This is not legal advice, but it’s a wording issue I’d want to review when updating older town regulations.  

One section worth checking in older Connecticut inland wetlands regulations is the subdivision and re-subdivision referral language.  This is Section  7.2 of the CT DEEP Model Wetlands Regulations (4^th Edition, May 1, 2006).

This isn’t a show-stopping problem, but it is the kind of small wording difference that can create confusion for applicants, planning and zoning staff, wetlands agents, commissions, and town attorneys. It also shows why local land use regulations need periodic maintenance, especially when they were based on model language that has not kept pace with later statutory changes.

The older model regulation language

The 2006 CT DEEP model inland wetlands regulations included subdivision referral language in section 7.2 that referred to an application involving land “containing a wetland or watercourse.”

That wording appears to have been copied into many local inland wetlands regulations.

At first glance, the meaning may seem straightforward. If a subdivision parcel contains wetlands or watercourses somewhere on the property, the applicant may appear to be required to submit an inland wetlands application at the same time the subdivision or re-subdivision application is filed with Planning and Zoning.

That interpretation can lead to a fairly broad procedural requirement. A property may contain wetlands in one area, while the proposed subdivision work, road layout, utilities, grading, or lot changes may occur outside any regulated area. If the local regulation still says “land containing a wetland or watercourse,” it may appear that the mere presence of wetlands anywhere on the parcel triggers a wetlands permit application.

That may not match the current statutory language.

The statutory language changed

CGS § 8-26(e) now refers to subdivision or re-subdivision applications involving “land regulated as an inland wetland or watercourse under the provisions of chapter 440.” The statute states that the applicant shall submit an application to the agency responsible for administering the inland wetlands regulations no later than the day the subdivision or re-subdivision application is filed.

That is different from saying land merely contains a wetland or watercourse.

A subdivision parcel may contain wetlands somewhere on the property, but the proposed work may be outside the regulated area and may not involve regulated activity under the town’s inland wetlands regulations.

Why the difference matters

The older phrase, “containing a wetland or watercourse,” can be read broadly. It may suggest that any subdivision parcel with wetlands anywhere on it automatically requires a wetlands application.

The newer statutory phrase, “land regulated as an inland wetland or watercourse,” brings the analysis back to jurisdiction. It asks whether the subdivision or re-subdivision application involves land regulated under the town’s inland wetlands regulations.

That distinction can matter when reviewing larger parcels, conservation subdivisions, lot line changes, or re-subdivisions where wetlands are present but the proposed activity may not require a wetlands permit.

For example, a parcel may include wetlands at the rear of the property, while the proposed subdivision involves lots, driveways, or other improvements located outside the regulated area. If the wetlands agency does not claim jurisdiction over the proposed activity, requiring a wetlands permit application may add confusion and extra “box-checking” steps that don’t provide any value. 

In that type of situation, I would have handled the issue through either a wetlands agent or wetlands commission review, and I would write a letter for the Planning and Zoning record stating that the plans were reviewed and that no wetlands permit is required.

The letter doesn’t need to be complicated. It might simply document that the subdivision plans and application materials were reviewed under the applicable section of the local inland wetlands regulations, and that the wetlands agency or agent determined that no inland wetlands permit is required for the proposal as submitted.  Then, if someone checks the file later, they’ll see that the project was reviewed.

I think I wrote a few with language like this…

”The plan and application materials for Application PZ#… were reviewed in accordance with section 7.2 of the IWWC Regs and it has been determined that the proposed work is outside wetlands and the Upland Review Area, and that the project is not likely to impact wetlands or watercourses. Therefore, no wetlands permit application is required.”

Why this is worth checking

This is a good example of why model regulations are useful starting points, not documents to copy once and forget.

The 2006 CT DEEP model regulations were helpful, but statutory language can change after model language is published. If a town copied model language years ago and has not revisited that section, the local regulation may still reflect older wording.

Older local regulations often contain wording that made sense when adopted but no longer lines up cleanly with current statutes, current procedures, online permitting, staff roles, or how commissions actually process applications. Small differences can create real procedural confusion later.

For inland wetlands regulations, subdivision referral language is one section worth checking.

Practical takeaway

If a local regulation still uses “land containing a wetland or watercourse” in the subdivision or re-subdivision referral section, I would compare it carefully against the current language of CGS § 8-26(e).

The practical question is not only whether wetlands exist somewhere on the parcel.

The practical question is whether the subdivision or re-subdivision application involves land regulated as an inland wetland or watercourse, or otherwise involves activity regulated by the town’s inland wetlands regulations.

That small distinction can help avoid unnecessary applications.  It’ll result in clearer Planning and Zoning records, and less confusion for applicants and staff.

Model regulations are useful starting points. Local regulations still need periodic maintenance.