137 Conn. App. 830
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff estate of Casimir Machowski appeals a trial court judgment dismissing its appeal from the inland wetlands commission of Ansonia's denial of a permit.
- Property is 135 Hill Street, Ansonia, a 16-acre parcel in an A Residence zone containing 1.8 acres of wetlands and watercourses.
- Tug, LLC, as agent for the property owner, submitted the wetlands permit application on March 20, 2008.
- Plans evolved from 20 age-restricted units in 10 buildings to 18 units in nine duplex buildings; development would occur on 7.5 upland acres and not disturb wetlands.
- A detention basin would require about 30,000 cubic yards of fill, with 20,500 cubic yards to be trucked onto the site; the site has steep slopes upslope of wetlands.
- The commission held public hearings, heard neighbor objections about downstream flooding, and ultimately denied the permit on multiple grounds, including the basin location and erosion concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly applied the substantial evidence standard. | Machowski argues the court erred by affirming denial based on speculative impacts. | Ansonia contends the court properly used substantial evidence to uphold the denial. | No; the court improperly applied the substantial evidence test. |
| Whether the commission had substantial evidence of an adverse wetland impact from the detention basin. | There was no specific evidence the basin would adversely affect wetlands if it failed. | Expert testimony suggested potential damage if the basin failed and erosion risks. | There was a lack of substantial evidence linking a probable basin failure to adverse wetland impacts. |
Key Cases Cited
- River Bend Associates, Inc. v. Conservation & Inland Wetlands Commission, 269 Conn. 57 (Conn. 2004) (adverse impact determination requires substantial evidence; balance of factors; expert testimony)
- AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 130 Conn. App. 69 (Conn. App. 2011) (record lacked substantial evidence where potential impacts were speculative)
- Finley v. Inland Wetlands Commission, 289 Conn. 12 (Conn. 2008) (guidelines not legally controlling; must still comply with statutes and regulations)