Hall v. Planning Commission of Town of Ledyard

• Decision Date: 01 July 1980
• Citation: 181 Conn. 442,435 A.2d 975
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Richard C. HALL et al. v. PLANNING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF LEDYARD et al.

Page 975

435 A.2d 975

181 Conn. 442

Richard C. HALL et al. v. PLANNING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF LEDYARD et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 13, 1980.

Decided July 1, 1980.

Frank N. Eppinger, Groton, with whom, on the brief, was Peter J. Bartinik, Groton, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Thomas B. Wilson, Groton, for appellee (named defendant).

James A. Plessinger, Hartford, for appellee (defendant Christy Hill Builders, Inc.).

Before COTTER, C. J., and BOGDANSKI, PETERS, HEALEY and PARSKEY, JJ.

BOGDANSKI, Associate Justice.

The defendant Ledyard planning commission approved an application for a resubdivision plan filed by the co-defendant Christy Hill Builders. The plaintiffs, owners of nearby property, appealed the decision to the Superior Court. Although the underlying controversy of this litigation involves the adequacy of the drainage from the resubdivision, the trial court did not reach that issue, dismissing the appeal on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of establishing that they were aggrieved parties.

At the planning commission hearing, the plaintiffs expressed fears that the increased drainage would cause erosion to their properties, deposit much sedimentation on their land, create new watercourses and devalue their properties. The commission decided to have an independent engineering evaluation made of the plan and submitted the plan to the state of Connecticut department of environmental protection. The department, through one of its civil engineers, reviewed the plan and advised the commission that the design of the drainage system was adequate to handle storm water runoff resulting from a storm having a twenty- five year return period. The commission thereafter approved the plan.

While the appeal was pending the engineer discovered that his original report was in error, that the drainage system was inadequate, and so advised the commission by letter. The commission filed a request with the trial court to add this later report to the record. The court denied the request on the ground that its review was limited to the record of the hearing before the planning commission.

Review of an action of a planning agency exists only under statutory authority. General Statutes § 8-28 ¹ permits appeals from a decision of a zoning commission by one aggrieved by the contested decision. Compliance with the provisions of the statute encompasses a twofold test: First, the party claiming aggrievement must demonstrate a specific, personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision, as distinguished from a general interest, such as is the concern of all members of the community as a whole. Second, the party claiming aggrievement must establish that this specific, personal and legal interest has been specially and injuriously affected by the decision. Walls v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 176 Conn. 475, 477-78, 408 A.2d 252 (1979).

"It is not necessary for one who claims to have been aggrieved by the action of a planning or zoning...