Lawrence v. Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection
AC39496
| Conn. App. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Highgate Road, LLC applied to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) for a permit to build a residential dock and pier at 16 Highgate Road, Greenwich.
- Robert H. Lawrence, Jr., owner of nearby property (3 Seagate Road, ~400 ft away), intervened under General Statutes § 22a-19 limited to environmental issues.
- A DEEP hearing officer conducted a six-day evidentiary hearing and issued a proposed approval with modifications; Lawrence filed 26 exceptions.
- The Commissioner held argument and issued a final decision finding the project complied with applicable statutes and regulations and would not unreasonably pollute, impair, or destroy public natural resources.
- Lawrence appealed to Superior Court under General Statutes § 4-183; the trial court found he was not classically aggrieved, had statutory aggrievement only for a visual-degradation claim, and that the record contained substantial evidence supporting the commissioner’s decision.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, adopting the Superior Court’s memorandum of decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lawrence was classically aggrieved | Lawrence claimed his property interests were specially and directly harmed by the permit | DEEP/Highgate argued Lawrence failed to show direct, particularized injury required for classical aggrievement | Court held Lawrence was not classically aggrieved |
| Scope of statutory aggrievement under § 22a-19 | Lawrence challenged multiple aspects of the permit (including non-environmental concerns) | DEEP/Highgate argued § 22a-19 limits intervenor standing to environmental issues; only visual-degradation alleged qualified | Court held § 22a-19 standing is limited to environmental issues and Lawrence was statutorily aggrieved only as to visual degradation |
| Whether administrative record contained substantial evidence supporting the commissioner | Lawrence argued the record lacked substantial evidence to support findings (including on visual impact and environmental harm) | DEEP/Highgate pointed to hearing record and commissioner’s factual findings showing minimal environmental impact and mitigation (e.g., wetland restoration) | Court held the record contained substantial evidence supporting the commissioner’s decision on visual-degradation and other environmental claims |
| Whether the commissioner complied with applicable laws and regulations | Lawrence claimed statutory/regulatory violations in the permitting process or decision | DEEP/Highgate maintained the decision complied with governing statutes/regulations and permit conditions addressed impacts | Court held Lawrence did not demonstrate noncompliance; commissioner complied with applicable law and regulations |
Key Cases Cited
- Pond View, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 288 Conn. 143 (limiting § 22a-19 intervenor standing to environmental issues)
- Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting Council, 286 Conn. 57 (describing Superior Court’s role as appellate when reviewing administrative appeals)
- Citizens Against Overhead Power Line Construction v. Connecticut Siting Council, 311 Conn. 259 (adopting lower court reasoning is appropriate where memorandum is well reasoned)
- Pellecchia v. Killingly, 147 Conn. App. 299 (agreeing adoptive approach to trial court memorandum of decision)
- Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 37 Conn. App. 348 (distinguishing appellate-capacity review in administrative appeals)