The Old Saybrook Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission granted a wetlands permit, allowing construction of a private country club, with an 18-hole golf course, as the permitted regulated activity. The plaintiffs appealed, claiming that they did not receive proper notice of the public hearing on the application, and that the commission imposed an illegal condition as part of the approval. The developer argued the plaintiffs were not statutorily aggrieved, because they did not own land that abutted part of the 1,000-acre tract on which the inland-wetlands commission permitted the regulated activities. The commission is awaiting approval for a subdivision that will abut the plaintiffs' property. The mere possibility of a subdivision was not sufficient to defeat the plaintiffs' standing. The plaintiffs are brother and sister co-owners of the abutting property. Notice was sent to the brother at the sister's address in New Hampshire. He lives in New York. The fact that the notice was addressed to the brother and wasn't sent to the sister did not void the commission's decision. The plaintiffs received actual notice of the hearing. However, the commission exceeded the scope of its authority by imposing a condition on the permit, requiring the defendant to file a $300,000 bond before spraying the golf course with any chemicals. The purpose of the bond was to address the potential contamination of wells and water supplies. There was no authority for its issuance in the municipal inland-wetlands regulations. The bond was not intended to protect wetlands and watercourses but to compensate property owners whose wells are polluted by a regulated activity. The Superior Court sustained the appeal and remanded.
Source: Connecticut Law Tribune
