Indian Land Co. v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency
145 A.3d 851
| Conn. | 2016Background
- The Indian Spring Land Co. owns ~121.5 acres in Greenwich; the ~70.85 acre northeast compartment is largely forest and only reachable via a narrow frontage on Zaccheus Mead Lane.
- Plaintiff prepared a forest management plan recommending forestry work and construction of a gravel access road that would cross a small 0.13-acre wetland via a bridge (no wetland filling).
- Plaintiff applied to the Greenwich Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency for permission for forestry work and the access road; agency treated forestry as exempt but issued a permit with special conditions for the road (including a removable steel bridge and periodic removal requirement).
- Plaintiff appealed to Superior Court arguing that road construction directly related to farming/forestry is exempt from municipal wetlands regulation under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-40(a)(1); trial court disagreed and remanded for the agency to justify conditions; after remand trial court affirmed agency on the record.
- Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed whether the statutory phrase "road construction or the erection of buildings not directly related to the farming operation" means all road construction is regulated or only roads not directly related to farming.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 22a-40(a)(1) exempts road construction directly related to farming/forestry from municipal wetlands jurisdiction | Road construction directly related to farming (including forestry) is exempt as of right; the modifying phrase "not directly related to the farming operation" applies to both "road construction" and "erection of buildings" | The word "or" should be read disjunctively so that "not directly related" modifies only "erection of buildings," making all road construction subject to agency jurisdiction | Court held the exemption covers road construction directly related to farming/forestry; agency lacked jurisdiction to regulate the plaintiff's access road |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Conservation Commission, 302 Conn. 60 (discussed whether filling wetlands for road construction is permitted under § 22a-40(a)(1))
- Red 11, LLC v. Conservation Commission, 117 Conn. App. 630 (App. Ct.) (construed "with continual flow" phrase in § 22a-40(a)(1))
- Bateson v. Weddle, 306 Conn. 1 (use of punctuation as interpretive aid in statutory construction)
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (relying on grammatical structure to discern statutory meaning)