Jacques v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection

Citations

• 203 Conn. App. 419

Syllabus

The plaintiff property owner sought a permanent injunction against the defendants, the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection and the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, prohibiting them from taking further action in the redevelopment of a state park and for an order precluding them from denying her alleged statutory (§ 22a-16) right to intervene in public hearings related to the redevelop- ment project. The plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, seeking to intervene in the public hearings on the project pursuant to the applicable statute (§ 22a-19) and to have the opportunity to present expert witnesses on her behalf in opposition to the conclusions of the environmental impact evaluation, as well as seeking to cross-examine the department's witnesses and provide rebuttal expert testimony. The department denied that there was a proceeding in which the plaintiff could intervene. The plaintiff brought an administrative appeal, in which she claimed, inter alia, that the redevelopment plan would have irreversible environmental impacts on the area and, because her property was close to the park, the redevel- opment would affect her special personal or legal interests. The trial court subsequently dismissed the action on the ground of sovereign immunity. Held: 1. The plaintiff could not prevail on her claim that the trial court erred in determining that she failed to allege facts sufficient to establish her statutory standing under § 22a-16, as her complaint failed to articulate a colorable claim of unreasonable pollution, impairment, or destruction of the environment; the complaint contained only two causes of action, alleging that each defendant violated § 22a-16, and the complaint's focus was entirely on how the plaintiff's rights were violated when the depart- ment denied her petition for intervention, and alleged a procedural violation without alleging facts that, if proven, would support a f