Connecticut Fund for Environment, Inc. v. City of Stamford

Decision Date14 February 1984
Parties, 21 ERC 1285 CONNECTICUT FUND FOR the ENVIRONMENT, INC., et al. v. CITY OF STAMFORD et al.
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

Janet P. Brooks, Middletown, with whom, on the brief, was Daniel Millstone, New Haven, for appellants (plaintiff Better Neighborhood Association et al.).

Edward J. Frattaroli, Asst. Corporation Counsel, Cos Cob, with whom, on brief, was P. Benedict Fraser, Corporation Counsel, Stamford, for appellees (named defendant et al.).

Gordon R. Paterson, Stamford, with whom, on brief, was Elinor J. Paterson, Stamford, for appellee (defendant Robert Martin Company).

Charles K. Campbell, Jr., Stamford, with whom were Richard J. Tobin, Stamford, and, on brief, Fredric H. Weisberg, Stamford for appellee (defendant Standard Brands, Inc.).

Before PETERS, HEALEY, PARSKEY, SHEA and GRILLO, JJ.

PARSKEY, Associate Justice.

On December 8, 1983, this court decided that the judgment of the trial court was legally correct and could not be disturbed. The following is the full opinion of this court.

This case involves an administrative appeal from the action of the Stamford environmental protection board (EPB) 1 approving the application of Standard Brands, Inc. and the Robert Martin Company for the development of a large tract of land in Stamford for use, inter alia, as a regional postal facility. In addition to the named plaintiff, the plaintiffs are the Better Neighborhood Association of Stamford (BNA) and ten individual residents and property owners. Only BNA formally intervened in the proceeding before EPB by filing a verified pleading. 2 The trial court dismissed the appeal as to the named plaintiff for lack of standing due to the failure of that plaintiff to file a verified pleading with EPB. The court dismissed the appeal with respect to the individual plaintiffs for lack of aggrievement. The court dismissed the appeal of BNA on the merits.

BNA complains that at the hearing on the proposed project, EPB excluded certain evidence which it claims the board should have considered because of its environmental nature even though it concedes that such evidence was not related to inland wetlands. BNA assigns error in the trial court's holding that such exclusion was proper.

Although proceedings before administrative agencies such as zoning and planning boards and commissions are informal and are conducted without regard to the strict rules of evidence, the hearings must be conducted so as not to violate the fundamental rules of natural justice. Pizzola v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 167 Conn. 202, 207, 355 A.2d 21 (1974). Due process of law requires not only that there be due notice of the hearing but that at the hearing the parties involved have a right to produce relevant evidence, and an opportunity to know the facts on which the agency is asked to act, to cross-examine witnesses and to offer rebuttal evidence. Id.; Welch v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 158 Conn. 208, 212-13, 257 A.2d 795 (1969). The narrow question here is whether the evidence offered by BNA was relevant to the EPB inquiry.

The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (act) is contained in General Statutes §§ 22a-36 through 22a-45, inclusive. Under the act the commissioner of environmental protection (commissioner) is charged with the responsibility of protecting inland wetlands and watercourses by, inter alia, regulating activity which might have an adverse environmental impact on such natural resources. Under §§ 22a-42 and 22a-42a, any municipality, acting through its legislative body, may authorize or create a board or commission to regulate activities affecting the wetlands and watercourses located within its territorial limits and any such board or commission is authorized to grant, deny or limit any permit for a regulated activity. The commissioner is charged with the duty of licensing regulated activity in the event of a failure of a municipality to exercise its regulatory authority.

The municipal inland wetland agency is authorized to establish the boundaries of inland wetlands and watercourse areas within its jurisdiction. Once such boundaries are established pursuant to procedures set forth in § 22a-42a, no regulated activity shall be conducted within such boundaries without a permit issued by the local agency.

It is apparent from the foregoing that local inland wetland bodies are not little environmental protection agencies. Their environmental authority is limited to the wetland and watercourse area that is subject to their jurisdiction. They have no authority to regulate any activity that is situated outside their jurisdictional...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • AVALONBAY v. ZONING COM'N OF STRATFORD
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • February 22, 2005
    ...in the motion; see Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, 259 Conn. 131, 788 A.2d 1158 (2002); Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. v. Stamford, 192 Conn. 247, 470 A.2d 1214 (1984); or because the proceeding at issue was not one for which the statute allowed intervention. See Polymer R......
  • Purnell v. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission of Town of Washington
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • January 11, 2022
    ...agency is limited to considering only environmental matters which impact on inland wetlands." Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc . v. Stamford , 192 Conn. 247, 250, 470 A.2d 1214 (1984). As our Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he sine qua non of review of inland wetlands applications ......
  • Grimes v. Conservation Com'n of Town of Litchfield, s. 15573
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 25, 1997
    ......15573, 15574. . Supreme Court of Connecticut. . Argued Sept. 25, 1997. . Decided Nov. 25, ... would have been granted." Yale Auto Parts, Inc. v. Johnson, 758 F.2d 54, 59 (2d . Page 105 . ... to produce relevant evidence); Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. v. Stamford, 192 Conn. ......
  • Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, (SC 16239)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 29, 2002
    ....... (SC 16239) . Supreme Court of Connecticut. . Argued September 19, 2000. . Officially ..., for the appellee (defendant First Stamford Corporation). .          Karyl Lee Hall filed a brief for the Connecticut Fund" for the Environment as amicus curiae. .     \xC2"... in Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. v. Stamford, 192 Conn. 247, 250, 470 A.2d ...The board was the city agency responsible for the regulation of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT