Lewis v. Planning & Zoning Commission

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the plaintiff lacked standing under General Statutes § 22a-16 to challenge an inland wetlands permit and the construction of a storm drainage system based solely on alleged defects in the permitting process or the absence of a permit. Because the plaintiff’s claims did not independently allege unreasonable pollution, impairment, or destruction of the environment, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with direction to dismiss the action.

Holdings

1. Section 22a-16 does not confer standing on a plaintiff whose claim is based solely on an allegedly flawed permitting process. A claim that conduct was not properly authorized is distinct from a claim that the conduct has caused or is reasonably likely to cause unreasonable pollution, impairment, or destruction of the environment.
2. Section 22a-16 does not confer standing to challenge construction merely because the defendant allegedly failed to obtain a required permit before beginning construction, absent an allegation sufficiently independent of the permitting violation that the construction caused or was likely to cause unreasonable pollution.
3. Because the plaintiff lacked standing under § 22a-16, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the action had to be dismissed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether General Statutes § 22a-16 grants standing to challenge the validity of a wetlands permitting process based on alleged defects in the permit application or agency approval procedures.
2. Whether General Statutes § 22a-16 grants standing to challenge construction of a storm drainage system allegedly undertaken before the required water discharge permit was obtained, without an independent allegation that the construction caused or was likely to cause unreasonable pollution.
3. Whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and therefore was required to dismiss the action when the plaintiff lacked standing under § 22a-16.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded