Town of Stratford v. Avalon Communities, Inc. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This court will not review the entire tortured history of decisions from the involved land use boards, trial court, Appellate Court and Supreme Court.   Suffice it to say that the implications of the application have been well studied.   This court is only asked to rule on a Motion to Transfer the latest action brought by the Stratford Town Council to the Judicial District of New Britain at the Tax and Administrative Appeals Session.   The New Britain court has already rendered decisions regarding this property and is surely familiar with the land use issues related to it.   Although it may appear that the issues here were resolved by the Appellate Court in AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Stratford Zoning Commission, 130 Conn.App. 36, 57, 21 A.3d 926 (2011), those issues are not presented by the instant motion.¹

The court may transfer a case if it is in the interest of justice and judicial economy.   See, e.g., Nielson v. Nielson, 3 Conn.App. 679, 684, 491 A.2d 1112 (1985) (recognizing the public's interest in conserving judicial resources as a justification for transferring a case);  Ortega v. Dunbar, Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. FA 06 4005595S (September 8, 2006, Axelrod, J.T.R.) (granting motion to transfer to the Juvenile Court where there were extensive records pertaining to the case and the children had an attorney appointed on their behalf);  Union Trust Co. v. Ramzan, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia–Milford, Docket No. 033440S (May 24, 1993, Curran, J.) (granting motion to transfer and consolidate where both actions were foreclosures involving the same parties and similar claims).   In light of the procedural history of this case and given the fact that the New Britain court has already issued decisions regarding the underlying issues, this court believes that judicial economy requires that the Motion to Transfer be granted.

The Motion to Transfer is granted.

Arthur Hiller, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The Appellate Court stated that the trial court was correct in its determination that the 2001 and 2008 plans did not warrant a new wetlands application and that “[m]any of the wetland concerns ․ raised by the town on the plaintiff's 2008 site plan application were identical to the concerns raised in connection with the plaintiff's 2001 application.   Those claims have now been addressed.”  AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Stratford Zoning Commission, 130 Conn.App. 36, 57 (2011)..  FN1. The Appellate Court stated that the trial court was correct in its determination that the 2001 and 2008 plans did not warrant a new wetlands application and that “[m]any of the wetland concerns ․ raised by the town on the plaintiff's 2008 site plan application were identical to the concerns raised in connection with the plaintiff's 2001 application.   Those claims have now been addressed.”  AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Stratford Zoning Commission, 130 Conn.App. 36, 57 (2011).

Hiller, Arthur A., J.