Respondent admits key allegations in unlicensed septic-system case; hearing continued while department offers consent order

Hearing Officer Hanstead continued an administrative hearing and gave the Department of Public Health time to offer a revised consent order after the respondent, Eric Reppert, admitted core allegations that he lacked a license and that he installed a subsurface sewage disposal system.

Hanstead opened the proceeding by identifying the matter as petition number 2024Dash4 and explaining that the department would present its statement of charges and the respondent would be asked to admit or deny each paragraph. Reppert was sworn and identified himself on the record as "Eric Reppert."

When Hanstead read paragraph 1—which states Reppert "has at no time been issued a license by the department to practice as a subsurface sewage disposal system installer"—Reppert answered, "That's correct. Yeah." When paragraph 2 was read, alleging that in or about March 2024 Reppert installed a subsurface sewage disposal system at a property in East Hatem, Connecticut, Reppert again responded affirmatively when prompted.

Hanstead read the statutory allegation that the conduct constituted violations of "Connecticut General Statutes section 20-341f." Reppert said he did not know what that statute referenced and the record reflected no knowledge of the statutory citation.

Attorney Fazena told the hearing that a proposed cease-and-desist consent order had been sent to Reppert last year and that Reppert had declined to sign at that time. The parties discussed whether Reppert would sign an updated agreement. Reppert told the panel, "I agreed to cease and desist. I am not installing anymore," and said he would not install systems except on his own property. He asked whether signing the document was necessary to make that commitment effective.

Hearing Officer Hanstead proposed resolving the matter by having the department send a revised consent order for Reppert's review and possible signature. Hanstead continued the hearing for 30 days and instructed Attorney Fazena to send a new consent order; if a signed order is returned, the scheduled hearing date would be canceled, and if not, a new hearing would be set.

Before adjourning, the parties confirmed an email address for sending the revised agreement. Hanstead closed the session and said Miss Walker would circulate the new hearing date; Reppert acknowledged he understood the plan.

The hearing record reflects admissions of the two central factual allegations and a procedural continuance while the department attempts to secure a signed consent order. If no signed order is returned, the department indicated it will proceed with a future hearing on the charges.