140 Conn. App. 155
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC challenges New London’s Fort Trumbull redevelopment plan that involves demolition of Fort Trumbull structures.
- Plaintiff relies on General Statutes § 22a-16 for public-trust protection and on § 22a-220 for solid-waste/environmental compliance.
- trial court found insufficient evidence to prove environmental harm or statutory violations; plaintiff appealed.
- Two-count amended complaint: count I under § 22a-16 for demolition-related harm; count II under § 22a-220 for recycling and disposal failures.
- Evidence presented included testimony on demolition practices, recycling attempts, dust suppression, and environmental impact considerations; several witnesses supported and opposed recycling/dust-control efforts.
- Court judgment for defendants affirmed on appeal; motions to open/reconsider denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly applied causation and harm standards under § 22a-16. | Fort Trumbull contends causation and unreasonable-harm standards were met. | Defendants argue plaintiff failed to prove more than de minimis or likely harm. | Yes; plaintiff failed to prove causation and substantial harm. |
| Whether expert testimony was required or improperly demanded. | Plaintiff argues expert proof was necessary. | Court did not require more expert testimony; evidence deemed unpersuasive. | Court did not mandate expert proof; credibility weighed by trial court. |
| Whether § 22a-16 claim can be supported by proof of inaccuracy or procedural missteps in § 22a-220. | § 22a-220 missteps translate into § 22a-16 violations. | Procedural violations do not automatically establish § 22a-16 claims. | No, procedural § 22a-220 violations do not create § 22a-16 liability. |
| Whether § 22a-220 (f) recycling goals apply given demolition debris exclusion from municipal solid waste. | Demolition debris should be counted toward recycling obligations. | Demolition debris is excluded from municipal solid waste; § 22a-220 not violated. | Débris exclusion bars § 22a-220 (f) liability. |
| Whether the court properly handled postjudgment motions. | Motions to open/reconsider should be granted for clarity. | Discretionary denials were proper. | No abuse of discretion; denials affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480 (2003) (statutory scope not decided; per se liability not assumed)
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 282 Conn. 791 (2007) (relevance of § 22a-220 to § 22a-16 claims clarified)
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 286 Conn. 264 (2008) (further guidance on environmental standards)
- Waterbury v. Washington, 260 Conn. 506 (2002) (causation and substantial impairment standard)
- Cadle Co. v. D’Addario, 268 Conn. 441 (2004) (trial court credibility and weight of testimony)