Jaeger v. Connecticut Siting Council
2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 611, 18 A.3d 693, 52 Conn. Supp. 14 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish classical aggrievement and have standing to appeal an administrative agency's decision, a party must demonstrate both a specific, personal, and legal interest in the subject matter distinct from that of the general community, and that the agency's decision has specially and injuriously affected that interest.
Facts:
- Célico Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless) applied to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) to construct a 150-foot monopole cell tower, disguised as a pine tree, on property owned by the Falls Village Volunteer Fire Department in Canaan, Connecticut.
- The stated purpose of the tower was to provide reliable cell service along Routes 7, 112, and 126.
- Dina Jaeger resided in a house located approximately 1290 feet east of the proposed tower site.
- Jaeger also co-owned an undeveloped parcel of land approximately 380 feet east of the proposed tower, directly across Route 7.
- Jaeger held personal religious beliefs influenced by Native American culture, which included a reverence for birds such as hawks and eagles that she feared would be harmed by the tower.
- Jaeger was concerned the tower would negatively impact her picturesque views, her recreational birdwatching, the value of her property, and her health.
Procedural Posture:
- Célico Partnership applied to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC), an administrative agency, for a certificate to construct a telecommunications facility.
- Dina Jaeger was granted intervenor status in the proceedings before the CSC.
- On March 12, 2009, the CSC issued a final decision approving Célico's application.
- Jaeger, the plaintiff, appealed the CSC's final decision to the Connecticut Superior Court, which is the court of first instance for this type of appeal.
- Célico, the defendant, raised the issue of Jaeger's lack of aggrievement (standing), which would deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The Superior Court conducted an evidentiary hearing solely on the issue of aggrievement.
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 party have classical aggrievement to appeal an administrative agency's decision to approve a cell tower when her alleged injuries—such as diminished property value, aesthetic harm, interference with religious beliefs, and health concerns—are speculative or common to the community at large?
Opinions:
Majority - Cohn, J.
No. A party does not have classical aggrievement to appeal an administrative agency's decision when the alleged injuries are speculative or not distinct from those of the general community. The court reasoned that Jaeger failed to establish both statutory and classical aggrievement. For statutory aggrievement, her status as an intervenor before the agency was insufficient, the automatic standing for abutting landowners in zoning appeals does not apply to this type of administrative appeal, and she failed to follow the procedural requirements for an environmental intervention. For classical aggrievement, the court rejected each of her claims. Her property value claim was based on speculative and not credible expert testimony, and any such effect would be shared by other nearby homeowners. Her aesthetic and recreational claims (impaired views and birdwatching) were likewise not a specific, personal interest but rather an interest common to the community. Her religious freedom claim was not raised before the administrative agency and was therefore waived on appeal. Finally, her health concerns regarding radiofrequency (RF) emissions were preempted by federal law, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), which prohibits state or local regulation of cell tower placement based on the environmental effects of RF emissions that comply with FCC regulations.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for establishing standing, or 'aggrievement,' in administrative appeals in Connecticut. It clarifies that general concerns about aesthetics, speculative economic harm, or impacts shared with a broader community are insufficient to create the specific, personal injury required for classical aggrievement. The ruling also underscores the importance of procedural diligence, as Jaeger's failure to properly plead her environmental and religious claims at the agency level resulted in them being waived on appeal. This case serves as a practical guide for future litigants, demonstrating that to challenge an agency decision, one must present concrete, non-speculative evidence of a unique harm at the earliest possible stage.
