Petersen, Tonn K.

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 7 Issue 2 Article 54 1-1-2004 Prestige Builders, LLC v. Inland Wetlands Comn'n of Ansonia, 831 A.2d 290 (Conn. App. 2003) Tonn K. Petersen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Tonn K. Petersen, Court Report, Prestige Builders, LLC v. Inland Wetlands Comn'n of Ansonia, 831 A.2d 290 (Conn. App. 2003), 7 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 501 (2004). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. COURT REPORTSMoyer argued that the water court should have granted this motionbecause of Empire Lodge's failure to submit a timely objection. Thecourt held that Empire Lodge's failure to object did not deprive thewater court of its power to deny the motion for extension. Moyer alsocontended that the filing of the motion tolled the expiration deadlineof the previous motion. The court disagreed, stating that the failure toaddress the motion did not extend the expired deadline. With respectto the subsequent motion to reconsider, Moyer argued that becausethe water court did not rule on her second motion to extend, hermissed deadline was due to excusable neglect. The court disagreedand held that her actions were not based on an erroneous court orderand that her circumstances were different than circumstances ofexcusable neglect. The court stated that failing to meet a deadlinebecause she decided to wait to hear the ruling of a request to extendthe deadline was not the same as relying on an erroneous court order.Thus, the court affirmed the water court's decision.Robert E. WellsCONNECTICUTPrestige Builders, LLC v. Inland Wetlands Comn'n of Ansonia, 831A.2d 290 (Conn. App. 2003) (holding that an inland wetlandscommission must enact a formal regulation granting it authority overupland review areas before it can regulate those areas.)In 2000, in the Superior Court of Connecticut at Ansonia, PrestigeBuilders sought review of the inland wetlands commission's denial ofits application to construct a nine lot residential subdivision. Thecomplaint addressed two issues: (1) whether current statutes providedthe Inland Wetlands Commission of the City of Ansonia("Commission") authority to regulate activities in upland review areaswithout first enacting a regulation governing activities in such areas,and (2) whether common law provided the Commission with suchauthority. The superior court dismissed the complaint and PrestigeBuilders appealed to the Appellate Court of Connecticut. On appeal,the court found in favor of Prestige Builders and remanded the case,directing the commission to grant the construction application.Prestige Builders owned property within the City of Ansonia.Several areas of wetlands and watercourses totaling one acre existed onthe property. In 2000, Prestige Builders proposed a nine lotresidential subdivision on approximately 7.5 acres of the property.The Commission determined that because the property containedwetlands and watercourses, any activity in and around those areasconstituted regulated activity, as defined by the Commission'sregulations. Therefore, the Commission indicated it had authority toanalyze the environmental impacts of the proposed construction.Issuie 2WATER LAW REVIEWSubsequently, the Commission denied the application, stating that theproposed construction could lead to flooding, erosion, and icing, thuscreating a negative effect on wells. Prestige Builders denied that therewas any regulated activity on the property since there would be noactivity on the wetland portion of the property. Prestige Buildersfurther argued that the Commission had not enacted a regulationgranting it authority over upland review areas.First, the court addressed whether the Commission had statutoryauthority to regulate the upland review area without first enacting aformal regulation. The court applied the standard articulated in Statev. Courchesne, which states, "in interpreting statutes, we look at all theavailable evidence, such as statutory language, the legislative history,the circumstances surrounding its enactment, the purpose and policyof the statute, and its relationship to existing legislation and commonlaw principles." Accordingly, the court held that a commission mustfirst enact a formal regulation to exercise authority over upland reviewareas. The court further held that the Commission improperlyexercised its authority in denying the application since it had notenacted any regulation giving it authority over upland review areas.Second, the court discussed whether the common law provided theCommission authority to deny the application. The court cited astring of relevant cases recognizing the authority of an inland wetlandscommission to regulate activities in areas adjacent to wetlands orwatercourses that would have negative impacts on such wetlands orwatercourses. However, in each case, the local commission hadenacted formal regulations over upland review areas.Although the Commission adopted a regulation governing uplandreview areas after denying the application, the court found that suchan amendment could not be retroactively applied to Prestige Builders.Thus, the court ruled in favor of Prestige Builders and ordered theCommission to grant the application for the nine-lot residentialneighborhood.Tonn K PetersenFLORIDASlusher v. Martin County, 859 So. 2d 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)(holding the issuance of a well permit was improper because thedistrict court misinterpreted their own rule by misconstruing thedefinition of an existing legal use).James W. Slusher bought property in 1994 with a pond created forthe purpose of raising fish. Soon thereafter, Martin County beganoperating a well adjacent to Slusher's property, which caused Slusher'spond to drain. The South Florida Water Management District("District") had issued Martin County a permit to operate the wellVolume 7

Prestige Builders, LLC v. Inland Wetlands Comn\u27n of Ansonia, 831 A.2d 290 (Conn. App. 2003)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2324&context=wlr

Prestige Builders, LLC v. Inland Wetlands Comn\u27n of Ansonia, 831 A.2d 290 (Conn. App. 2003)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver