DAVID BINGHAM et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS, SC 17817

Judicial District of New Britain

Aggrievement; Administrative Appeal; General Statutes § 4-183; Whether Plaintiffs were Aggrieved by Commissioner's Decision on Petition for Declaratory Ruling as to Applicability of Environmental Policy Act.  The department of public works owns a large parcel of property in Preston and Norwich that it proposed to convey to the two towns.  The plaintiffs filed a petition under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq., for a declaratory ruling as to whether the proposed sale was subject to the Environmental Policy Act, General Statutes § 22a-1b et seq.  In their petition, they alleged that the parcel was to be developed as an entertainment complex and that this development was likely to adversely affect the environment by, among other things, releasing significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  The defendant ruled that neither an environmental impact evaluation, an environmental classification report nor environmental assessments were required for the proposed conveyance of the property.  The plaintiffs appealed the decision pursuant to § 4-183 of the UAPA, which allows persons aggrieved by a final decision of an administrative agency to appeal to Superior Court.  The defendant moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of aggrievement.  The plaintiffs argued that they were aggrieved because they had a good faith belief that they were legally entitled to an environmental impact evaluation under the Environmental Policy Act and that the defendant denied them their right to the evaluation.  They further argued that they were aggrieved because they had a right pursuant to § 4-176 (a) to "petition an agency . . . for a declaratory ruling as to the validity of any regulation" and they had received an adverse ruling on their petition.  The trial court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they were either statutorily or classically aggrieved.  The court ruled that the fact that they may have had a right to ask for a declaratory judgment under § 4-176 (a) did not confer statutory aggrievement.  As to classical aggrievement, it found that that the plaintiffs lacked a personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the defendant's decision that was specially and injuriously affected by that decision.  It noted that the plaintiffs' only unique relation to the action of the defendant in issuing his ruling was the fact that they were the petitioners and that if such relationship were sufficient to permit an appeal, the aggrievement requirement of § 4-183 would be meaningless.  The plaintiffs challenge the trial court's decision granting the motion to dismiss.