The Connecticut Appellate Court handed down its decision in Purnell v. Inland Wetlands early this year, holding that applicants do not need to provide an analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives, and local wetlands agencies do not have to consider those alternatives when a hearing is held upon a petition by 25 members of the public, or the local agency determines it is in the public interest to do so. Following Purnell, the only time local agencies need to consider alternatives is when the agency holds a hearing because it found that the application may have a “significant impact on wetlands or watercourses”.

Cutting off the public’s right to have that presentation and consideration of feasible and prudent alternatives, something that may be essential to saving natural resources from destruction, was never the intent of the General Assembly in enacting the law. The appellate court in Purnell, however, was bound by the plain language of the statute. The problem is one of careless drafting. It happens. It can and must be fixed to carry out the objectives of Connecticut’s Environmental Protection Act.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]