This page identifies specific court cases pertaining to wetland law.  Thank you to Janet Brooks for providing these cases.  This page will be updated periodically as new cases are identified.  Ed Pawlak has prepared a brief synopses for some of the cases.  If you would like to provide a synopsis for one of the others, please email it to Tom Ryder at wetlands@ctwetlands.org and we will post it.

• George L. Finley et al. v. Inland Wetlands Commission of the Town of Orange et al. (SC 18131)

This case, decided by the State Supreme Court in 2008, involved an appeal brought by interveners of a wetland permit issued by the Town of Orange. The plaintiffs' appeal centered on five conditions imposed by the Orange Inland Wetlands Commission ("IWWC") that required the applicant to submit additional plans and information regarding erosion control, phasing, winter sanding and drainage.

The plaintiffs claimed that the IWWC needed this additional information before it could determine whether the proposed development complied with its regulations.  The State Supreme Court agreed,  and overturned the IWWC decision.

This case has important implications for IWWCs that issue permits with conditions of approval.

• Unistar Properties, LLC v. Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission of the Town of Putnam et al. (SC 18321)

This case, decided by the State Supreme Court (SC) in 2009, involved an appeal of a denial of a proposed subdivision of property in Putnam. As the SC decision states in its introduction, "The principal issue in this … appeal is whether the commission properly denied the plaintiff's application for a wetlands permit as incomplete because it was missing … a sufficiently detailed wildlife inventory and an analysis of alternatives …".

The plaintiffs argued that "the commission must establish that the physical characteristics of the wetlands will be impacted before it can request information on wildlife."  The SC disagreed, writing that nothing in the IWWC Act "prohibits a commission from requesting information on wildlife in order to determine whether the proposed activity  … will 'affect the physical characteristics of such wetlands …'.

This case affirms the right of IWWCs to request wildlife inventories as part of their review of wetland permit applications.

• River Bend Associates, Inc. at al. v. Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission of the Town of Simsbury et al. (SC 16867)

This case, decided by the State Supreme Court (SC) in 2004, involves an appeal of a denial of a proposed residential subdivision (which included an affordable housing component). The concept of "substantial evidence" plays a major role in this SC decision. The decision reviews the definition of "substantial evidence", and finds that a trial court improperly applied this test when it upheld the IWWC denial.

A dissenting opinion included in the decision contains an interesting discussion of "burden of proof". It maintains that the applicant "had not carried their burden of establishing that they were entitled to the permit they sought."

This case is a must read for consultants and land-use commissioners alike.

The following case do not yet have summaries.  If you would like to prepare one, please send it to wetlands@ctwetlands.org

• Thomas W. Cornacchia et al. v. Environmental Protection Commission Of the Town of Darien (2008)

• Prestige Builders, LLC v. Inland Wetlands Commission of the City of Ansonia Et. Al. (2003)

• AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v Inland Wetlands Commission of the Town of Wilton (2003)

• Branhaven Plaza, LLC, Et. Al. v. Inland Wetlands Commission of the Town of Branford, Et. Al. (1999)

• Karen A. Grimes v. Conservation Commission of the Town of Litchfield (1997)

• Robert Cioffoletti Et Al. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Ridgefield (1989)

• Seaborne Herbert Tanner, Jr., Et Al. v. Conservation Commission of the City of Norwalk (1988)

• Morris J. Feinson v. Conservation Commission of the Town of Newtown (1980)