Mario v. Town of Fairfield
585 A.2d 87, 217 Conn. 164, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20066 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal conservation commission may, under the authority of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act, regulate construction activity on non-wetland portions of a parcel of land if that parcel also contains designated wetlands. Such a regulation does not violate equal protection as it is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting wetlands.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs, including Tufaro, jointly own a twenty-two acre parcel of land in the town of Fairfield.
- Approximately eleven acres, or half, of the plaintiffs' parcel are designated as wetlands.
- On June 2, 1987, the Fairfield conservation commission adopted a regulation, § 3.3 (xi).
- The regulation requires owners of parcels that are partially within a designated wetlands area to obtain a "certificate of wetlands conformance" before erecting any structure on the non-wetlands portion of their parcel.
- To obtain the certificate, the owner must show the proposed activity is not "reasonably likely to significantly disturb the natural and indigenous character of the land [wetlands]."
- This requirement does not apply to landowners whose property is composed entirely of non-wetland property.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs challenged the regulation in the Superior Court, which is the trial court of first instance in Connecticut.
- The trial court found the issues in favor of the defendant commission and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Court.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut, the state's highest court, transferred the appeal from the Appellate Court to itself for decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal conservation commission's regulation, which requires a permit for construction on a non-wetland portion of a parcel that also contains wetlands, exceed the statutory authority granted by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act and violate the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Glass, J.
No. The regulation does not exceed the commission's statutory authority and does not violate the equal protection clauses. A regulation is valid so long as it is reasonably designed to effectuate the purposes of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (IWWA), which grants local commissions broad discretion to protect wetlands. The court presumes the regulation is valid, and the commission could have reasonably determined that construction activity on non-wetland property could pose a significant threat to nearby wetlands on the same parcel. The certificate requirement is a valid administrative device to allow the commission to review potential impacts before damage occurs. Furthermore, the regulation survives an equal protection challenge because the classification distinguishing between owners of parcels with wetlands and those without is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting wetlands from potential harm.
Dissenting - Covello, J.
Yes. The regulation exceeds the commission's statutory authority. The majority's decision continues a line of cases that have incrementally expanded the power of local conservation commissions beyond any direct grant of authority in the IWWA. The act and its legislative history call for a balance between economic interests and environmental protection, which this regulation ignores by allowing commissions to prohibit land use in non-wetland areas without an express balancing of societal needs. The IWWA does not expressly provide for the regulation of activities outside of actual wetlands, and this judicial expansion of power creates a conflict with zoning authorities, which are the proper bodies to regulate general land use.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the jurisdictional reach of municipal wetland commissions, allowing them to regulate activities on land that is not technically a wetland. It affirms a proactive, preventative approach to wetland protection, prioritizing administrative oversight over a landowner's unfettered right to develop non-regulated land. This precedent empowers local agencies to use parcel-based, rather than strictly activity-based, jurisdiction, thereby increasing regulatory burdens on property owners whose land contains even small portions of wetlands.
