Town of Orange, CT Article X Considerations for Decision

§ 381-42 Evidence.

The Commission may consider the following in making its decision on an application:

A. The application and its supporting documentation;

B. Public comments, evidence and testimony;

C. Reports from other agencies and commissions including but not limited to the Town of Orange, such as:

(1) Conservation Commission.

(2) Zoning Enforcement Officer.

(3) Plan and Zoning Commission.

(4) Building Inspector.

(5) Sanitarian and/or Director of Health.

(6) Town Engineer.

D. The Commission may also consider comments on any application from the New Haven County Soil and Water Conservation District, the South Central Regional Planning Agency, or other regional organizations; agencies in adjacent municipalities which may be affected by the proposed activity, or other technical agencies or organizations which may undertake additional studies or investigations.

E. Non-receipt of comments from agencies and commissions listed in Subsection C above within the prescribed time shall neither delay nor prejudice the decision of the Commission.

F. The Commission is not precluded from seeking advice from its own experts on any aspect of an application.

§ 381-43 Standards and criteria for decision.

[Amended pursuant to P.A. 04-209, effective 6-3-2004]

In carrying out the purposes and policies of Sections 22a-36 to 22a-45, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes, and pursuant to CGS 22a-41(d) a municipal inland wetlands agency shall not deny or condition an application for a regulated activity in an area outside wetlands or water courses on the basis of an impact or effect on aquatic, plant, or animal life unless such activity will likely impact or affect the physical characteristics of such wetlands or water courses, including matters relating to regulating, licensing and enforcing of the provisions thereof, the Commission shall consider all relevant facts and circumstances in making its decision on any application for a permit, including but not limited to the following:

A. The environmental impact of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or water courses.

B. The applicant's purpose for, and any feasible and prudent alternatives to, the proposed regulated activity which alternatives would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or water courses.

C. The relationship between the short-termed and long-term impacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or water courses and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of such wetlands or water courses.

D. Irreversible and irretrievable loss of wetland or water course resources which would be caused by the proposed regulated activity, including the extent to which such activity would foreclose a future ability to protect, enhance or restore such resources, and any mitigation measures which may be considered as a condition of issuing a permit for such activity including, but not limited to, measures to:

(1) Prevent or minimize pollution or other environmental damage;

(2) Maintain or enhance existing environmental quality; or

(3) In the following order of priority: restore, enhance and create productive wetland or water course resources.

E. The character and degree of injury to, or interference with, safety, health, or the reasonable use of property which is caused or threatened by the proposed regulated activity.

F. Impacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or water courses outside the area for which the activity is proposed and future activities associated with, or reasonably related to, the proposed regulated activity which are made inevitable by the proposed regulated activity and which may have an impact on wetlands or water courses.

§ 381-44 Existence of feasible and prudent alternative.

In the case of any application which received a public hearing pursuant to a finding by the Commission that the proposed activity may have a significant impact on wetlands or water courses, a permit shall not be issued unless the Commission finds on the basis of the record that a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist. In making this finding the Commission shall consider the facts and circumstances set forth in Article X of these regulations. The findings and the reasons therefor shall be stated on the record in writing.

§ 381-45 Application denial.

In the case of an application which is denied on the basis of a finding that there may be feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed regulated activity which have less adverse impact on wetlands and water courses, the Commission shall propose on the record in writing the types of alternatives which the applicant may investigate, provided this subdivision shall not be construed to shift the burden from the applicant to prove that he is entitled to the permit or to present alternatives to the proposed regulated activity.

§ 381-46 Based on information in the record.

A. In reaching its decision on any application after a public hearing, the Commission shall base its decision on the record of that hearing.

B. Documentary evidence or other material not in the hearing record shall not be considered by the Commission in its decision. However, the Commission is not precluded from seeking advice from its own experts on information already in the record of the public hearing.

C. A conclusion that a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist does not create a presumption that a permit should be issued. The applicant has the burden of demonstrating that his application is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Regulations of the Town of Orange and of Sections 22a-36 to 22a-45, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes.