Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission of New London
832 A.2d 611, 2003 Conn. LEXIS 414, 266 Conn. 338 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A coastal site plan review conducted in conjunction with a municipal project referral under Gen. Stat. § 8-24 is an integral part of the non-binding, advisory report and does not constitute a separate, final, appealable decision. Additionally, intervenor status under Gen. Stat. § 22a-19 does not independently create a right to appeal an administrative action that is not otherwise appealable.
Facts:
- The City of New London, through its implementing agency, the New London Development Corporation, established a municipal development plan for the ninety-acre Fort Trumbull area.
- The plan proposed municipal improvements including new roads, infrastructure, and a 1500-foot paved riverwalk along the Thames River.
- The proposed project sites were located within the 'coastal area' as defined by the Connecticut Coastal Management Act.
- In July 2001, the development corporation referred the road and infrastructure proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission of New London for a report pursuant to General Statutes § 8-24.
- Contemporaneously, the development corporation submitted a coastal site plan application for the road and infrastructure project to the commission for review under the Coastal Management Act.
- In August and September 2001, the development corporation similarly referred the riverwalk proposal to the commission for a § 8-24 report and submitted a corresponding coastal site plan application.
Procedural Posture:
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC intervened in the planning and zoning commission's proceedings for two municipal projects pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-19.
- The commission approved the § 8-24 referrals and the associated coastal site plans for both projects.
- The plaintiff, Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC, appealed both decisions to the Superior Court (trial court).
- The defendant commission filed motions to dismiss both appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The Superior Court granted the commission's motions to dismiss, ruling that a § 8-24 report is not an appealable final decision and that intervenor status did not create a right of appeal.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgments of dismissal to the Appellate Court.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court transferred the appeals to itself before the Appellate Court could hear them.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a planning and zoning commission's approval of a coastal site plan, conducted as part of an advisory report on a municipal project under General Statutes § 8-24, constitute a final, appealable decision?
Opinions:
Majority - Vertefeuille, J.
No, the planning and zoning commission's approval of a coastal site plan as part of a § 8-24 referral is not a final, appealable decision. The court reasoned that the Coastal Management Act (CMA) was designed to integrate coastal review into existing planning and zoning procedures, not to create a separate, independent process. The statutory language of § 22a-105(b)(5) explicitly defines a municipal project referral under § 8-24 as a 'coastal site plan,' indicating the two are part of a single inquiry. Since a report issued under § 8-24 is purely advisory and non-binding on the municipality's legislative body, it is not a 'final decision' from which an appeal can be taken. Because the coastal site plan review is an integral component of this non-appealable advisory report, it also lacks the finality required for judicial review. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's status as an intervenor under § 22a-19 does not create a right to appeal a decision that is not otherwise appealable, as the statute grants a right to participate but is silent on creating new avenues for appeal and must be strictly construed.
Concurring - Zarella, J.
Yes, I agree with the majority's conclusion but write separately to state that the analysis should have relied solely on the plain meaning of the statutes. The plain language of the relevant statutes clearly demonstrates that a coastal site plan review is 'part and parcel' of the report issued under § 8-24. Therefore, the majority’s extensive analysis of legislative history was unnecessary to reach the correct conclusion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that environmental reviews for municipal projects under the Coastal Management Act are subsumed within the established statutory procedures for those projects, rather than creating a separate, appealable action. It prevents piecemeal litigation by requiring potential challengers to wait for a final, binding decision from the municipality's legislative body, rather than appealing a planning commission's preliminary, advisory report. The ruling also defines the limits of environmental intervention, establishing that the right to participate in an administrative proceeding under § 22a-19 does not confer a right to appeal a decision that lacks legal finality, thereby preserving traditional principles of subject matter jurisdiction.
