Abel v. Planning And Zoning Comm'n Of The Town Of New Canaan

• Decision Date: 13 July 2010
• Docket Number: 18418.,No. 18333,18333
• Citation: 297 Conn. 414,998 A.2d 1149
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Mordechai ABEL et al.v.PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF NEW CANAAN et al.

297 Conn. 414

998 A.2d 1149

Mordechai ABEL et al.v.PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF NEW CANAAN et al.

Nos. 18333, 18418.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 27, 2010.

Decided July 13, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Sanjit Shah, pro se, with whom was Marjorie Shansky, New Haven, for the appellants (plaintiffs Sanjit Shah et al.).

Stephen A. Finn, with whom was Mary-Kate Smith, Stamford, for the appellees (defendants Grace Property Holdings, LLC, et al.).

Christopher J. Jarboe, for the appellee (named defendant).

NORCOTT, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and McLACHLAN, Js. ^*

McLACHLAN, J.

The named defendant, the planning and zoning commission (commission) for the town of New Canaan (town), granted the applications of the defendants, Grace Property Holdings, LLC (Grace Property) and Pacific Farm, LLC (Pacific Farm),¹ for a subdivision of property located in the town and for a special permit to build a church on a newly created parcel. The commission subsequently granted an application for an amendment to the special permit. The plaintiffs, Sanjit Shah, Mary Shah, Daniel Cooper and Karen Cooper,² who own land in New York within 100 feet of the undivided property, appealed separately from each approval pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8(b).³ The defendants filed motions to dismiss the appeals, which the trial court in each appeal granted on the ground that the plaintiffs did not have standing to appeal because their properties are not located in the state of Connecticut. The plaintiffs then filed these appeals from the judgments of dismissal.⁴ We reverse the judgments of the trial court in both appeals.

The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. Pacific Farm owned a seventy-four acre parcel of land known as Windsome Farms (property) in the town, which is bounded to the north by Puddin Hill Road in New York and Lukes Wood Road in Connecticut, and to the east by Smith Ridge Road in Connecticut. In 2007, Pacific Farm entered into a contract with Grace Property, pursuant to which Grace Property agreed to purchase approximately forty-eight acres of the property for the purpose of building a church.

On July 30, 2007, Pacific Farm and Grace Property filed a subdivision application and an application for a special permit with the commission. The subdivision application sought approval of a plan to resubdivide ⁵ the property into two parcels, parcel A and parcel B. The special permit application sought approval of a proposal to construct the church on parcel B. The proposal was divided into phase one, which consisted of renovating and adding to an existing building to create a temporary sanctuary pending construction of a permanent sanctuary, and phase two, which consisted of the construction of a new sanctuary building with seating for approximately 1200 persons and parking for 321 vehicles. The commission conducted public hearings on both applications in August and September, 2007. On November 27, 2007, the commission granted the subdivision application. It also granted the special permit application with the condition that the applicants would not be allowed to construct phase two, largely because of traffic concerns.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs, who own land in New York ⁶ within 100 feet of the undivided property, appealed from the commission's decisions to the trial court pursuant to § 8-8 claiming that the subdivision and the proposed project violated various town zoning and subdivision regulations (first appeal). The defendants filed motions to dismiss the first appeal on the grounds that: (1) the plaintiffs had served only one copy of process on the town clerk, instead of two copies as required by § 8-8(f)(2) ⁷ and General Statutes § 52-57(b)(5); ⁸ (2) the plaintiffs did not own property within 100 feet of the land involved in the commission's decision, namely, parcel B on which the church was to be built, as required to establish statutory standing under § 8-8(a)(1); ⁹ (3) the plaintiffs could not be aggrieved by the commission's decision because their property was not located in the state of Connecticut; and (4) the plaintiffs improperly had challenged two of the commission's decisions in one appeal. The trial court Karazin, J., rejected the first, second and fourth claims, but concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing to appeal from the commission's decision pursuant to § 8-8 because their properties were located in New York. The court reasoned that, in enacting § 8-8, the legislature had intended to protect only the interests of persons who own land within this state. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' first appeal.¹⁰ The plaintiffs then initiated the appeal to this court in Docket No. SC 18333.

Meanwhile, Pacific Farm and Grace Property had filed with the commission an application for an amendment to the special permit to allow them to construct a permanent church with a capacity for 900 persons. After a public hearing, the commission approved the application. The plaintiffs appealed from that decision pursuant to § 8-8, claiming that the proposed project violated various town zoning regulations and that the commission had acted arbitrarily, capriciously and in abuse of its discretion in approving the amendment to the special permit (second appeal). The defendants filed motions to dismiss that appeal, again claiming that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs did not own land within 100 feet of the property involved in the commission's decision and because they did not own land within the state of Connecticut. The trial court Pavia, J., rejected the defendants' claim that the plaintiffs were not statutorily aggrieved because they did not own land within 100 feet of parcel B, but agreed with Judge Karazin's conclusion in the first appeal that the plaintiffs did not have standing to appeal pursuant to § 8-8(b) because they did not own land in this state. The trial court also concluded that, because Judge Karazin had ruled on that issue in the first appeal, the plaintiffs were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating it. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the second appeal.¹¹ The plaintiffs then initiated the appeal to this court in Docket No. SC 18418. After the two appeals to this court were filed, Pacific Farm transferred all of its right, title and interest in the property to Grace Farms Foundation, Inc. (Grace Farms), and this court granted Pacific Farm's motion to substitute Grace Farms as a party defendant in both appeals.

The plaintiffs claim in both appeals that: (1) the trial court improperly concluded that they did not have standing to appeal from the commission's decisions pursuant to § 8-8 because they did not own land in this state; and (2) if the trial court's interpretation of § 8-8 was correct, the statute violates article first, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution ¹² and article four, § 2, of the United States constitution. ¹³ The defendants dispute these claims and claim as an alternate ground for affirmance that the trial court improperly denied their motions to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs' land was not within 100 feet of the land involved in the commission's decisions. We conclude that the trial court improperly concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing to appeal from the commission's decisions pursuant to § 8-8 because they did not own land in this state,¹⁴ and we reject the defendants' alternate ground for affirmance.

In Docket No. SC 18418, the plaintiffs raise the additional claims that: (1) the trial court improperly concluded that their claims in the second appeal were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and (2) even if this court concludes that they are not statutorily aggrieved under § 8-8(a)(1) because they do not own land within 100 feet of the land involved in the commission's decision, they are classically aggrieved. The defendants dispute these claims. We conclude that we need not determine whether the plaintiffs' second appeal to the trial court was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel because, even if it was, the judgment of the trial court in that case must be reversed in light of our decision reversing the judgment of the trial court in the first appeal. We need not reach the plaintiffs' second claim because we conclude that the plaintiffs were statutorily aggrieved.

Finally, in Docket No. SC 18333, the defendants claim as an additional alternate ground for affirmance that the trial court should have dismissed the appeal because the plaintiffs had not properly served process on the commission. We reject this claim.

I

CLAIMS RELATING TO BOTH APPEALS

A

We first address the plaintiffs' claim that the trial court in each appeal improperly concluded that they lacked standing to appeal from the commission's decisions pursuant to § 8-8 because they do not own land in this state. The plaintiffs contend that the phrase “any person” as used in § 8-8(a)(1) plainly and unambiguously encompasses all persons who own land within 100 feet of the land involved in a board or commission's decision, regardless of whether they own land within this state. The defendants counter that there is a strong presumption against the extraterritorial application of statutes that can be overcome only if the legislature has expressly stated that it will have extraterritorial effect. See State v. Cardwell, 246 Conn. 721, 741, 718 A.2d 954 (1998) (“we will not apply a criminal statute extraterritorially without a significant indication that the legislature intended it to have that effect”); Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co., 89 Conn. 367, 374, 94 A. 372 (1915) (“[u]nless the intention to have a statute operate beyond the limits of a [s]tate is clearly expressed or reasonably to be inferred from the language of the [Workers' Compensation] Act, or from its purpose, subject-matter, or history, the...