1) The application is incomplete. The Commission requested information from the
applicant related to an “Effluent Renovation Analysis”. The Analysis presented failed to
evaluate all parameters requested by the Commission as reflected in the record.
2) The Applicant failed to sustain its burden to show by substantial evidence as reflected in
the record that it has met the standards in Section 10 of the Town’s wetlands regulations
including but not limited to:
a. Section 10.2a. Evidence presented on the record establishes that the proposed
activities will likely have an adverse impact on regulated areas, including the
drinking water resources of the Groton Utilities Company on adjacent property.
While the Commission heard conflicting testimony from experts the Commission
finds the testimony of and evidence provided by the experts for the intervenor,
Groton Utilities, to be more compelling.
b. Section 10.2b. The applicant has failed to show feasible and prudent alternatives
do not exist which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or
watercourses or other resources over which this Commission has jurisdiction.
c. Section 10.2c. The applicant failed to establish by substantial evidence that the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of the wetlands or
watercourses would not be substantially harmed when considered against the
short-term and long-term impacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands
or water courses.
d. Section 10.2d. The applicant failed to establish by substantial evidence that no
irreversible and irretrievable loss of wetland or watercourse resources would be
caused by the proposed regulated activity.
e. Section 10.2e. The applicant failed to establish by substantial evidence that its
proposed activity would not reduce the wetlands’ or watercourses’ natural
capacity to support desirable biological life, prevent flooding, supply water,
control sedimentation and/or prevent erosion, assimilate wastes and facilitate
f. Section 10.2f. The applicant failed to establish by substantial evidence that the
extent to which the exercise of property rights and public benefit derived from
such use would outweigh or justify the possible degradation of the inland wetland
or watercourse or interfere with the exercise of other property rights and the
impairment or endangerment of public health, safety and welfare;
g. Section 10.2g. The applicant failed to propose any measures which would
mitigate the impact of any aspect of the proposed regulated activity(s) so as to
avoid adverse impacts or lessen impacts to wetlands and watercourses and which
could be feasibly carried out by the applicant and would protect or enhance the
wetlands’ or watercourses’ natural capacity to supply water, control
sedimentation, prevent erosion, assimilate wastes and facilitate drainage.
3) Given the location of the proposed activity within a sensitive watershed area and adjacent
to a public water supply the proposal to locate 26 subsurface sewage disposal systems in
this area creates a likely adverse impact to regulated areas and the public water supply.
The Southeastern Connecticut Drinking Water Quality Management Plan recommends a
density guideline for water supply watersheds of one dwelling per two acres. The
Commission recommends as a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed activity
that the density of the project be reduced to four to six single family homes.
4) The Commission, having granted Intervenor status under C.G.S. § 22a-19 to the Groton
Utilities Company, based upon the substantial evidence in the record specifically