127 Conn. App. 87
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Landed plaintiff Jonathan Andrew owns land abutting or within 100 feet of the newly created B-PCD262 overlay district in Watertown.
- Intervening plaintiffs seek § 22a-19(a) intervention alleging environmental and procedural irregularities in adopting the text amendment.
- The Watertown Planning and Zoning Commission adopted a text amendment on November 10, 2008 creating Route 262 Planned Commercial District (B-PCD262) within an IR-80 industrial zone, bounded by Route 262, Turkey Brook, Echo Lake Road, Route 8, and Frost Bridge Road.
- The amendment adds high quality retail and office uses to the district; the overlay district has definite geographic bounds (approximately 150 acres).
- The trial court dismissed the landed plaintiff’s challenge for lack of aggrievement; it dismissed intervenors’ § 22a-19(a) challenges as lacking standing.
- On appeal, the court held the landed plaintiff is statutorily aggrieved because his land lies within the defined zone, and the intervenors lack standing under § 22a-19(a) to challenge environmental aspects of the zone change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the landed plaintiff has standing under § 8-8(a)(1). | Andrew is statutorily aggrieved as abutting/within 100 feet of the affected land. | The text amendment creates a floating zone with no specific parcel affected, so no aggrievement. | Landed plaintiff is statutorily aggrieved; the zone is defined and not floating. |
| Whether intervening plaintiffs have standing under § 22a-19(a). | Intervenors have environmental concerns warranting standing to challenge procedural/environmental aspects. | § 22a-19(a) standing is limited to environmental issues within the agency’s jurisdiction; alleged procedural flaws do not confer standing. | Intervenors lack standing; environmental issues must be raised in environmental-context forums; zone change itself does not create standing. |
| Whether the environmental claims fall within the § 22a-19(a) scope given Pond View guidance. | Environmental harm could result from the zone change and merits § 22a-19 review. | Zone changes are legislative acts, not direct environmental conduct; Pond View limits standing to actual environmental harm from development actions. | Pond View forecloses standing for environmental allegations tied only to a zone change. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480 (2003) (standing principles; aggrievement and subject matter jurisdiction)
- Schwartz v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 168 Conn. 20 (1975) (floating zone concept; aggrievement when no parcel affected)
- Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 98 Conn.App. 213 (2006) (distinguishes Schwartz; aggrievement by property owners)
- Cole v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 30 Conn.App. 511 (1993) (statutory aggrievement for land within zone amended by regulation)
- Harris v. Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 402 (2002) (classical vs. statutory aggrievement distinctions)
- Pond View, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 288 Conn. 143 (2008) (standing under § 22a-19 limited to environmental issues; zone change not per se environmental conduct)
- Red Hill Coalition, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 212 Conn. 727 (1989) (environmental standing considerations under § 22a-19)
- Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. Gill, 175 Conn. 483 (1979) (environmental interest standards in regulatory actions)
- Light Rigging Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 219 Conn. 168 (1991) (environmental standing considerations in administrative actions)
- Stauton v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 271 Conn. 152 (2004) (interpretation of land involved in statutory aggrievement)