Summit Saugatuck, LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority

Citations

• 193 Conn. App. 823

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant Water Pollution Control Authority of the Town of Westport denying the plaintiff's application for a sewer extension. After the matter was tried to the court, the court remanded the application for a new hearing, at which the plaintiff could produce new evidence germane to the equitable disposition of its application. Following a new hearing, the defendant again denied the plaintiff's application, and the plaintiff appealed to the trial court, which rendered judgment sustaining the second appeal, reversing the defendant's denial of the application, and remanding the application for conditional approval subject to the completion of ongoing improvements and upgrades to the sanitary sewer system. Thereafter, the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held that the trial court improperly rendered judgment sustaining the plaintiff's appeal and remanding the matter to the defendant with direc- tion to grant the sewer extension application, as the decision of whether to grant a conditional approval of a sewer extension application was properly left to the discretion of the defendant, and the court impermissi- bly substituted its own discretion and judgment for that of the defendant by overriding its decision and ordering a conditional approval of the application: the fact that a conditional approval of an application would be a viable option available to an agency in considering an application does not mean that the agency must exercise that option whenever possible and in all situations, the defendant here chose to reject the rationale relied on by the trial court in favor of a more cautious approach that required the plaintiff to file a new application once it could demon- strate that sufficient sewer capacity existed for the planned develop- ment, and the record did not support a conclusion that the defendant's decision was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discreti