In North Branford Citizens Against Bulk Propane Storage v. Town of North Branford et al., the Connecticut Appellate Court considered a plaintiff-association’s challenge to a zoning regulation amendment that allowed the construction of a bulk propane storage facility in North Branford.
In resolving the appeal, the Appellate Court relied on an unpreserved alternative ground for affirmance: the plaintiff-association lacked standing to raise the underlying action.
Background of the Case
The plaintiff, North Branford Citizens Against Bulk Propane Storage, is an association of residents opposing a bulk propane storage facility in North Branford, Connecticut. The facility’s proposed location required an amendment to the town’s zoning regulations, which the association alleged involved conflicts of interest and violations of public trust by town officials.
Allegations in the Complaint
The plaintiff alleged that:
- A town council member and property owner influenced zoning amendments to benefit his personal financial interests.
- Officials replaced zoning commission members who opposed the amendment.
- The amended zoning regulations permitted the construction of the facility, which the plaintiff claimed would increase traffic, lower property values, and create safety risks such as the slight risk of catastrophic explosion at facility.
Trial Court Proceedings
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action on the grounds that the association failed to exhaust its administrative remedies (meaning that the plaintiff failed to pursue all available remedies through local zoning channels before filing suit). The court did not address the defendants’ additional argument that the plaintiff lacked standing.
Connecticut Appellate Court Affirms on Alternative Ground: Lack of Standing
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court incorrectly concluded that they failed to exhaust administrative remedies and therefore, granted the motions to dismiss. The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal, but on the alternative ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
Supplemental Briefing on the Unpreserved Issue of Standing
Notably, the defendants did not raise the plaintiff’s lack of standing as an alternative ground for affirmance.
Instead, after oral argument, the Appellate Court ordered the parties to file supplemental memoranda to address whether the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed on the alternative ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action.
Although unpreserved, the issue was one of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, it was proper for the court to consider it on appeal.
Appellate Practice Tip
Issues of subject matter jurisdiction are 1 of 4 exceptions to the rules of preservation, and therefore, courts and parties may raise these issues at any stage of the proceedings.
Connecticut Appellate Court’s Analysis
In reviewing the issue of whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the declaratory action, the Appellate Court analyzed whether the plaintiff had a justiciable right in the controversy sought to be resolved. To do so, a complainant must make a colorable claim of a direct injury he has suffered or is likely to suffer.
On review, the plaintiff-association claimed that it has standing to vindicate alleged injuries to its members’ interests.
In resolving this issue, the Appellate Court applied the test for associational standing, as articulated in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977), and reiterated in Connecticut Association of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Worrell, 199 Conn. 609, 616 (1986)
‘‘[a]n association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.’’
The defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the first prong of that test, which requires an association to demonstrate aggrievement on the part of its members.
In response, the plaintiff argued that it showed classical aggrievement, which requires a party to demonstrate “a specific, personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the [controversy]” different from that of the general public and that the alleged conduct “has specifically and injuriously affected that specific personal or legal interest.’’
Specifically, the plaintiff-association argued that it satisfied classical aggrievement in three ways:
- it alleged that the members are town residents who oppose construction of a bulk propane storage facility,
- it alleged that the members would be irreparably harmed because the amended zoning regulations would result in additional traffic, diminished property values, and anxiety from a small risk of a catastrophic explosion at the facility, and
- it alleged that its members were aggrieved because Donald Fucci (member of North Branford Town Council and owner of property at issue) seriously violated public trust.
Applying that associational standing test to this appeal, the Appellate Court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that its members had a specific personal aggrievement or legal interest in the matter, as required to establish classical aggrievement.
Specifically, the Court concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to identify anything beyond vague allegations that members reside in the town and oppose construction of the facility and did not articulate the likelihood of a catastrophic explosion occurring at the facility or the extent to which members would be affected if an explosion occurred.
The Connecticut Appellate Court further concluded that even if a serious violation of public trust states a cognizable cause of action, that has no bearing on whether a plaintiff has standing to pursue that claim. The Court emphasized that reviewing courts must address the threshold question of standing separately from the merits of claims seeking to invalidate zoning regulations.
Key Takeaways
Subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved before reaching the merits of any appeal. Thoroughly reviewing the record to identify alternative grounds for affirmance, including unpreserved jurisdictional issues, is a critical step in appellate practice. And by identifying jurisdictional or procedural issues early in the proceedings, attorneys can avoid unnecessary dismissals by strengthening pleadings.
Read the full decision in North Branford Citizens Against Bulk Propane Storage v. Town of North Branford et al.
If you have questions about standing, subject matter jurisdiction, or appellate litigation, contact me if you would like to discuss appellate strategies or learn more.