Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency of Greenwich
525 A.2d 940, 203 Conn. 525, 1987 Conn. LEXIS 859 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court must sustain a decision by an inland wetlands agency if any one of the reasons provided for its decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. The failure of an application to gain a majority vote for approval constitutes a denial of the application.
Facts:
- Robin B. Huck owned a 2.691-acre tract of land adjacent to Frye Lake, a regulated watercourse, with approximately 80% of the property located under the lake's surface.
- Huck filed an application with the Greenwich inland wetlands and watercourses agency (agency) for a permit to construct a three-story, single-family dwelling on the property.
- The proposed construction was on a lot with steep slopes and shallow soil, involving a complex septic system and a structure to be built within a few feet of the lake.
- Huck presented testimony from an architect, a professional engineer, and an environmental scientist, all of whom concluded that the proposed construction would not have an adverse effect on Frye Lake.
- The agency also considered its own staff reports, evidence from neighbors, and an environmental engineering report which indicated potential for severe sedimentation, erosion, and water pollution from the proposed septic system.
- Evidence in the record suggested that the construction site was difficult and that erosion controls might only be partially effective, creating a risk of septic system malfunction and siltation of the lake.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 22, 1978, Robin B. Huck filed an application with the Greenwich inland wetlands and watercourses agency (agency) for a construction permit.
- On January 7, 1980, the agency held a public hearing on the application.
- At a meeting on February 25, 1980, a motion to approve Huck's application with conditions resulted in a 3-3 tie vote with one abstention.
- On March 3, 1980, the agency issued a written statement formally denying the application and providing its reasons.
- Huck appealed the agency's denial to the Superior Court (trial court).
- The Superior Court sustained Huck's appeal, setting aside the agency's action and finding it constituted an unconstitutional taking of her property.
- The agency, as appellant, appealed the judgment of the Superior Court to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. Huck is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does substantial evidence in the record support an inland wetlands agency's denial of a construction permit due to potential environmental impacts, even when the applicant presents conflicting expert testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Healey, J.
Yes, substantial evidence in the record supports the agency's denial of the permit. An agency's decision must be sustained if an examination of the record discloses evidence that supports any one of the reasons given. The court found that the record contained substantial evidence to support the agency's concerns about potential adverse environmental impacts, including severe sedimentation, erosion, and potential water pollution from the proposed septic system. The court noted that an administrative agency is not required to believe any witness, even an expert, and that the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. The court also held that the 3-3 tie vote on a motion to approve the application constituted an effective denial of the application, and the agency's subsequent written denial with stated reasons was a timely and valid action.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the highly deferential 'substantial evidence' standard of review for administrative agency actions in Connecticut land use law. It solidifies the principle that courts should not substitute their own judgment for that of an agency with expertise in environmental matters, especially when the record contains conflicting evidence. The case clarifies that a tie vote on a motion to approve is legally equivalent to a denial, providing a clear rule for agency procedure. For future cases, this precedent empowers local wetlands agencies to deny permits based on credible environmental concerns, even when developers present expert testimony to the contrary, thus strengthening their regulatory authority to protect sensitive ecosystems.
