New Canaan Wetlands Panel Votes to Send Ordinance Overhaul to Council
Inland Wetlands · Meeting of July 20, 2026
New Canaan wetlands panel votes to send Town Council a package of ordinance updates. The Inland Wetlands Commission voted unanimously to repeal its long-dormant designation as the town's aquifer protection agency and to tie future citation fines to whatever cap the Connecticut General Statutes allow, rather than a fixed $1,000, unchanged since roughly 2004. Chair Angela Jameson said the ideas grew out of her work on the now-dissolved Charter Revision Commission.
Enforcement Officer Kathleen Holland also briefed members on a $1,000 citation issued for unauthorized clearing at 494 Ponus Ridge, saying the property owner has "good compliance with positive steps going forward" and expects to file a mitigation application by September. Separately, Holland confirmed a Superior Court order has forced the town to issue a wetland permit for Hill Street L 72 LLC's 93-unit development, and that tree removal has begun even as the town seeks to have the court's decision revisited.
In the full story:
- Who Was There
- Organizations And Documents Referenced
- The complete report — 2,029 words
Source: the Inland Wetlands meeting of July 20, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.
The Full Article
Roll Call and Quorum
The meeting opened with a roll call read by an unnamed commission secretary. Five members answered present: Chair Angela Jameson, Sandy Redden, Beth Bernali, Dan Stanic and Tom Cunningham. Members Don Matronardi and Beth Sanford were noted absent, as was member Philip Williams, referred to informally as "Phil" during the roll. Two additional names, Katie and Adam Ramirez, were called but no clear verbal response was captured on the recording, leaving their attendance status ambiguous. After the roll established a quorum of five, Jameson asked an individual identified only as Mr. Collingham, seated in the audience, to take Matronardi's chair as an alternate; Collingham agreed, and staff noted a vote might be needed later in the meeting that could benefit from a full complement.
Agenda and Minutes
Both procedural items moved quickly. The commission approved its July 20 agenda on a motion and a second, by unanimous voice vote, with no discussion. It then approved the minutes of its May 18, 2026 regular meeting the same way. Neither item drew comment or edits from members.
Applications and Scheduling
Item five, covering new applications to be received and scheduled, was rendered moot: the commission had no applications pending. Because the commission does not meet in June, members clarified that the next regular meeting after July 20 falls not in August but on September 14, 2026. With no pending applications, item six, covering site visit scheduling, was also skipped as unnecessary.
Enforcement Update: 494 Ponus Ridge
The most substantive staff report of the evening came from Kathleen Holland, introduced to the record as the town's inland wetlands enforcement officer, regarding a notice of violation at 494 Ponus Ridge, identified on the town's map as Map 25, Block 13, Lot 46. Holland said she first noticed unauthorized activity in the rear of the property while conducting an unrelated site visit to an adjoining land trust parcel, and that staff work in the office subsequently identified the responsible property.
The question before the commission was not whether to act. Holland told members the town had already issued a cease-and-desist order and a notice of violation, which the property owner acknowledged in writing, along with a $1,000 citation. The owner has until July 27, 2026 to pay. Holland said the owner confirmed that machinery has been removed from the site and has submitted a written summary of how the unauthorized work occurred. The owner has also retained multiple consultants, and Holland said the goal is to file a mitigation application in time for the commission's September 14 meeting, which would put a hearing before the commission as soon as October. If a mitigation application arrives in September, Holland said staff will schedule a commission site visit between the September and October meetings so members can see the affected area firsthand. She cautioned that surveying, topographic work and engineering analysis still need to be completed before a restoration plan can be finalized, which could push the September filing target.
Jameson raised, and then set aside, the question of whether to compel the property owner to appear before the commission that night. "It seemed to me to be unnecessary to ask the owner to appear tonight, because if the mitigation application isn't actually heard for a few more months, that information won't be so fresh for us," she said, adding that members should direct any questions on the matter to Holland. Holland confirmed there have been no compliance issues since the cease-and-desist was issued: "No, no issues with issuing the notice of violation, issuing the citation, good communication back with the property owner and his consultant to try to move it forward." No commission vote was required on the item; it remains an active staff-level enforcement matter, with Holland committing to report back as the case develops through August.
Administrative Actions, Items 8 Through 12: The Hill Street Litigation
Holland walked the commission through five administratively issued permits from the June and July period the commission had not met to review, characterizing most as routine. Item 10 drew extended discussion. Holland told members that a Connecticut Superior Court memorandum decision, dated February 6, 2026, sustained an appeal by Hill Street L 72 LLC against the Inland Wetlands Commission, Town of New Canaan, and ordered the town to issue a wetland permit for the site, a 93-unit residential development. Holland said the permit has been issued, as has a required grading permit from planning and zoning, and that the applicant has begun tree removal. The applicant has not yet applied for a building permit, and Holland said she has no timeline for when that filing might come.
Jameson pressed on the state of the underlying dispute, initially describing it as ongoing litigation. Holland corrected the characterization: the town has not filed an appeal of the court's decision but has instead filed a request asking the court to revisit the matter, and the town has not yet heard back. "As reviewed and advised by the town attorney," Holland said, the applicant is permitted to proceed with work outlined under the issued permits while that request is pending. Jameson asked what happens if the town's request is granted: Holland said the commission's original decision could be reopened, with no guarantee the town would ultimately prevail, meaning the applicant is proceeding at its own risk under advice from its own counsel. "It's a business decision, right? Not for us to," one member observed of the applicant's choice to begin construction while the town's request was pending.
Jameson noted the project's scale, comparing its 93 units to another large residential development previously before the town, and asked whether staff had heard from neighbors. Holland said she had received a single inquiry about the tree removal and confirmed the town has been conducting site visits and monitoring the applicant's compliance with its approved plan. No commission vote was taken on the Hill Street matter; it remains an administrative permitting and litigation matter that Holland will continue to monitor and report on.
Discussion of Possible Updates to Inland Wetlands Ordinances
Jameson introduced the meeting's only voted agenda item by explaining her recent service on the town's Charter Revision Commission, which reviewed New Canaan's municipal charter and, in the process, examined ordinances governing town bodies, including two chapters touching inland wetlands. Working with Holland and a colleague she identified as Todd Lampbert, Jameson reviewed chapter 16 and chapter 33A of the town code and identified several proposed updates. Because the Charter Revision Commission has since stopped meeting, Jameson proposed the Inland Wetlands Commission adopt the recommendations itself and forward them to Town Council.
The first proposal would repeal the commission's designation, under chapter 16, article II, as the town's aquifer protection agency. Holland explained the designation dates to 2004, when the state notified New Canaan that a portion of the town fell within the protection zone for a well based in Norwalk, triggering state aquifer-protection requirements. Holland said the state has since redrawn that protection zone so it no longer reaches into New Canaan, and that no other wells currently give rise to aquifer protection zones affecting the town. "It is outdated, not going to come back into, and if it did, we could always go back through the process again," Holland said.
The second proposal would update chapter 33A, article I, which still refers to the "New Canaan Environmental Commission," a name Jameson said predates her tenure and was used before the body's functions were split between what is now the Inland Wetlands Commission and the Conservation Commission. The proposal is a straightforward find-and-replace, removing the old name and inserting current references to the Inland Wetlands Commission and its agent.
The third proposal concerns fines. Under current town ordinance and state law, the inland wetlands agent can fine a violator no more than $1,000 per citation, a figure members noted has been unchanged since roughly 2004. Rather than propose a specific new dollar figure, Jameson's draft recommended rewording the ordinance so the cap tracks whatever maximum Connecticut General Statutes allow, without requiring a future ordinance amendment if the state raises its limit. Discussion turned to precise wording: Redden's proposed language, "the fine shall be $1,000 or an amount not to exceed the amount permitted by the Connecticut General Statutes," was adopted to avoid ambiguity about whether a future state increase would automatically raise the local cap or merely permit it to be raised. Members also discussed the fund the $1,000 citation fee is deposited into, confirming it goes into the town's general fund rather than back into the commission's budget, which one member noted avoids creating any financial incentive for the enforcement office to pursue violations. Several members said the more effective route to a higher state cap would be contacting the town's state legislative delegation directly, since a "quarter deep" letter from the commission alone was unlikely to move state law.
Jameson then moved that the Inland Wetlands Commission forward the recommendations, as amended on the fines language, to Town Council, asking the council to update the town code. A member seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous voice vote. Jameson said she would determine whether to send the letter to the full Town Council or only its ordinance subcommittee, though members expressed a preference for the full council "because everyone needs to know what's going on and this is very simple stuff."
Charter Revision Commission Status
Jameson gave a brief status update on the separate Charter Revision Commission, noting its final report has been approved by Town Council, which must now word ballot questions for a November 2026 referendum, since charter changes require voter approval. She said nothing in that report specifically affects inland wetlands matters.
Adjournment
With no further business, the commission adjourned on a motion, a second from Tom Cunningham, and a unanimous voice vote.
Angela Jameson, Chair, presided over the meeting and moved the ordinance-update recommendations. Sandy Redden, Member, present; proposed the amended fine wording adopted by the commission. Beth Bernali, Member, present. Dan Stanic, Member, present. Tom Cunningham, Member, present; seconded the motion to adjourn. Don Matronardi, Member, absent; an alternate was seated in his place. Beth Sanford, Member, absent. Philip Williams, Member, absent. Mr. Collingham, seated as an alternate in place of Don Matronardi. Katie and Adam Ramirez were named during roll call; their attendance and roles were not clearly established on the recording. Kathleen Holland, Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer, presented the agent's report, including the 494 Ponus Ridge violation update and the Hill Street L 72 LLC litigation summary. No members of the public spoke; no applicants or outside consultants appeared before the commission at this meeting.
Hill Street L 72 LLC — plaintiff in litigation against the Inland Wetlands Commission, Town of New Canaan; won a Superior Court order directing the town to issue a wetland permit for its 93-unit development. Connecticut Superior Court — issued the February 6, 2026 memorandum decision sustaining Hill Street L 72 LLC's appeal, discussed under item 10. Town of New Canaan Planning and Zoning — issued the separate grading permit required for the Hill Street site, referenced alongside the wetland permit. New Canaan Charter Revision Commission — now dissolved; its research into town ordinances, including chapters 16 and 33A, formed the basis for the fine and aquifer-agency recommendations discussed under item 13. New Canaan Town Council — approved the Charter Revision Commission's final report and will word November 2026 ballot questions; is also the intended recipient of the commission's ordinance-update letter. Chapter 16, Town of New Canaan Code — governs the Inland Wetlands Commission and, under article II, currently designates it as the town's aquifer protection agency; commission recommended repealing that designation. Chapter 33A, Town of New Canaan Code — governs inland wetlands and watercourses; commission recommended updating outdated "New Canaan Environmental Commission" references and reworking the fine cap language. Connecticut General Statutes — set the current $1,000-per-citation state cap on wetlands fines; commission's proposed ordinance language would tie the local cap to any future state cap.