Summary
dismissing appeal and granting appellant's motion for vacatur of trial court's judgment because appeal became moot through no fault of appellant
Summary of this case from Nowak v. Envtl. Energy Servs.Opinion
AC 44090
11-02-2021
SAVIN GASOLINE PROPERTIES, LLC v. COMMISSION ON the CITY PLAN OF the CITY OF NORWICH et al.
Harry B. Heller, Uncasville, with whom was Andrew J. McCoy, for the appellant (plaintiff). Michael E. Driscoll, with whom, on the brief, was Cassie N. Jameson, Norwich, for the appellee (named defendant).
Harry B. Heller, Uncasville, with whom was Andrew J. McCoy, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Michael E. Driscoll, with whom, on the brief, was Cassie N. Jameson, Norwich, for the appellee (named defendant).
PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Savin Gasoline Properties, LLC (Savin), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal of a decision of the defendant Commission on the City Plan of the City of Norwich (commission). In this zoning action, the commission granted a special permit, site plan approval, and an approval of gasoline station location pursuant to General Statutes § 14-321 for a gasoline station and convenience store to be located in Norwich on property leased by the applicant, Cumberland Farms, Inc. (Cumberland). Savin owns a gasoline station located at the same intersection at which Cumberland sought to construct and operate its gasoline station. The trial court upheld the decision of the commission after rejecting the merits of Savin's claim and dismissed Savin's appeal.
This court granted Savin's petition for certification to appeal filed in accordance with General Statutes §§ 8-8 and 8-9.
The owners of the properties involved in the project at issue, Upcountry II, LLC, Franklin Development Funds II, LLC, and Agranovitch Real Estate Holding Company, LLC, were additional party defendants.
During the pendency of this appeal, Cumberland notified this court that it had terminated its lease and was no longer interested in pursuing the project. As a result, we instructed the parties to be prepared to address at oral argument whether, in light of Cumberland's intention not to proceed on its plan to develop the property at issue, the appeal should be dismissed as moot because this court could no longer grant Savin any practical relief. At oral argument, the court also indicated that it would entertain a motion for vacatur should one be filed by Savin. Savin subsequently filed a motion for vacatur arguing that, in the event this court determined that its appeal was moot, it should order the November 26, 2019 judgment of the trial court vacated with instruction that the trial court order the commission to vacate the special permit, corresponding site plan and § 14-321 approvals. The commission filed a response indicating that it believed that the appeal was moot and raising no objection to vacatur.
Cumberland and the property owners; see footnote 2 of this opinion; have not filed any objection to the motion for vacatur.
Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we conclude that the appeal is moot and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. Furthermore, because we conclude that this appeal became moot through no fault of Savin; see State v. Boyle , 287 Conn. 478, 489, 949 A.2d 460 (2008) ; In re Jessica M ., 250 Conn. 747, 749, 738 A.2d 1087 (1999) ; we grant Savin's motion for vacatur and vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand with direction to the trial court to order the commission to vacate the special permit, corresponding site plan and § 14-321 approvals.
The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the trial court and the decision of the commission are vacated.