Amendments
to wetlands boundary maps: variations on a (statutory) theme
DEEP proposes in section three of Raised Bill #141, click here to
read the bill or go to: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/TOB/s/pdf/2016SB-00141-R00-SB.pdf, to eliminate all
of the procedure currently associated with map amendments, including:
conducting a public hearing in certain timeframes, posting a copy of the
amendments in the town clerk’s office for public perusal, stating at a meeting
the reasons for the change(s), providing a copy of the changes to DEEP.
I suppose it depends on
how you define the problem with maps to determine whether this proposal solves
it or makes it worse.
What is the purpose of
the municipal wetland map? For commission
members it is so they will know where the resources within their purview are
located. For land-owners wishing to
develop their property it is so they can know how to plan their construction.
For the rest of the community it is to know what areas come within the scrutiny
of the commission.
There are town wetlands commissions
that follow the statutory procedural requirements for map amendments and their
citizens are well-served with notice, opportunity to be heard and with reasons
stated on the record for those changes.
To those towns, I say: go forth and multiply!
And then there are the
variations on the theme: towns which don’t
go through the official map amendment process and merely attach a soils map
(performed by a certified soil scientist) to an application for a permit and
never change the official map. I have
seen some towns do this ostensibly because of the cost of producing the
oversized map sheets. Some just got in
the habit of letting the wetlands application morph into map amendment. The unofficial, informal way seems so
user-friendly and helpful, until . . .
One example:
Abutters to land which is being clear-cut call me for assistance to
determine if this is a wetlands violation.
The abutters go to town hall and ask for a copy of the official wetlands
maps of the area which they purchase. It
appears the clear-cutting is occurring on wetlands. I speak to the agent for the municipal
wetlands commission. He is a respected, experienced certified soil scientist
himself. He explains that a more
accurate and recent soils map was produced in 1988 for a residential subdivision
application that was denied. The
official map wasn’t amended, the subdivision application never was built – but somehow
the soils map lived on, in some people’s memory, but is not provided when the
official wetlands map is requested, because, of course, it isn’t the official
wetlands map. Twenty years later,
another certified and experienced soil scientist examines the property and
contacts the town agent. They walk the
property and agree in the field that there aren’t wetlands soils in a certain
area. The soil scientist writes a letter
to the agent to confirm this. As a
result no application for a permit need be filed because the soil scientists in
the field agreed the area contains no wetlands.
In this example, the most recent map
amendment is not even a map, it is a letter stating the agreement between one
soil scientist and the town agent that the soils map from 1988 no longer
reflects current conditions. The town
commission had no input or role in adopting what the soil scientists agreed to
out in the field.
Back to my earlier
statement – What is the problem with map
amendments? To me the problem is when
soil maps attached to applications are used in place of the official map
amendment process. The lack of formality
translates into a lack of transparency which means there is not a common
understanding of where the wetlands are located.
Viewed through that lens, I do not see the DEEP proposal
as a solution. Section 3 of Raised Bill #141 relaxes the
official amendment process and doesn’t address the informal, unofficial, "extra-legal" process
currently taking place in some towns.
To those who complain
that it’s too cumbersome to hold two public hearings, one on the map amendment
and one on the application for a wetlands application, I say: Process them both simultaneously -- hold a joint
public hearing!
To those who complain of
the cost of amending the official wetlands maps, I say: This is 2016. Soil scientists are creating digital
maps. Receive maps in digital
format. The towns should maintain the
maps digitally.
If there are still
problems with the implementation of the formal map amendment process that lead
towns to work around, i.e., deviate from the official map amendment process,
form a task force of stakeholders to come up with a solution. Full transparency, ease of access to official
maps. Surely, this can be solved.
No comments:
Post a Comment