Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2006

Home

88 Page 8 --May 25, 2006 goB. limitations period, its claim could proceed. The decision of the trial court was reversed and the case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. see also: Sarasota Welfare Home v. City of Sarasota, 666 So.2d 171 (1995). Wetlands --Association appeals decision allowing construction on land adjoining lake Claims construction would have adverse affect Citation: Beaver Dam Lake Association v. Stra[ford Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, No. CV02030009S (2006) CONNECTICUT.(03/01/06) --On Oct. 10, 2001, Gilbert fried an application with the Stratford Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission seeking permis- sion to construct a single-family residence with an in-~ound septic system on a parcel of land that he owned adjoining Beaver Dam Lake. After a public hearing, the commission voted to approve the application. Beaver Dam Lake Association (BDLA) was the owner of property abutting Beaver Dam Lake, as well as the lake bottom, which abutted Gilbert's property. BDLA appealed the decision of the commission to the state's superior court. Initially, the court ruled in favor of the BDLA because the record of the commission's proceedings did not contain a notice of a public hearing as re- quired under the commission's regulations. Both parties, however, a~eed that the notice had been published but accidentally omitted from the record, and asked that the appeal be reheard on the merits of the case. BDLA f'fled an appeal, arguing that the commission's approval of Gilbert's application would adversely affect the viability of the lake and surrounding wetlands. DECISION: Appeal dismissed. The court stated that a reviewing court must uphold the agency's decision if the record disclosed evidence that supported the agency's conclusions. In this case, all of the commission's conclusions were supported by the record. The commission found that Gilbert's activities would not lead to substantial erosion and that the construction of a single-family residence with an in-~ound septic system would have no adverse impact on Beaver Dam Lake or the surrounding wetlands. In addition, the commission found that there were sufficient safeguards to prevent soil erosion in the wetlands and that there was sufficient space between the lake and the septic system ~o prevent contamination through excessive leaching. BDLA fi. mher contended that Gilbert's parcel was once part of a larger tract, and as such it was a new subdivision, which required subdivision approval. The court found that argument without merit. Because the commission's decisions were proper and were satisfied by evidence on the record, the appeal was dismissed. see also:Tarullo v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 821 A.2d 734 (2003). © 2006 Quintan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.