Westport Conservation Commission to Amend Policies for Wetland, Watercourse Boundaries

Conservation Director Alicia Mozian announced today that the Conservation Commission intends to amend its policies for determining wetland and watercourse boundaries in the Town of Westport.

It is the commission’s opinion that this proposed change in policy will lead to:

• More accurate wetland boundary delineations and therefore better wetland and watercourse protection
• Streamlining of the permit process so they can be issued in less time and at a reduced cost
• Reduction in the number of disputes and violations
• Consistency with the policies of other state municipalities

The Conservation Commission is charged with protecting wetlands and watercourses within the Town of Westport, as per the “Regulations for the Protection and Preservation of Wetlands and Watercourses for the Town of Westport,” and Connecticut General Statutes.

“Identifying the location of wetlands and watercourses as part of the review process for a regulated activity is an integral part of carrying out the responsibilities of the commission,” said Mozian.

Currently, the Town relies on large scale, generalized wetland maps that were prepared in 1983 using 1975 aerial photographs, remote sensing techniques and some field checking to designate the wetland boundaries.

Mozian said that while compared to most towns, Westport’s existing maps are very good at depicting the general location of a wetland or watercourse boundary. the maps were always meant only as a guide and were never to be relied on for development purposes.

“With high property values and the extensive amount of development and site manipulation that goes on in Westport, knowing exactly where wetland boundaries are located is key to planning the location of a house, a septic system, the limits of disturbance and other site improvements,” she said.

Requiring these boundary determinations up-front, and planning accordingly, can save the property owner a lot of headaches, compared to discovering in the middle of a project that a wetland or watercourse is present on the property, she said.

In order to accurately delineate wetland and watercourse boundaries at a scale suitable for site planning and development review, they need to be flagged by a professional soil scientist, and plotted onto a site plan or subdivision map by a surveyor, according to Mozian.  This process will ensure that the wetlands and watercourses are accurately delineated on a property scheduled for development and are therefore protected when and use changes are proposed, she said. 

The proposed policy contemplates that anyone wishing to carry out a large project such as a new house, large addition, pool, pool house, tennis court, detached garage, new septic system, large grading and drainage projects, and possibly driveway expansion or relocation, can expect that this new policy will apply to them. This will be regardless of whether the current 1983 town map shows the presence of wetlands.

Conversely, however, small projects may be exempt from the new policy if, after inspection by staff and or review of available data, it is determined that the project will have no more than a minimal impact on any wetland, Mozian said.

Moreover, she said, sSSS taff may waive this requirement for any of the following reasons. 

1. A map amendment was already completed and approved.
2. The applicant provides a report and a map from a soil scientist as to the location of the wetlands and/or watercourses or that none exist on the property.
3. Any other resources available or presented to support that there are no wetlands and/or watercourses on the property.
4. A field review by the Conservation Department staff has determined the unlikelihood of wetlands and/or watercourses.

If an applicant’s request for a waiver is denied by staff, the applicant may appeal this decision to the Conservation Commission, Mozian said.

Mozian added that under current policy, a second soil scientist is required to verify the wetland delineation by the applicant’s soil scientist, and thereafter requires the applicant to file an application for a map amendment. The map amendment application is required by statute to have a public hearing.

Under the proposed policy, if the Conservation Department staff has determined the planned activity is unlikely to result in no more than a minimal impact to wetlands and/or watercourses, this verification by the second soil scientist, and the corresponding application to file a map amendment, may be waived, Mozian said.

However, if the Conservation Department staff questions the accuracy of the wetlands and/or watercourses boundary, as delineated by the soil scientist retained by the applicant, the town may, at the applicant’s expense, retain a second soil scientist to verify the proposed wetlands and/or watercourses boundary, she said. In either case, the staff, instead of the applicant, will be taking on the responsibility of bringing the amendment to the official town map to public hearing. This will save the owner both time and money, according to Mozian.

The proposed change was sent to 123 stakeholders in the area including soil scientists, surveyors, land use consultants, landscape architects, architects, pool contractors, builders/developers and civil engineers. Only seven responses were received, she said.  

All were in favor except for a concern that homeowners wishing to perform small projects might find this new requirement onerous. In response, the commission and staff stress that waivers for small projects may be granted if it is determined that the project is outside the specified upland review area and is unlikely to cause no more than a minimal impact to the wetland or watercourse, Mozian said.

Mozian said each of these waiver requests will need to be considered on a site-by-site basis.

In preparation for this change, 10 area communities were consulted to determine their policies in determining wetland boundaries, Mozian said.  It was found that requiring a wetland boundary to be flagged early as part of a site improvement project has been a long standing practice in many Fairfield County towns, she said. In fact, most towns throughout the state require it as well, according to several of the soil scientists staff has spoken with who work throughout the state, Mozian said.

The Conservation Commission held a public hearing on Feb. 13 regarding this proposal. During a second hearing held on March 21 the commission voted to adopt the new policy with an effective date of July 1. 

The Conservation Commission will review the status of the adopted policy after six months of its effective date to determine if any further adjustments are necessary, Mozian said.