Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Glastonbury
132 Conn. App. 218
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs own a 2.4 acre parcel at 1199 Manchester Road, Glastonbury, with a steep ledge and wooded plateau near a single-family neighborhood in a rural zone.
- Plaintiffs applied for a 13,013 square foot, 32‑foot‑high building with 70 parking spaces and a drive‑through; planning and zoning denied on November 29, 2005 for scale, topography, neighborhood impact, and landscaping.
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint on October 5, 2009 alleging a regulatory taking under state and federal constitutions and that no reasonable alternative use existed.
- Defendant town moved to dismiss on November 23, 2009, arguing the complaint failed to show finality required for judicial review.
- Court granted the motion to dismiss on August 4, 2010, without an evidentiary hearing, and plaintiffs appealed on September 16, 2010.
- The appellate court held that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts and reversed the dismissal, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was proper without an evidentiary hearing on jurisdictional facts | Pl'ffs contend finality and viable use disputes require a hearing | Town argues lack of finality precludes judicial review | Dismissal without an evidentiary hearing improper; hearing required. |
| Whether there is a genuine dispute about viable alternative uses of the property | Affidavits suggest no viable alternative use given the denial criteria | Affidavits show potential for less intensive uses; disputes unresolved | Issue of fact; evidentiary hearing necessary to determine finality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 64 Conn.App. 134 (Ct. App. 2001) (jurisdictional review standards; de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (Ct. 2009) (when jurisdiction depends on factual disputes, evidentiary hearing required)
- Gil v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 219 Conn. 404 (Ct. 1991) (finality burden for regulatory takings claims)
- Lampasona v. Jacobs, 7 Conn.App. 639 (Ct. App. 1986) (trial-like hearing required for disputed jurisdictional facts)
- Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn.App. 125 (Ct. App. 2007) (evidentiary hearing warranted when affidavits raise disputed issues)
- Bagg v. Thompson, 114 Conn.App. 30 (Ct. App. 2009) (standard for evaluating jurisdiction on motion to dismiss)
- Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 724 (Ct. 1999) (presumptions in favor of jurisdiction; proper procedural posture)