A 74-year-old homeowner in Bethel, Connecticut, has been ordered to either restore a brook behind his home to its previous condition or seek a wetlands permit for work he carried out there without approval. According to a September 13 report by the News-Times, Mark Bjorken had moved rocks, reinforced sections of the banks of Limekiln Brook and built a bridge across the watercourse as he tried to protect his property from erosion. Bjorken bought the single-family home on Rockwell Road about 10 years ago, and the brook runs so close to the house that he told the newspaper he can stand in his bedroom, open the window and fish. On September 10, Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Brazzel-Massaro upheld the decision of Bethel’s Inland Wetlands Commission, finding that Bjorken had not established that his work was exempt from the town’s wetlands regulations.
How Mark Bjorken ended up in a legal fight with Bethel over Limekiln Brook
The dispute began in 2023, when a neighbour reported that Bjorken was moving rocks and reinforcing the banks on both sides of Limekiln Brook in a way that altered the brook’s flow. When Bethel’s wetlands enforcement officer investigated, the officer found moved rocks and a bridge across the brook. Bjorken was cited for a violation and ordered either to restore the brook to its previous condition or apply to the Inland Wetlands Commission for permission to carry out the work. Town records identify the matter as an unpermitted excavation and/or fill activity along and within the established watercourse at 7 Rockwell Road.Bjorken maintained that the work was intended to protect his property from erosion. In a 2023 report prepared for the town, wetlands consultant James M. McManus wrote that the eastern bank of Limekiln Brook was being undercut and eroded by the brook’s flows. He said the erosion had caused significant bank erosion and tree instability that could pose a threat to structures near the western bank.
Why the Bethel Inland Wetlands Commission rejected Bjorken’s application
In 2024, Bjorken submitted an application arguing that the work constituted residential landscaping, property maintenance and repairs, including the restoration and rehabilitation of his rear yard along the western bank of Limekiln Brook. His description of the work included removing debris from the brook, taking out diseased and dead trees that were lying in or near the water, and repairing an existing stone wall along the bank that he said had already been in disrepair.Bethel’s Inland Wetlands Commission rejected his request for an exemption. The commission’s records show that the matter involved unpermitted excavation or fill activity along and within the watercourse, and commissioners requested additional information during their review. A neighbour, Brian Blanchette, also participated in the proceedings as an intervening party and raised concerns about the work around Limekiln Brook. Bjorken subsequently appealed the commission’s decision to Connecticut Superior Court. His central argument was that the work should be treated as maintenance that did not require a wetlands permit. The town, meanwhile, argued that the work went beyond what could be considered exempt maintenance and that Bjorken had not provided enough evidence to establish that an exemption applied.
What the Connecticut Superior Court ruled
Judge Barbara Brazzel-Massaro ruled on September 10 that the commission had properly rejected Bjorken’s request. The judge said the burden was on Bjorken to establish that the work performed in the wetlands area was exempt from the regulations, and concluded that he had not provided sufficient evidence to support that position. The court therefore sustained the commission’s decision and dismissed his appeal.The ruling leaves Bjorken with several possible next steps. As reported by the News-Times, he can restore the brook and the affected areas to their previous condition, or go through the town’s formal wetlands process and apply for a permit covering the work. He can also appeal the court’s decision. Bjorken told the newspaper that he was considering an appeal and said he wanted to protect his property from what he described as going “down the stream” as erosion continues near his home. For Bjorken, the dispute is therefore not simply about a bridge or a section of eroding riverbank. It concerns whether work intended to protect a private home can be carried out under a maintenance exemption or must first receive approval under Connecticut’s wetlands regulations.
