Grover v. Inland Wetlands Agency, Derby, No. Cv92-0041433s (Dec. 1, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10395
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedDecember 1, 1993
DocketCV92-0041433S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10395 (Grover v. Inland Wetlands Agency, Derby, No. Cv92-0041433s (Dec. 1, 1993)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grover v. Inland Wetlands Agency, Derby, No. Cv92-0041433s (Dec. 1, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10395 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This is an appeal from the Inland Wetlands Agency of the City of Derby and the Commissioner of Environmental Protection Agency CT Page 10396 whereby the plaintiff seeks to remand the hearing back to the agency for further proceedings. There is authority that the Court may remand the matter to the agency for failure to consider all statutory criteria. This is verified by the facts of Strong v. Conservation Commission, 28 Conn. App. 435 (1992). Furthermore, in Milardo v. Inland Wetlands Commission, 27 Conn. App. 214 (1992) found that the agencies' decision was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded the case back to the commission for further decision.

In citing Feinson v. Conservation Commission, 180 Conn. 421,429-30 (1980), the Appellate Court stated that a court must ordinarily remand the matter under consideration to the agency for further consideration. Further, in A.D.A.M. Land Development Corp. v. Conservation Commission, 21 Conn. App. 122, 126-27 (1990) the Appellate Court says the matter should be remanded to consider the existence of feasible alternatives to plaintiff's wetlands application.

In this matter, there appears to be no evidence of the agency hearing any matter pertaining to wetlands. They did not utilize expert opinion and relied upon the flooding restrictions. Therefore, this Court remands the matter back to the Inland Wetlands Agency of the City of Derby for further consideration and especially addresses itself to consider necessary statutory criteria.

SO ORDERED,

Philip E. Mancini, Jr. State Trial Referee

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Feinson v. Conservation Commission
429 A.2d 910 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1980)
A.D.A.M. Land Development Corp. v. Conservation Commission
572 A.2d 364 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1990)
Milardo v. Inland Wetlands Commission
605 A.2d 869 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1992)
Strong v. Conservation Commission
611 A.2d 427 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grover-v-inland-wetlands-agency-derby-no-cv92-0041433s-dec-1-1993-connsuperct-1993.