Town of Griswold v. Camputaro
173 A.3d 959
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Longstanding zoning dispute (originally consolidated zoning enforcement action and zoning appeal) over an asphalt plant at 630 Plainfield Road; parties entered a stipulated judgment in 1997 resolving the disputes.
- In 2015 the town received complaints alleging noncompliance with the 1997 stipulated judgment; on October 28, 2015 the Camputaro estate filed motions to cite in American Industries and to substitute an executor, and those motions were placed on the short calendar for November 23, 2015 (posted on the Judicial Branch website).
- On November 9, 2015 the town board authorized settlement modifications in executive session; on November 12 the parties filed a joint motion to open and modify the 1997 judgment and counsel requested the matter be written onto the short calendar for November 16, 2015 (earlier than the posted November 23 date and earlier than the five‑day rule in Practice Book §11‑15).
- The court (Cosgrove, J.) approved the November 16 short‑calendar placement, opened the judgment, granted the citation in and accepted modifications on November 16, 2015; service on American Industries occurred later.
- Two would‑be intervenors (Londé and Ryan) relying on the November 23 posting tried to intervene under Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a‑19(a)(1) and were denied by the trial court (Vacchelli, J.) on the ground there was no pending proceeding; they appealed.
- The Appellate Court held the short‑calendar acceleration violated the Practice Book, deprived the public and the would‑be intervenors of adequate notice, and reversed the denial of intervention, directing reopening of the matter and a §8‑8(n) hearing on the settlement where environmental intervenors may participate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear the appeal (certification under §8‑8(o)) | Town/defendants argued certification required for appeal from zoning appeal judgment | Intervenors argued consolidation with §8‑12 enforcement action made intervention right intertwined with zoning appeal | Court: Appellate Court has jurisdiction without §8‑8(o) certification because intervention right in the §8‑12 enforcement action is inextricably intertwined with the zoning appeal |
| Mootness/Relief available | Defendants: appeal moot because judgment entered before motions to intervene — no relief possible | Intervenors: if court finds improper notice/manipulation, relief (reopening, hearing) is available | Court: Not moot — relief available (can reopen judgment and permit intervention if rules were violated) |
| Short‑calendar scheduling and Practice Book §11‑15 (notice) | Defendants: parties agreed to earlier date; hearing was public; intervenors could have checked court file/asked counsel | Intervenors: parties manipulated calendar and failed to provide required short‑calendar notice, denying timely opportunity to intervene | Court: Plaintiffs/defendants violated Practice Book by obtaining an earlier short‑calendar date without a proper showing; intervenors were deprived of timely, accurate notice |
| Right to intervene under §22a‑19(a) and adequacy of §8‑8(n) settlement hearing | Defendants: hearing was public and parties had notice; intervenors’ failure to act timely was their fault; settlement approval should stand | Intervenors: §22a‑19(a) permits intervention to raise environmental concerns; lack of notice prevented meaningful participation in the §8‑8(n) hearing required for settlement approval | Court: Because intervenors lacked timely notice due to scheduling manipulation, they were denied their statutory right to intervene and to participate in the §8‑8(n) hearing; remand to reopen and conduct proper hearing allowing intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond 67, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 117 Conn. App. 72 (Conn. App. 2009) (court may reopen docket and protect vested rights acquired during pendency of an action)
- Brookridge District Assn. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 607 (Conn. 2001) (§8‑8(n) requires court hearing and approval of settlements in land‑use appeals; hearing protects public interest)
- Willimantic Car Wash, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 247 Conn. 732 (Conn. 1999) (definition and procedural importance of a §8‑8(n) hearing; hearings must be public with rights to present and cross‑examine)
- Batchelder v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 133 Conn. App. 173 (Conn. App. 2012) (environmental intervenors may oppose settlement approval under §8‑8(n) based on environmental concerns and statutory standing under §22a‑19)
- Udolf v. West Hartford Spirit Shop, Inc., 20 Conn. App. 733 (Conn. App. 1990) (courts should not adjudicate conflicting rights without actual or constructive notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard)
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2001) (Practice Book rules interpreted liberally to prevent surprise or injustice)
- Fattibene v. Kealey, 18 Conn. App. 344 (Conn. App. 1989) (failure to place a motion on short calendar deprived parties of fair notice; reversal required)
- AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Zoning Commission, 87 Conn. App. 537 (Conn. App. 2005) (mootness principles and requirement of actual controversy for appellate jurisdiction)
- Santorso v. Bristol Hospital, 308 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2013) (appellate jurisdiction appropriate where factual and legal issues are inextricably intertwined)