146 Conn. App. 567
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- In 2008, Mark Development, LLC sought a use variance for a 48.8-acre parcel at 850 Murdock Avenue, Meriden, zoned regional development district with limited permissible uses.
- Developer proposed a used car dealership; the conceptual site plan referenced Northup Road (Wallingford) as the primary access, raising Wallingford traffic concerns.
- Hearing held September 2, 2008; the Meriden ZBA granted the variance 4-1.
- Meriden planning entities and Dominick Caruso (Caruso plaintiffs) appealed; Wallingford also appealed alleging aggrievement and issues with the variance.
- Trial court granted dismissal as to Wallingford for lack of aggrievement; Caruso case proceeded and the court remanded for further proceedings after finding a conflicted board member should have recused.
- This appeal questions whether Wallingford has justiciable standing and whether the Caruso decision affects the current appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot due to Caruso | Wallingford contends not moot; merits could affect Caruso proceedings. | Caruso decision renders underlying issues moot for Wallingford. | Not moot; Wallingford retains potential to litigate merits if aggrievement is found. |
| Classical aggrievement for Wallingford | Traffic concerns via the conceptual site plan constitute injury to Wallingford’s interests. | Traffic impacts are premature absent an approved site plan; no specific injury shown. | Wallingford not classically aggrieved at this stage; traffic impact premised on unapproved plan is speculative. |
| Statutory aggrievement as a 'municipality concerned' | Wallingford is a municipality concerned and thus aggrieved under § 8-8. | Municipality concerned doctrine applies to the board's own municipality only; adjoining towns are not covered. | Wallingford not statutorily aggrieved; doctrine limited to the board’s municipality. |
| Effect of unapproved site plan on aggrievement analysis | Even without site plan approval, aggrievement should be recognized due to traffic concerns. | Aggrievement cannot hinge on an unapproved plan; no concrete injury shown. | Premature aggrievement; cannot base standing on an unapproved proposal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McElveen, 261 Conn. 198 (Conn. 2002) (four-part mootness test and actual controversy requirements)
- Board of Education v. Naugatuck, 257 Conn. 409 (Conn. 2001) (four-part justiciability test for aggrievement and standing)
- Queach Corp. v. Inland Wetlands Commission, 258 Conn. 178 (Conn. 2001) (requires more than speculation to establish aggrievement)
- Goldfisher v. Connecticut Siting Council, 95 Conn. App. 193 (Conn. App. 2006) (aggrievement may be based on possibility of harm, not mere speculation)
- Hall v. Planning Commission, 181 Conn. 442 (Conn. 1980) (classical aggrievement two-part test)
- Lewis v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 62 Conn. App. 284 (Conn. App. 2001) (statutory aggrievement by legislative grant)
- DeRito v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 18 Conn. App. 99 (Conn. App. 1989) (municipality concerned refers to board’s own municipality)
- Tyler v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 145 Conn. 655 (Conn. 1958) (municipality participation rights in aggrievement)
- Bongiorno Supermarket, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 266 Conn. 531 (Conn. 2003) (burden to prove aggrievement; scope of standing)