Savin Gasoline Props., LLC v. Comm'n on the City Plan of Norwich

• Decision Date: 02 November 2021
• Docket Number: AC 44090
• Citation: 262 A.3d 1027 (Mem),208 Conn.App. 513
• Parties: SAVIN GASOLINE PROPERTIES, LLC v. COMMISSION ON the CITY PLAN OF the CITY OF NORWICH et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

208 Conn.App. 513

262 A.3d 1027 (Mem)

SAVIN GASOLINE PROPERTIES, LLC

v.COMMISSION ON the CITY PLAN OF the CITY OF NORWICH et al.

AC 44090

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 7, 2021

Officially released November 2, 2021

Harry B. Heller, Uncasville, with whom was Andrew J. McCoy, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Michael E. Driscoll, with whom, on the brief, was Cassie N. Jameson, Norwich, for the appellee (named defendant).

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Savin Gasoline Properties, LLC (Savin), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal of a decision of the defendant Commission on the City Plan of the City of Norwich (commission).¹ In this zoning action, the commission granted a special permit, site plan approval, and an approval of gasoline station location pursuant to General Statutes § 14-321 for a gasoline station and convenience store to be located in Norwich on property leased by the applicant, Cumberland Farms, Inc. (Cumberland).² Savin owns a gasoline station located at the same intersection at which Cumberland sought to construct and operate its gasoline station. The trial court upheld the decision of the commission after rejecting the merits of Savin's claim and dismissed Savin's appeal.

During the pendency of this appeal, Cumberland notified this court that it had terminated its lease and was no longer interested in pursuing the project. As a result, we instructed the parties to be prepared to address at oral argument whether, in light of Cumberland's intention not to proceed on its plan to develop the property at issue, the appeal should be dismissed as moot because this court could no longer grant Savin any practical relief. At oral argument, the court also indicated that it would entertain a motion for vacatur should one be filed by Savin. Savin subsequently filed a motion for vacatur arguing that, in the event this court determined that its appeal was moot, it should order the November 26, 2019 judgment of the trial court vacated with instruction that the trial court order the commission to vacate the special permit, corresponding site plan and § 14-321 approvals. The commission filed a response indicating that it believed that the appeal was moot and raising no objection to vacatur.³

Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we conclude that the appeal is moot and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. Furthermore, because we conclude that this appeal became moot through no fault of Savin; see State...