Hayes Family Ltd. P'ship v. Town of Glastonbury
Decision Date | 22 November 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 32697.,32697. |
Citation | 132 Conn.App. 218,31 A.3d 429 |
Parties | HAYES FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al. v. TOWN OF GLASTONBURY. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Richard P. Weinstein, West Hartford, with whom was Nathan A. Schatz, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Beth Bryan Critton, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant).
GRUENDEL, ALVORD and BISHOP, Js.
The plaintiffs, Hayes Family Limited Partnership, Richard P. Hayes, Jr., and Manchester/Hebron Avenue, LLC, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by the defendant, the town of Glastonbury. On appeal, the plaintiffs assert that the court improperly granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs argue, in the alternative, that the court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing before deciding the motion to dismiss. We agree that the court should have held an evidentiary hearing before deciding the motion to dismiss and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. The plaintiffs own a 2.4 acre parcel of land located at 1199 Manchester Road in Glastonbury. The property is comprised of a ledge, which rises steeply from the edges of the southwesterly corner of the intersection of Hebron Avenue and Manchester Road to a heavily wooded plateau abutting an established single-family neighborhood in a rural residential zone. On June 27, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a special permit application with the Glastonbury planning and zoning commission (commission). The plaintiffs proposed to build a 13,013 square foot, thirty-two foot high building with seventy parking spaces and a drive-through window on the property. On November 29, 2005, the commission denied the plaintiffs' application, citing the project's scale and intensity in relation to the size and topography of the parcel, its impact on and lack of compatibility with the existing neighborhood and the inadequacy of the proposed landscaping. 1
On October 5, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that the defendant took the plaintiffs' property without just compensation under article first, § 11, of the constitution of Connecticut, and the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. The complaint alleges that there was no reasonable business use that could be made of the property without implicating the same problems cited in the commission's denial. On November 23, 2009, the defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that the facts pleaded in the complaint were insufficient to establish the finality required to entitle the plaintiffs to judicial review, and the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. On January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the motion to dismiss, accompanied by three affidavits, arguing, inter alia, that the court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing before deciding the motion to dismiss.
On August 4, 2010, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and overruled the plaintiffs' objection. In its memorandum of decision, the court determined that the “plaintiffs are not entitled to judicial review of the merits of their regulatory takings claim until they meet the requirement of establishing that the commission will not allow any reasonable use of the property.” On August 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reargument and reconsideration, claiming that disputed issues of material fact were addressed by the court in its memorandum of decision and resolved in favor of the defendant without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. The court denied the motion. On September 16, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed from the judgment granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.
We begin by setting out the applicable legal principles and standard of review. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 64 Conn.App. 134, 137, 779 A.2d 817 (2001), appeal dismissed, 260 Conn. 180, 799 A.2d 294 (2002). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bialobrzeski, 123 Conn.App. 791, 795, 3 A.3d 183 (2010).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bagg v. Thompson, 114 Conn.App. 30, 37–38, 968 A.2d 468 (2009). “[I]n determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 724, 728, 724 A.2d 1084 (1999).
Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 650–51, 974 A.2d 669 (2009).
“[W]here a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Priore v. Haig
..., supra, 103 Conn. App. at 507, 930 A.2d 53.4 The plaintiff asserts that this court's decision in Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Glastonbury , 132 Conn. App. 218, 219–24, 31 A.3d 429 (2011), supports his claim that this court should reverse the trial court's granting of the motion to dism......
-
Hayes Family Ltd. P'ship v. Town of Glastonbury
...reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Glastonbury, 132 Conn.App. 218, 219, 31 A.3d 429 (2011).On remand, the court, Berger, J., by agreement of the parties, conducted a trial on the merits, but in a bifurcated manner. The parti......
-
Berka v. City of Middletown
...be indulged." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) 195 Conn.App. 767 Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Glastonbury , 132 Conn. App. 218, 221–22, 31 A.3d 429 (2011).We address each appeal separately. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.IAC 41902 In Docket No. AC ......
-
Berka v. City of Middletown
...favoring jurisdiction should be indulged." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Glastonbury , 132 Conn. App. 218, 221–22, 31 A.3d 429 (2011).We address each appeal separately. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.IAC 41902 In Doc......