DOCKET NO. CV98 0265281-S SUPERIOR COURT

i CAROLINE MAINVILLE, ET AL. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN

V. AT MERIDEN

~ j ZONING COMMISSION OF THE ! CITY OF MERIDENi JULY 2,2009 I

, I ; I Ii

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

II J 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 § 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.

-2­

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.

,

-3­