Town of Middlebury v. Conn. Siting Council
161 A.3d 537
| Conn. | 2017Background
- CPV Towantic LLC sought to open and modify a 1999 certificate to expand and upgrade a proposed electric generating facility (512 MW → 785 MW) and alter site/layout. The Siting Council reopened the original docket and held hearings.
- Town of Middlebury and multiple residents/entities participated (some as parties/intervenors) and raised neighborhood concerns about air emissions, noise, visibility, traffic, wetlands, wildlife, public safety, and impacts on hay/timber.
- After evidentiary hearings and public inspection, the Siting Council issued lengthy Findings (314 findings), Opinion and Decision granting the modification with conditions, acknowledging adverse effects but finding benefits outweighed them.
- Plaintiffs appealed to Superior Court claiming (1) Council failed to satisfy §16-50p(c)(1) by not adequately "considering neighborhood concerns," (2) due process violations, and (3) lack of substantial evidence. The trial court dismissed the appeal, finding the council had considered neighborhood concerns and that other claims failed.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the statutory duty to "consider" required written, individualized findings responding to neighborhood concerns and whether the Council met that duty; it also addressed mootness of unchallenged alternative rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "consider neighborhood concerns" under §16-50p(c)(1) | "Consider" requires the Council to expressly acknowledge and respond to individualized neighborhood concerns in its written decision | "Consider" means to reflect on and take concerns into account; no written, issue-by-issue findings required | Court: "Consider" imposes a deliberative duty (investigate/take into account) but does not mandate specific written findings for each concern |
| Whether Council satisfied §16-50p(c)(1) in this record | Council failed to consider major concerns (e.g., hay/timber impacts) because it did not label or expressly analyze them in findings | Council heard extensive evidence, made detailed findings on key environmental/public safety factors and addressed public opposition in its decision | Court: Presumption of regularity; record and findings show Council considered neighborhood concerns; plaintiffs failed to prove otherwise |
| Whether plaintiffs preserved due process and substantial-evidence claims | Due process and substantial-evidence claims should be reviewed on the merits | Plaintiffs abandoned claims by inadequate briefing; even if not, trial court alternatively rejected them on merits | Court: Plaintiffs did not challenge the trial court’s merits rulings on appeal; those unchallenged alternative holdings render the briefing-abandonment issue moot |
| Mootness / ability to grant relief when alternative holdings stand | N/A | If appellant fails to challenge all bases for adverse ruling, appellate relief is unavailable | Court: Where unchallenged alternative grounds support judgment, related appellate claims are moot and not justiciable |
Key Cases Cited
- Lieberman v. Aranow, 319 Conn. 748 (statutory construction principles guide interpretation of legislative intent)
- Indian Spring Land Co. v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 322 Conn. 1 (statutory construction; plenary review of statutory meaning)
- FairwindCT, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council, 313 Conn. 669 (interpretive approach to siting statutes and legislative intent)
- Weiman v. Weiman, 188 Conn. 232 (a court need not make express findings on every statutory criterion when statute says ‘‘consider’’)
- Corcoran v. Connecticut Siting Council, 284 Conn. 455 (council’s consideration of municipal regulations shown by inclusion in record)
- Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 254 Conn. 333 (burden on plaintiff to prove agency acted contrary to law)
- Forest Walk, LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 291 Conn. 271 (presumption of regularity in administrative proceedings)
- Brecciaroli v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 168 Conn. 349 (presumption that agency acted according to statutory standards)