Airport v. Town of East Haddam.

• Decision Date: 16 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 18488.,18488.
• Citation: 24 A.3d 1205,302 Conn. 70
• Parties: GOODSPEED AIRPORT, LLCv.TOWN OF EAST HADDAM.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

302 Conn. 70

24 A.3d 1205

GOODSPEED AIRPORT, LLC

v.TOWN OF EAST HADDAM.

No. 18488.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 20, 2011.Decided Aug. 16, 2011.

Kenneth Rosenthal, with whom were John Bashaw, New Haven, and, on the brief, Daniel Klau, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).John S. Bennet, Essex, for the appellee (defendant).ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN, EVELEIGH and HARPER, Js.EVELEIGH, J.

The plaintiff, Goodspeed Airport, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the decision of the trial court denying relief on its claim seeking classification and assessment of certain of its real property as open space. Goodspeed Airport, LLC v. East Haddam, 115 Conn.App. 438, 439–40, 973 A.2d 678 (2009). On appeal, following our grant of certification,¹ the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that: (1) 13.08 acres of the plaintiff's property were ineligible for open space classification; and (2) the plaintiff, notwithstanding the ongoing improper classification of its property by the defendant, the town of East Haddam, was not entitled to judicial relief from the improper assessment of 43.04 acres. We agree with the plaintiff, and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The following facts and procedural history are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Court. “The present matter arises from three related tax appeals involving the plaintiff's 57.12 acre parcel located at 15 Lumberyard Road in East Haddam. The property contains a commercial utility airport that occupies 14.08 acres of the parcel. The airport has existed at this location since 1964 and operates under a special exception to the [defendant's] zoning regulations. The remaining 43.04 acres contain open fields located entirely within a flood plain.

“On the October 1, 2003 grand list, the property was valued at $2,354,020 with a tax assessment based on 70 percent of that value, or $1,647,810. On October 8, 2003, the plaintiff filed a written application to have 43.04 acres of its property classified, and thereby assessed, as open space pursuant to [General Statutes] § 12–107e. The [defendant's] assessor denied this application, and the plaintiff filed an appeal with the board of assessment appeals of [the defendant] (board). The board elected not to conduct a hearing and, on March 15, 2004, issued a notice pursuant to General Statutes § 12–111(a). The notice stated that any further appeal must be directed to the Superior Court.

“Thereafter, on May 19, 2004, the plaintiff filed the first of three tax appeals in the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12–117a and 12–119. The original appeal subsequently was amended on June 14, 2004, and contained two counts. In count one, the plaintiff alleged that it was aggrieved by the [refusal of the defendant's assessor] to classify 43.04 acres of its parcel as open space pursuant to § 12–107e, thereby resulting in an excessive valuation of its property. In count two, the plaintiff claimed that the improper classification amounted to a wrongful assessment. Following a trial on the merits, the court concluded that the [defendant's] assessor used an improper standard in determining the classification of open space land. The case was remanded to the assessor to make the necessary factual findings. On January 19, 2007, the assessor issued a determination of facts, concluding that 43.04 acres of the plaintiff's parcel qualified as open space.

“While this first appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed two additional appeals in the Superior Court arising from the October 1, 2005 assessment of the property. The cases were consolidated on November 20, 2006. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that it was aggrieved by the assessor's refusal to classify 56.12 acres of the parcel as open space,² thereby resulting in an excessive assessment value. The plaintiff also alleged wrongful assessment pursuant to § 12–119.

“After a hearing, the court disposed of all three appeals through a memorandum of decision issued on December 20, 2007. In light of the assessor's factual findings on remand that [43.04 acres of] the property qualified as open space, the court determined that the only issue before it regarding the 43.04 acres was the fair market value. The court then concluded that the plaintiff had failed to sustain its burden of proving that the property was overvalued, and, accordingly, the first appeal was denied. The court also found in favor of the defendant on the consolidated 2005 appeals, concluding that the plaintiff did not establish that the assessor's refusal to grant open space classification for 13.08 of the remaining 14.08 acres was improper.” Goodspeed Airport, LLC v. East Haddam, supra, 115 Conn.App. at 440–42, 973 A.2d 678.

The plaintiff then appealed to the Appellate Court. “On appeal [before the Appellate Court], the plaintiff claim[ed] that the [trial] court improperly (1) denied the plaintiff any relief for the defendant's wrongful refusal to grant an open space classification and (2) concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to [open space] classification [of the 13.08] additional acreage of its property ... pursuant to ... § 12–107e.” Id., at 439–40, 973 A.2d 678. The Appellate Court disagreed, concluding that “a taxpayer who alleges aggrievement by the denial of an application for open space classification still must sustain the initial burden of proving that the denial has resulted in an overassessment of his property”; id., at 446, 973 A.2d 678; and that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy that burden. Id., at 450–51, 973 A.2d 678. As to the additional 13.08 acres for which the plaintiff sought open space classification, the Appellate Court concluded that such acres were ineligible for open space classification. Id., at 456–57, 973 A.2d 678. This certified appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

On appeal, the plaintiff first claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the 13.08 acres were ineligible for open space classification. Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that the Appellate Court's decision denying open space classification for the 13.08 acres is contrary to § 12–107e, the defendant's 1981 plan of development (plan), and prior decisions of this court. The defendant disagrees, claiming that the Appellate Court properly concluded that the 13.08 acres were ineligible for open space classification under both § 12–107e and the plan because the land is the site of the plaintiff's operating commercial airport. We agree with the plaintiff.

We begin by setting forth the standard of review applicable to the plaintiff's claim. In concluding that the 13.08 acres were ineligible for open space classification, the trial court construed and applied the plan and pertinent statutory provisions. Accordingly, our review of the trial court's conclusions is plenary. See Aspetuck Valley Country Club, Inc. v. Weston, 292 Conn. 817, 822, 975 A.2d 1241 (2009); Griswold Airport, Inc. v. Madison, 289 Conn. 723, 731, 961 A.2d 338 (2008). In addition, in examining the meaning of a particular statute, we are guided by fundamental principles of statutory construction. See General Statutes § 1–2z; see also Testa v. Geressy, 286 Conn. 291, 308, 943 A.2d 1075 (2008) (“[o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature” [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Finally, “[t]o the extent that the trial court has made findings of fact, our review is limited to deciding whether such findings were clearly erroneous.... A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Carmel Hollow Associates, Ltd. Partnership v. Bethlehem, 269 Conn. 120, 149, 848 A.2d 451 (2004).

Pursuant to General Statutes § 1–2z, we begin with the text of the relevant statutory scheme governing the classification of land as open space. Section 12–107e provides in relevant part: “(a) The planning commission of any municipality in preparing a plan of conservation and development for such municipality may designate upon such plan areas which it recommends for preservation as areas of open space land, provided such designation is approved by a majority vote of the legislative body of such municipality. Land included in any area so designated upon such plan as finally adopted may be classified as open space land for purposes of property taxation or payments in lieu thereof if there has been no change in the use of such area which has adversely affected its essential character as an area of open space land between the date of the adoption of such plan and the date of such classification.

“(b) An owner of land included in any area designated as open space land upon any plan as finally adopted may apply for its classification as open space land on any grand list of a municipality by filing a written application for such classification with the assessor thereof.... The assessor shall determine whether there has been any change in the area designated as an area of open space land upon the plan of development which adversely affects its essential character as an area of open space land and, if the assessor determines that there has been no such change, said assessor shall classify such land as open space land and include it as such on the grand list....”

Pursuant to the statutory scheme, three elements are essential to a successful application seeking to classify land as open space. First, the land must be included in an area designated as eligible for open space classification in the municipality's plan of conservation or development. General Statutes § 12–107e (a). Second, the owner of the...