Bugryn v. Bristol

• Decision Date: 24 April 2001
• Docket Number: (AC 20511)
• Citation: 774 A.2d 1042,63 Conn. App. 98
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: FRANK W. BUGRYN, JR., ET AL. v. CITY OF BRISTOL ET AL. CITY OF BRISTOL v. FRANK W. BUGRYN, JR., ET AL. CITY OF BRISTOL v. FRANK W. BUGRYN, JR.

63 Conn. App. 98

774 A.2d 1042

FRANK W. BUGRYN, JR., ET AL. v. CITY OF BRISTOL ET AL.

CITY OF BRISTOL v. FRANK W. BUGRYN, JR., ET AL.

CITY OF BRISTOL v. FRANK W. BUGRYN, JR.

(AC 20511)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued February 22, 2001.

Officially released April 24, 2001.

Lavery, C. J., and Foti and Peters, Js. Bridget C. Gallagher, with whom, on the brief, was Anthony A. Denorfia, for the appellants (plaintiffs in the first case, defendants in the second and third cases).

Brian T. Henebry, for the appellees (defendants in the first case, plaintiff in the second and third cases).

Opinion

FOTI, J.

The plaintiffs,¹ owners of certain parcels of land in the city of Bristol, appeal from the trial court's judgments denying their requests for injunctive relief against the defendants.² The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from exercising the state's power of eminent domain to condemn their properties as part of a plan to construct an industrial park. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendants did not violate the plaintiffs' state and federal constitutional rights, (2) concluded that the defendants did not act in excess of the authority conferred on them by the Economic Development and Manufacturing Assistance Act, General Statutes § 32-220 et seq., (3) concluded that the defendants did not act unreasonably, in bad faith or in abuse of their power in seeking to acquire all of the subject property by eminent domain, and (4) prejudiced their case by admitting into evidence certain testimony concerning the fair market value of the property and mediation efforts between the parties. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The following facts underlie the plaintiffs' claims. As early as 1996, the defendant city of Bristol (city) began developing a plan to create the Southeast Bristol Mini-Industrial Park. Various city entities contacted the plaintiffs in an attempt to achieve the voluntary sale to the city of property owned by the plaintiffs to satisfy the plan's requirements.³ The plaintiffs repeatedly indicated their lack of interest in selling their property. In May, 1998, the city made final settlement offers to the plaintiffs. On May 21, 1998, the plaintiffs filed the present action seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from acquiring their properties by eminent domain. On March 25, 1999, the defendant development authority of the city of Bristol unanimously adopted the plan to acquire the subject property as part of the industrial park plan, and the members of the city council of the city unanimously voted to acquire the plaintiffs' property through condemnation. The commissioner of the Connecticut department of economic and community development subsequently approved the development plan. The court granted the city's application for mediation, and the parties attended mediation proceedings before a court-appointed mediator in April, 1999; those efforts did not resolve the dispute.⁴ On May 25, 1999, the city filed two statements of compensation for the properties with the Superior Court.

On June 4, 1999, the plaintiffs filed motions for temporary and permanent injunctive relief in the two condemnation cases to restrain the defendants from taking further action concerning their property. The city served notice of the taking by eminent domain, pursuant to General Statutes § 8-129, and subsequently filed the required record of notice with the clerk of the Superior Court.⁵ The court consolidated the three pending proceedings related to this dispute.⁶ With that action pending, the defendants properly refrained from taking any further steps to acquire the subject property. The plaintiffs brought the present appeal after the court denied the injunctive relief.

I

The plaintiffs first claim that the court improperly failed to conclude that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' state and federal constitutional rights. We disagree.

The plaintiffs claim that "the underlying purpose of the subject condemnation was to retain a particular manufacturer, Yarde Metals, within the city of Bristol. The evidence presented clearly supports a conclusion that the condemnation would confer a substantial benefit upon said private party." Although the plaintiffs state this claim in constitutional terms, it arises out of the court's factual determinations.⁷ "It is fundamental that, as an attribute of sovereignty, the state government or any properly designated agency thereof may take private property under its power of eminent domain if the taking is for a public use and if just compensation is paid therefor." Gohld Realty Co. v. Hartford, 141 Conn. 135, 141, 104 A.2d 365 (1954). We must ascertain whether the court's factual finding that the industrial park constitutes a public use and that this taking was not to benefit a private entity was clearly erroneous.

"An appellate court's review of a trial court's decision is circumscribed by the appropriate standard of review. As we have often stated: The scope of our appellate review depends upon the proper characterization of the rulings made by the trial court. To the extent that the trial court has made findings of fact, our review is limited to deciding whether such findings were clearly erroneous." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Powers v. Olson, 252 Conn. 98, 104-105, 742 A.2d 799 (2000). "The trial court's findings are binding upon this court unless they are clearly erroneous in light of the evidence.... We cannot retry the facts or pass on the credibility of the witnesses.... 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.) Melillo v. New Haven, 249 Conn. 138, 151, 732 A.2d 133 (1999).

The plaintiffs argue that the evidence adduced before the court "establishe[d] a clear chronology of events which supported a finding that the condemnation and contemplated redistribution of the property would benefit a specific and identifiable private interest, Yarde Metals. The trial court erred in failing to make this finding." Our careful review of the record reveals more than ample evidence supporting the court's finding that the city "approached the homeowners with the intention to purchase their properties for the purpose of building an industrial park. Although the city had numerous discussions with and made plans to have Yarde Metals as an anchor tenant in the proposed industrial park, no agreement or contract, written or oral, was made with Yarde Metals. Furthermore, and more telling, the evidence shows [that] the city plans on developing the industrial park whether or not Yarde Metals indeed becomes a tenant."

The plaintiffs seek to have us reevaluate the evidence, viewing it harmoniously with their theory that the defendants seek to condemn their property primarily to benefit Yarde Metals. Even if the taking would later provide a site for Yarde Metals, a consequence that would be neither undesirable to the defendants nor adverse to the goals that the park plan seeks to achieve, that fact would not support the plaintiffs' claim in light of the ample evidence in the record concerning the plan as a whole. "[W]here the public use which justifies the taking of the area in the first instance exists, an element over which there is no controversy in the present case, that same public purpose continues even though the property is later transferred to private persons." Broadriver, Inc. v. Stamford, 158 Conn. 522, 533-34, 265 A.2d 75 (1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 938, 90 S. Ct. 1841, 26 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1970).

Given the soundness of the court's factual determinations and the fact that it is not disputed that the development of an industrial park constitutes a public use, we can discern no violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

II

The plaintiffs next claim that the court improperly concluded that the defendants did not exceed the authority conferred on them by the Economic Development and Manufacturing Assistance Act, General Statutes § 32-220 et seq. (act). This claim rests on the plaintiffs' factual argument that the city sought to condemn the plaintiffs' property to prevent "losing Yarde Metals to the town of Southington or the town of Cheshire...." They argue that this purpose behind the taking conflicts with the legislative objectives in the act and that, therefore, the defendants' action is not for a valid public use for purposes of the act. We disagree.⁸

We first note our standard of review. Under the act, the legislature has vested those agencies authorized to exercise the state's power of eminent domain "to promote the retention and expansion and increase the competitiveness of manufacturing and other economic base businesses" in Connecticut. General Statutes § 32-221. The legislature sought to maintain and to develop the state's manufacturing sector, as well as to maintain and to create the jobs that accompany that sector of the economy. See General Statutes § 32-221. The act permits municipalities to designate implementing agencies to exercise the powers delegated under the act, including the power to condemn property. General Statutes § 32-224 (a). "Such authority having been reposed in the agency, the agency's decision is conclusive unless, on judicial review, it is found to be unreasonable, or the result of bad faith, or an abuse of the power conferred." Pet Car Products, Inc. v. Barnett, 150 Conn. 42, 51, 184 A.2d 797 (1962); see also Graham v. Houlihan, 147 Conn. 321, 328, 160 A.2d 745 (question of whether agency properly sought to condemn certain property under redevelopment act primarily matter for redevelopment agency, and decision subject to judicial review only to discover whether agency acted...