — and fragile— ecosystems

Klemens, an ecologist who has experience in studying Connecticut wetlands, said that while the lakes represent some of the most valuable real estate in Salisbury, from a wetlands perspective “they pale in ecological significance” to many other wetlands in town with fragile ecosystems. 

Salisbury, said Klemens, has some of the most critical wetland resources in the state, in part because of its geographical and geological location, but also because it is one of the few areas in Connecticut where significant tracts of forest and open space remain.

He suggested larger review areas around certain types of wetlands and watercourses, including a 750-foot regulated area around vernal pools, which are habitat for wood frogs, and 300-foot buffers around cold water streams and fen habitats containing bog turtles.

Questioning the need, and the legality

The Salisbury Lakes Homeowners group (SLH) is headed by Grant Bogle, who also serves as president of the Twin Lakes Association and is a lakefront property owner on East Twin. He has been advocating for more research and broader input before the draft regulations are introduced for adoption.

The group — through several letters submitted to the IWWC in recent months and representation by two attorneys who attended the July 20 workshop — has been calling into question the need and legality of some of the proposed changes and has asked for clarity of definitions and processes landowners would face.

Attorney Joseph Williams, a partner with the Shipman and Goodwin law firm, along with Attorney Mark Capecelatro, have been retained by the SLH. Both spoke at the workshop, addressing clients’ concerns.

According to Williams, Salisbury currently regulates activity around its major lakes through the IWWC regulations — which require permits for “regulated activities” within 75 feet of the high water mark, and in some cases, for activities within an Upland Review Area of 100 feet. 

In addition, the town’s zoning regulations create a Lake Protection Overlay Zone, which requires permits for certain activities within 300 feet of lakes. Together, he said, these regulations place Salisbury’s lakes among the most regulated in the state. 

In addition, he said, Salisbury is one of only 18 of 169 municipalities in Connecticut with a lake protection overlay zone, placing Salisbury in the top 10% of the state with such broad oversight. According to Williams, the IWWC’s proposed amendments “bear no rational relationship” to the commission’s interest in protecting the lakes. 

“Salisbury would really become an outlier and the most regulated town when it comes to this situation in the entire state.”

“The amendments would define harmless activities, like clearing brush more than 150 feet from the high water mark, as regulated activities,” said Williams. “Our clients are aware of no instances of activities around Salisbury’s lakes that caused harm to the lakes that would be prevented by imposing a 200-foot URA. You need a better reason other than simply other towns have done it. What is the science and what’s changed?”

Responding to comments made earlier in the meeting about regulating upland wildlife habitat, Williams said both the state Supreme Court and state Legislature “have made it clear that an inland wetlands commission, at the local level, does not have authority to regulate upland wildlife habitat unless there is some activity happening that is specifically connected to an impact to the physical characteristics of a wetland or watercourse.”

Seeking feedback from the commission members, Attorney Capecelatro asked, “Exactly what is it that the IWWC feels is deficient about the regulations as they exist right now? What are they not doing and what are the problems that flow from this deficiency? Help us understand.”

Attorney Janet Brooks, who represents the town, said that the public workshop is not designed for back-and-forth discussion, and that questions can be put out for the commission, to be considered and addressed at a later time. 

The commission continued its proposed regulations to a  workshop on Monday, July 26.

Seeking clarity, seeking answers

Bill Littauer, who has served as president of the Lake Wononscopomuc Association (LWA) for more than two decades, also sought answers. “What actually would require a property owner to request a permit under a 200-foot or 300-foot Upland Review Area that is not required now under the 75-foot Upland Review Area?”

He also questioned why the commission cannot write regulations with “clear definitions that regular property owners can understand, so there would be no confusion about what permits would be required and when they would be required.”

Littauer said he agrees with Klemens’ recommendation to expand Upland Review Areas to 300 feet, to coincide with P&Z’s 300-foot Lake Protection Overlay District “just because of the confusion” it would avoid.

Referring to a Salisbury Lakes Homeowners petition that’s been “bandied around” with more than 500 signatures, “My question is, why are they so opposed to these draft regulations since obviously they don’t all live on a lake or own property around the lakes?” said Littauer. “Do they know what they are signing a petition against? Have they read the regulations so that they know what they mean?” 

Proud of ‘outlier’ status

Several speakers supported the proposed Upland Review Area expansion and said Salisbury should embrace its status as one of the most regulated towns in Connecticut when it comes to protecting its natural resources.

“Why would Salisbury not want to have the best regulations in the state of Connecticut? Why would we not want to protect the lakes from clear cutting and removal of brush from steep hillsides with erodible soils?” Littauer said.

“An Upland Review Area is not a prohibitory setback or ecological buffer,” said Mary Silks, a property owner on Lake Wononscopomuc. Rather, she said, it is there to “ensure best management practices are being implemented that will help to protect the health and vitality” of inland wetlands and watercourses by monitoring major stressors such as stormwater runoff, sediment loading and loss of lakeshore habitat. 

“It’s like death by a thousand cuts,” said Silks of small damages that are done and that accumulate. “All together, it’s a major impact.” 

Anita Jorgensen praised the input from speakers. She also said she is proud of the town’s status as an outlier regarding its lake protections. “I am 100% behind you,” she told commissioners. “We are not an island. When my neighbors apply pesticides, I end up drinking it. I am unbelievably excited about Salisbury being the leader in the state of Connecticut. The town of Salisbury is headed in the right direction.”