Taylor v. Conservation Commission
302 Conn. 60
| Conn. | 2011Background
- Taylor owns about six acres including wetlands; in Feb 2006 he petitioned for a declaratory ruling seeking as-of-right permits for farming-related activities including three access roads; staff memo recommended northern road as of right but denied central and southern roads due to wetland filling; May 2006 commission denied petition; Feb 7, 2008 commission determined central and southern roads would require filling and were not permit as of right, granting partial declaratory ruling; plaintiff appealed §22a-43/a; trial court remanded for separate determinations on each activity; trial court later affirmed denial of central/southern roads; issue on appeal is whether wetlands filling to construct roads can be done as of right; court ultimately held filling wetlands not permitted as of right regardless of direct relation to farming operation; regulations closely mirror §22a-40(a)(1) and the statutory purpose of wetlands protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wetlands filling to build roads is permitted as of right | Taylor argues roads directly related to farming may be allowed | Fairfield contends filling wetlands is not allowed as of right | Not permitted as of right |
| Whether road construction directly related to farming could be treated as of right even if it involves filling | Farms roads directly related to farming should be allowed | Filling wetlands remains disallowed as of right | Still not permitted as of right when filling is involved |
| How to interpret §22a-40(a)(1) and §4.1(a) relative to road construction and wetland filling | Statutory language permits; “not directly related” limits only non-related roads | Language unambiguously bars filling as of right | Filling not permitted as of right; exemptions limited and not applicable |
| Role of regulatory scheme and legislative intent in determining as-of-right activities | Court relies on strict construction and purpose to protect wetlands | ||
| Whether the roads could be built without fill | Some soils could support roads without fill | Record shows plaintiff sought fill to construct central/southern roads | Court does not decide feasibility; focus remains on prohibition of fill as of right |
Key Cases Cited
- Rapoport v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 301 Conn. 22 (2011) (plenary review of agency legal determinations; courts expound governing law; no deference for first-impression issues)
- Wood v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 258 Conn. 691 (2001) (principles of statutory interpretation and deference to agency rulings)
- Hicks v. State, 297 Conn. 798 (2010) (ascertaining legislative intent; exemptions to statutes strictly construed)
- Conservation Commission v. Price, 193 Conn. 414 (1984) (strict construction of exemptions; burden on claimant to prove eligibility)