Milardo v. Inland Wetlands Commission
In Milardo v. Inland Wetlands Commission, 27 Conn. App. 214, 605 A.2d 869 (1992), the Court affirmed the trial court's decision to reverse the inland wetlands commission's denial of the plaintiff's permit application because the record lacked substantial evidence to support the commission's decision. Id., 215.
In that case, the trial court noted that the transcripts of the public hearings failed to identify the speakers, were replete with omissions and, although three members had visited the site, any concerns the members had were not specifically related to the plaintiff's proposal, nor were there any findings in the record concerning the visit. Id., 218-19.
The town engineer stated that the proposal appeared to be satisfactory. Id., 219. One member voiced concerns for the wetlands crossings and the possible damage, but there was no listing of what those concerns were, what damage might occur or the basis for either. Id., 219-20. The record also did not contain findings concerning the on-site inspections. Id., 220.