Mayer v. Historic Dist. Comm'n of Groton
160 A.3d 333
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Robert and Mary Pat Mayer own 50 Pearl Street in Groton’s Mystic River Historic District; applicants Steven and Caroline Young own abutting 52 Pearl Street.
- Applicants sought (May 2012) a certificate of appropriateness to shorten a historic barn by 9'7"; commission granted it; plaintiffs appealed to Superior Court under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-147i (first appeal).
- While first appeal was pending applicants filed a second certificate request (Sept./Oct. 2012) for other barn alterations; commission found it lacked jurisdiction over the portion at issue; plaintiffs appealed that finding under § 7-147i (second appeal).
- Trial court dismissed both appeals for lack of standing: (1) statutory aggrievement under § 8-8(a) does not apply to § 7-147i appeals; (2) plaintiffs failed to prove classical aggrievement (either by pleading or proof).
- Supreme Court review focused on whether § 7-147i incorporates the statutory aggrievement rule of § 8-8(a) and whether plaintiffs met classical aggrievement standards given alleged loss of water views and procedural defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 7-147i incorporates § 8-8(a) statutory aggrievement | Mayer: § 7-147i’s reference to "procedure" means § 8-8 applies, so abutting owners get per se standing | Commission: § 8-8(a)(1) grants the 100-foot presumption only for specific agencies; historic commissions were intentionally omitted | No. § 8-8(a)(1) does not confer statutory aggrievement for historic district commission appeals under § 7-147i |
| Whether legislative acquiescence to Peeling supports statutory standing | Mayer: Legislature’s inaction after Peeling signals acquiescence | Commission: Peeling is an unpublished Superior Court decision; acquiescence doctrine inapplicable | No acquiescence; Peeling not sufficient to infer legislative agreement |
| Whether plaintiffs proved classical aggrievement for the May 15 decision | Mayer: Administrative record (testimony) showed likely loss in property value from a contemplated addition that the barn reduction would enable | Commission: Only proximity and speculative harms (unapproved addition) shown; hearsay value assertions; procedural defects alone don’t establish aggrievement | No. Plaintiffs failed the required showing of a particularized, non-speculative injury caused by the barn alteration itself |
| Whether pleadings adequately alleged aggrievement for the jurisdictional (Oct. 16) decision | Mayer: Pleadings alleged abutting ownership, procedural errors, and lax enforcement that harmed property value | Commission: Pleadings lack specific facts showing a legally protected interest specially and injuriously affected; proximity insufficient | No. Pleadings failed to allege specific, particularized injury; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. O & G Industries, Inc., 322 Conn. 291 (Conn. 2016) (standard of statutory construction and plenary review)
- Moutinho v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 278 Conn. 660 (Conn. 2006) (overview of aggrievement doctrine: classical vs statutory)
- State Library v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 824 (Conn. 1997) (a party may rely on administrative record to prove aggrievement)
- Water Pollution Control Authority v. Keeney, 234 Conn. 488 (Conn. 1995) (speculative concerns do not satisfy aggrievement)
- Handsome, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 317 Conn. 515 (Conn. 2015) (pleadings vs proof on aggrievement; tests articulated)
- Edgewood Village, Inc. v. Housing Authority, 265 Conn. 280 (Conn. 2003) (proximity alone insufficient; procedural notice defects do not confer standing)
- Connecticut Independent Utility Workers, Local 12924 v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 312 Conn. 265 (Conn. 2014) (pleading requirement for aggrievement; cannot cure deficient pleadings solely by mining the record)