i
~
DOCKET NO. CV98 0265281-S
SUPERIOR COURT
CAROLINE MAINVILLE, ET AL.
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
V.
AT MERIDEN
ZONING COMMISSION OF THE ! CITY OF MERIDEN j
i
JULY 2,2009
I
,I ; I
Ii
II J
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
I
This is an appeal of a decision by the City Council of Meriden, acting as the City of
II Meriden's Zoning Commission, which reclassified forty-eight (48) properties and placed them into the RidgeIine Protection Zone as defined in ยง 213-26.6 of the Meriden Zoning Regulations. This was done on October 5, 1998. Thereafter, the original plaintiffs: Caroline B. Mainville,
Buckley Broadcasting Corporation, BRG Realty, Inc., and Joyce T. Furlong' filed their appeal on November 6, 1998. The case has followed a tortured path ever since. The merits of the appeal were finally heard on January 15,2009. For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.
1 The plaintiffs moved to amended their complaint with an amended complaint dated August 28, 2008, that, inter alia, removed Furlong as a plaintiff in the case. The defendant objected on various grounds, but not to the removal of Furlong. The court denied the motion to amend.
j'..;G~" r-:~tt,;' ilf New Hawn at MeMen :",d' '~~!fUOR
-
COURT
FILED
,\UL 02 2009
The defendant claims that the plaintiffs have failed to prove aggrievement and therefore . ! the
appeal must be dismissed. This court agrees. '" [P]leading and proof of aggrievement are prerequisites to a trial court's jurisdiction over
the subject matter of an administrative appeal .... It is [therefore] fundamental that, in order to • i have
standing to bring an administrative appeal, a person must be aggrieved ...." Bongiorno
Supermarket, Inc. v. Zoning Board ofAppeals, 266 Conn. 531,537-38 (2003)." Fox v. Zoning i
,Board ofAppeals, 84 Conn. App. 628, 634 (2004). "Aggrievement presents a question of fact for
the trial court ...." Id., quoting LePage Homes, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 74 Conn. App. 340,344 (2002). "Unless the plaintiff alleges and proves aggrievement, [the] case must be dismissed." McNally v. Zoning Commission, 225 Conn. 1,6 (1993). At the hearing, none of the individual plaintiffs testified, nor did anyone on behalf of the corporate plaintiffs. Instead, the plaintiff's attorney submitted four certified copies of the City of Meriden's Assessor's cards. Plaintiff's exhibit #1 is a commercial property card for property at 61 West Peak Drive, printed on January 14, 2009 and under the heading of "record of ownership" it lists: Buckley Broadcast Corp. Exhibit #2 is a commercial property card for property located at 610 Chamberlin Highway, printed on January 14,2009, and under the heading of "record of ownership" it lists: Caroline B. Mainville. As the defendant points out, and this court finds, nothing on these exhibits indicates when Buckley Broadcast Corp. or Mainville acquired ownership, and thus do not indicate whether these alleged plaintiffs were the owners of record on the date of the zone change. The court, moreover, notes that it does not prove that Buckley Broadcast Corp. is, or ever was a valid corporation, nor, for that matter whether Mainville is still alive.
-2Â
Plaintiff's exhibit #3 is also an assessor's card for property located at 666 Canyon Drive ,. :' which lists a sale date of June 3, 2002 and on that line, under "GRANTOR" is listed "THE
MERIDEN HOMESTEAD LL", There is also a sale date of September 8,1977 and on that line, under "GRANTOR" is listed "FIONDELLAMICHAELJ JRE", Neither the Meriden Homestead •LL or Fiondella were listed as an original plaintiff in this case, nor were they even listed as a plaintiff in the plaintiffs' attempt to amend their complaint dated August 28,2008. Exhibit #4 is also an assessor's card for property located at 14 Colorado Ct which lists a
! sale date of December 7,2001, and on that line, under "GRANTOR" is listed "Daniels, Carolyn, M", There is also a sale date of December 23,1994 and on that line, under "GRANTOR" is listed "BRG Reality Inc". Daniels was not an original plaintiff in this case, nor was Daniels even listed as a plaintiff in the plaintiffs' attempt to amend their complaint dated August 28, 2008. The card does not establish that BGR Reality was the owner as of the date of the hearing and had an interest in the appeal. Moreover, it does not establish that BRG Reality continues to exist. After careful consideration of the evidence presented to it, this court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proving aggrievement. The appeal is dismissed. See
Fox v. Zoning Board ofAppeals, supra, BYTHECOURT/J,
pj'w. (/
-3Â