Paige v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission: the Connecticut Supreme Court Breathes New Life Into the Protection of Natural Resources Under State Environmental Laws
| Publication year | 2021 |
| Pages | 436 |
69 CBJ 436. Paige v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission: The Connecticut Supreme Court Breathes New Life Into the Protection of Natural Resources Under State Environmental Laws
In Paige v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, (fn1) the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed whether trees and wildlife, irrespective of whether they have economic value, fall Within the definition of "natural resources" as contained in Section 22a-19 of the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act. This section authorizes any person to intervene in a proceeding that involves conduct that has, or is likely to have, the effect of "Unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying the PUBLIC trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state." (fn2) The section further provides that such conduct may not be approved if "there is a feasible and prudent alternative Consistent with the reasonable requirements of the PUBLIC health, safety and welfare." (fn3)
The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the Appellate Court's conclusion that trees and wildlife must have economic value to merit protection as natural resources under the section. (fn4) The high court stated that an economic-value-based definition of natural resources contravened virtually all other definitions of natural resources contained in comparable state environmental protection statutes, as well as certain federal environmental laws. Therefore, the decision in Paige has potentially profound environmental protection ramifications because it imposes a menacing obstacle in the path of developers' land-clearing activities in Connecticut and other states.
In July 1991, Fairfield University applied to the Town of Fairfield Plan and Zoning Commission for permission to clear a
13-acre wooded site to build a 40-lot subdivision. Pursuant to Section 22a-19(a) of the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act, the plaintiffs, Anthony and Candace Paige, filed a "notice of intervention on behalf of the environment" and were allowed to intervene at a PUBLIC bearing held in September 1991 concerning the University's subdivision application.
The plaintiffs contended that approval of the application would have an adverse impact on the environment. They asserted that because the development of the subdivision would require clear cutting of trees on the site, it would likely cause "unreasonable pollution, impairment, or destruction of the PUBLIC trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state." (fn5) Thus, the plaintiffs maintained that the University was required to file alternative plans for the Commission's Consideration, as mandated 6 under Section 22a-19(b). (fn6)
The Commission approved the University's application in October 1991 without requiring such alternative plans. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the decision to Superior Court. In January 1993, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that (1) trees and wildlife are not "natural resources" meriting protection under Section 22a-19 and (2) the Commission was not required to Consider less damaging, feasible and prudent alternatives.
In March 1993, the Appellate Court granted certification to review the plaintiffs' appeal. Although it ruled that the trial court erred in holding that trees...
To continue reading
Request your trial