Guilford neighbors appeal septic permits; hearing officer limits first issues to standing and timeliness

A state administrative hearing on appeals of septic permits for 43 Bay Street in Guilford opened with a narrow procedural focus: the hearing officer ordered briefing to decide whether nearby property owners are "aggrieved persons" under Conn. Gen. Stat. §19a-229 and whether the appeals were timely.

The disputes stem from repair permits the local health director said were issued Oct. 31, 2025. Sonia Brinkworth, director of health, testified under oath that the permits were issued Oct. 31 and that she sent an explanatory email to counsel on Nov. 6 clarifying the permit as a "permit to construct for a repair system" after the owner revised plans. "They were approved October 31," Brinkworth said, and identified the Nov. 6 email as Exhibit 2.

Neighbors represented by attorney Daniel Chappell say they only learned a new, appealable permit had been issued when one appellant visited Guilford Town Hall on Nov. 14 and found the permit documentation; Chappell told the hearing officer that the town had not posted the septic permits in its online portal and that the Nov. 6 communications had been unclear. "She learned that this was a new permit that had been issued by the health department," Chappell said of his client’s discovery on Nov. 14, and argued the three-business-day appeal clock should toll from that date.

Appellant Genevieve Corbiere said she has engineering evidence indicating the proposed system would allow sewage to flow over exposed ledge that partly lies in her yard and asserted that fill already brought to the site was "causing flooding around my well and around my septic system." She told the officer she appealed the permit the same day she discovered it at Town Hall.

Counsel for the local health department, Ken Slater, and counsel for the Portleys, Marjorie Shanski, countered that the statute’s language contemplates appeals by persons with a direct legal interest in the application and that the legislature did not create a notice requirement to the general public. Slater emphasized the statutory three-business-day deadline, noting the department’s decision was issued Oct. 31 and the appeals were filed Nov. 14. "There’s no question that there was at least 14, 15 days from the issuance of the decision when the appeal was filed," Slater said.

Shanski urged dismissal on standing and timeliness grounds, arguing the challengers are outside the statute’s "zone of interest" and that ignorance or confusion does not toll the deadline. She also pointed to permitting materials that, in her view, show owners have a primary right to challenge department orders.

The hearing officer did not resolve the issues today. Instead she ordered written briefs from the local health department and from appellants addressing (1) whether the neighboring property owners constitute "aggrieved persons" under §19a-229 and (2) if so, whether their appeals are timely. Briefs are due Friday, March 6; rebuttal briefs are due Friday, March 20. The officer said she will rule on the papers and will determine whether an additional hearing is required; the matter was adjourned.

The hearing centered on procedure rather than the merits of the septic design or potential remedies. No vote or final administrative decision was reached during the session; the next step is the written briefing the officer ordered.