Sworn Testimony in Support of Granting the Application:

- Gary Sharpe-Engineer and Agent for the Applicants: Testified to his opinions that navigation and aesthetics would not be adversely affected by the proposed dock. (Also testified at DEP on 2/28/02 and 3/5/02)
- Susan Gradante-DEP Permit Analyst: Testified to her opinions that navigation and aesthetics would not be adversely affected by the proposed dock. (Testified at DEP on 2/28/02 and 3/5/02)
- Wendy King-Lifelong resident and powerboater: Predicted that tourism at Gillette Castle would not decline if proposed dock is granted. Called kayakers “Crazy” if they are on the river on Saturday afternoons.

Even a cursory review of the testimony and writings of the citizens depicted on these charts belies any notion that they can be easily dismissed as “nuts” or liars. Almost to a man (or woman), they are well spoken and polite in describing their personal experiences and opinions based on those experiences. They come from all over the region and yet their clarity and consistency on the key issues of fact is remarkable. Their collective knowledge of the area and its circumstances comes by land and by sea and represents hundreds of years of experience with the area in question.
The Hearing Officer’s near total disregard for the sworn testimony and writings of these citizens is never explained in any portion of the proposed final decision. There is no attempt whatsoever to deal with their evidentiary value. Did the Hearing Officer find these of citizens to be either mistaken or untruthful in their assessments of the key factual matters in the case? Is there some form of widespread dementia in the air? Has a statewide conspiracy been hatched? What possible reason can there be for totally ignoring the citizen input that the hearing process was designed to solicit?
The applicants bear the burden of proving the proving their right to the proposed dock by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Similarly, the intervenors bear the burden of proving that it is “reasonably likely” that the proposed dock would “impair” the public trust. Sec. 22a-19. Dozens of citizens testified and submitted sworn writings on the facts that would determine these issues, yet they are never mentioned in the proposed final decision.
As stated by our Supreme Court, the “fair preponderance of the evidence” is “properly defined as ‘the better evidence, the evidence having the greater weight.’” Cross v. Huttenlocher, 185 Conn. 390, 394 (1981) That standard has been satisfied with respect to a fact if all the evidence considered fairly and impartially evinces a reasonable belief that it is more probable than not that the fact is true.” Id., at Page 395(emphasis added).
It is elemental that the standard of proof cannot be met if only some of the evidence has been considered and the rest has been dismissed without any articulated rationale whatsoever. This is precisely what the proposed final decision does.
The near total absence of any mention, much less thoughtful analysis of the sworn citizen input is indefensible and renders the proposed final decision arbitrary, unreasonable, and unworthy of the Commissioner’s signature.