Upload
brian-mccready
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 DEEP Says No to Milford
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deep-says-no-to-milford 1/6
7/31/2019 DEEP Says No to Milford
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deep-says-no-to-milford 2/6
7/31/2019 DEEP Says No to Milford
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deep-says-no-to-milford 3/6
7/31/2019 DEEP Says No to Milford
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deep-says-no-to-milford 4/6
4
Dismissal of this proceeding would deny due process rights to the parties. It is a
fundamental principle of law that in almost every setting where important decisions turn on
questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970). I cannot recommend that this matter
be dismissed when the applicant, who has the burden of proof, has not even been provided with
an opportunity to meet its burden. Regs., Conn. State Agencies §22-3a-6(f). This opportunity is
at the heart of due process requirements governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act,
General Statutes §§4-166 through 4-189, and the department’s Rules of Practice, §§22a-3a-2
through 22a-3a-6.
The City argues that the precedent established by the department’s final decision in
Champion Recycling Industries, Inc., should apply. In Champion, the DEEP opined that it will
consider denying a permit if there is any misrepresentation in the application. Champion
Recycling Industries, Inc., Final Decision, January 8, 1997. However, in that matter, the
misrepresentation was proven during the hearing after all the parties were provided an
opportunity to present evidence and cross examine witnesses. The City fails to acknowledge that
fact even though it is included in the City’s quote from the Champion decision. The
administrative hearing process is in place to protect the due process rights of all participants.
The City cannot reasonably expect the allegations of one party to circumvent the administrative
hearing processes and deny other parties their right to due process.5
5The City’s “argument” also impugns DEEP and its work on this application. Such provocative statements, unless
supported by evidence, hold no sway in this forum and could inappropriately misinform residents before this
application and its review are properly vetted in the hearing process. During this process, I will impartially evaluate
the record, including any relevant evidence on these issues.
7/31/2019 DEEP Says No to Milford
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deep-says-no-to-milford 5/6
7/31/2019 DEEP Says No to Milford
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deep-says-no-to-milford 6/6