River Sound Development, LLC v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission

2 Citing cases

  1. Post Road Iron Works, Inc. v. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency of Town of Greenwich

    LNDCV166071537S (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 20, 2018)

    (ROR, Item 4.11, p. 6.) Klemens testimony involving wood frogs is very similar to that in River Sound Development; LLC v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 122 Conn.App. 644, 2 A.3d 928, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 920, 4 A.3d 1228 (2010). In River Sound, the court held, " In AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Inland Wetlands Commission, [ 266 Conn. 150 163, 832 A.2d 1 (2003)], our Supreme Court stated that it is apparent that the commission may regulate activities outside of wetlands, watercourses and upland review areas only if those activities are likely to affect the land which comprises a wetland, the body of water that comprises a watercourse or the channel and bank of an intermittent watercourse ... Our Supreme Court concluded in AvalonBay Communities, supra, 163, that the act protects the physical characteristics of wetlands and watercourses and not the wildlife ... The court, nevertheless, pointed out that [t]here may be an extreme case where a loss of or negative impact on a wildlife species might have a negative consequential effect on the physical characteristics of a wetland or watercourse ... Later, in 2004,

  2. Calco Construction & Development Co. v. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission of Town of Farmington

    HHDCV156057350S (Conn. Super. Ct. May. 12, 2016)

    The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act defines " feasible" as that which is " able to be constructed or implemented consistent with sound engineering principles . . ." General Statutes ยง 22a-38(17); see also River Sound Development, LLC v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 122 Conn.App. 644, 662, 2 A.3d 928, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 920, 4 A.3d 1228 (2010). Prudent is defined as " economically and otherwise reasonable in light of the social benefits to be derived from the proposed regulated activity provided cost may be considered in deciding what is prudent and further provided a mere showing of expense will not necessarily mean an alternative is imprudent."