Chelsea Gardens Lawsuit Documents (ct.gov)

KNL-CV-15-6024488-S ) SUPERIOR COURT

)

CHARLES R. EVANS, JR. ) JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON

)

VS. ) AT NEW LONDON

) CHELSEA GARDENS FOUNDATION, INC. ) AUGUST 31, 2015

OBJECTION TO MOTION TO ADD PARTY

Plaintiff hereby objects to Chelsea Garden’s August 26, 2015 Motion to Add Party

on the grounds that this action seeks to enjoin violations of the Connecticut

Environmental Protection Act, Conn.Gen.Stat §22a-16, and the Inland Wetlands and

Watercourses Acts, Conn.Gen.Stat. §22a-44 for the wholesale deforestation of a portion

of a public park1 resulting in natural resources damages to adjacent wetlands under an

expired permit. Defendant, a lessee of the City of Norwich conducting the work in a City

park, erroneously claims that the City of Norwich is a necessary party. Because the City

has no “interest or title which the judgment will affect” as required for mandatory

intervention under Conn.Gen.Stat. §52-107, the motion should be denied.

The claims in this case seek injunctive relief to require Chelsea Gardens to stop

work that is impairing wetlands and to remediate harms caused. Under no circumstance

would a judgment in this action affect the validity of the lease between the parties or the

title to the land or the right to enforce the lease.

1 Mohegan Par k i n Nor wi ch, a por t i on of whi ch was l eased by t he Ci t y of Nor wi ch t o Chel sea Gar dens i n 1994, al l egedl y f or t he pur pose of devel opi ng an ar bor et um and but t er f l y gar dens. No wor k had been done on t he pr oj ect s i t e unt i l about May 2015.

It is also important to note that the City has not made an application to be made a

party, quite possibly because, upon information and belief, there exists an

indemnification provision in the lease.

STANDARD OF LAW

The conditions necessary to qualify for intervention as of right were set forth in

State Board of Education v. Waterbury, 21 Conn. App. 67, 72, 571 A.2d 148 (1990). 3

Intervention as of right requires that (1) the application be timely, (2) the applicant claim

an interest relating to the transaction that is the subject of the action, (3) the applicant

show that its ability to protect that interest may as a practical matter be impaired or

impeded by disposition of the action, (4) the applicant's interest is not adequately

represented by the existing parties. "Failure to meet any one of the conditions is

sufficient to deny intervention as of right." State Board of Education v. Waterbury, supra,

citing NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 369, 93 S.Ct. 2591 2604, 37 L.Ed.2d 648

(1973). "[A] person or entity does not have a sufficient interest to qualify for the right to

intervene merely because an impending judgment will have some effect on him, her, or

it. The judgment to be rendered must affect the proposed intervenor's direct or personal

rights, not those of another." In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263, 275, 618 A.2d 1 (1992).

DISCUSSION OF LAW AND FACT

Defendant, Chelsea Gardens, allegedly is conducting its site work activities under

permits from the City2. As with any private or public enforcement action, the entity which

issued the permits does not become a necessary party to the action. Neither does an

2 Def endant s counsel admi t t ed at t he st at us conf er ence on August 27t h t hat t he s i t e pl an per mi t had expi r ed.

entity leasing the site to the defendant become a necessary party simply because of its

status as an owner where title or possession is not an issue in the suit. In Tappin v.

Homecoming Financial Network, Inc., 265 Conn. 741, 753, 830 A.2d 711 (2003), our

Supreme Court observed that the title to property and possession of that property are

separate questions. See, Housing Dev. Fund, Inc. v. Burke Real Estate Mgmt., LLC

____ Conn. App._____, AC36198 (Conn. App., February 6, 2015).

As the cause of action only seeks to limit the amount and kind of activities on the

site and does not seek to determine or impair the relationship of the lessor and lessee,

the lessor need not be made a party to the action as none of the violations are alleged

to have been caused by the City as lessor.

Wherefore, the motion to add party is likely only filed to occasion delay at the

expense of natural resource protection.

Respectfully Submitted,

Charles Evans, Jr. By_________________________ Keith R. Ainsworth, Esq. Evans, Feldman & Ainsworth, LLC #101240 261 Bradley Street P.O. Box 1694 New Haven, CT 06507-1694 (203)772-4900 / (203)782-1356 fax [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true copy of the foregoing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class, postage pre-paid this 31st day of August, 2015 and electronically filed in the electronic filing system of the Superior Court in the above captioned matter and served upon the parties electronically and/or by mail to those requesting such service and addressed to: David Hill & Associates, LLC, 180 Glastonbury Boulevard, Suite 202, Glastonbury, CT 06033 [email protected] Block, Janey & Pascal, 138 Main Street, Norwich, CT 06360 [email protected] Hasset & George, PC, 945 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, CT 06070 [email protected] ________________________ Keith R. Ainsworth, Esq.

KNL-CV-15-6024488-S ) SUPERIOR COURT

)

CHARLES R. EVANS, JR. ) JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON

)

VS. ) AT NEW LONDON

) CHELSEA GARDENS FOUNDATION, INC. ) AUGUST 28, 2015

OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR BOND

Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-472, Plaintiff hereby objects to Chelsea Garden’s

August 26, 2015 Motion Re: Bond with Surety on the grounds that this action is a

private attorney general’s action to secure equitable relief to protect the public trust in

natural resources under the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act and Inland

Wetlands and Watercourses Acts. As such, the matter is brought by a private individual

to vindicate public rights which constitutes good cause to exempt the temporary

injunction from a bonded action.

This matter arises out of the wholesale deforestation of a portion of a public park,

Mohegan Park in Norwich, by Chelsea Gardens Foundation, Inc., a private foundation

with close ties to political leadership in Norwich which insulates it from close scrutiny for

compliance with land use regulations. Chelsea Gardens has for the better part of two

decades promoted a speculative, underfunded and largely imaginary botanical gardens,

arboretum1 and butterfly sanctuary in Mohegan Park – none of which has been built.

1 I r oni cal l y , t he pr omot er s of t hi s ar bor et um have def or est ed over a dozen acr es of l and i ncl udi ng i mpai r ment of r el at i vel y r ar e nat i ve Amer i can Chest nut sapl i ngs.

In May 15, 2015 the Defendant admits beginning work on Phase I of a permit which

expired before work began. (See Defendant’s Motion for Bond August 26 at p. 1).

Plaintiff has retained a licensed arborist and soil scientist who has submitted an affidavit

detailing violations of state regulation governing wetlands including ongoing harm to

wetlands resources due to non-compliant work.

Defendant’s counsel has admitted at a status conference on August 27 that the

project is one which will take between 10 and twenty years to complete. Thus, any delay

caused the project by a temporary injunction for several months pending a full hearing

on the merits can reasonably be described as de minimus.

In addition Chelsea Gardens has no ongoing operations on the site which is

requested to be subject to the injunction. Defendant’s counsel represented in open court

on July 20, 2015 that no work had been performed on site since May 20152.

Regardless, the Defendant has no buildings, structures, gardens, butterfly houses,

tours, or any income-producing operations at the site which could be disrupted and

cause the Defendant monetary or compensable loss.

Chelsea Gardens has submitted no offer of proof of the possible harm it might suffer

if it is prevented from destroying trees which have stood for a century and is prevented

from causing sedimentation of adjacent wetlands.

Plaintiff believes from the libelous tone adopted in Chelsea Gardens motion3 that its

intention is to use the request for a bond not to protect a legitimate prospect of

2 A r epr esent at i on whi ch Pl ai nt i f f s bel i eve was compl et el y f al se based on, at

i n May 2015 and t hat counsel unbel i eveabl y opi ned i n cour t t hat t he r emoval of t r ai l er l oads of f el l ed t r ees does not const i t ut e wor k on t he s i t e. 3 Def endant suggest s, wi t hout any basi s i n pr oof , t hat Pl ai nt i f f has t r espassed and vandal i zed Chel sea Gar den s l easehol d.

uncompensated financial loss, but instead to suppress and dissuade Charles Evans

from bringing this action by needlessly driving up his costs.

The motion likely having been brought in bad faith and definitely having been

brought without cause, the motion should be denied. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s action

being in the interest of the public trust, it should be exempt from bond. At the very least,

any injunction which enters can be made contingent upon a bond if Chelsea Gardens

proves sufficient grounds for one to be required.

Respectfully Submitted,

Charles Evans, Jr. By_________________________ Keith R. Ainsworth, Esq. Evans, Feldman & Ainsworth, LLC #101240 261 Bradley Street P.O. Box 1694 New Haven, CT 06507-1694 (203)772-4900 / (203)782-1356 fax [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true copy of the foregoing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class, postage pre-paid this 28th day of August, 2015 and electronically filed in the electronic filing system of the Superior Court in the above captioned matter and served upon the parties electronically and/or by mail to those requesting such service and addressed to: David Hill & Associates, LLC, 180 Glastonbury Boulevard, Suite 202, Glastonbury, CT 06033 [email protected] Block, Janey & Pascal, 138 Main Street, Norwich, CT 06360 [email protected] Hasset & George, PC, 945 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, CT 06070 [email protected] ________________________ Keith R. Ainsworth, Esq.

2. Reasons why this case should be referred to the Land Use Litigation Docket:

STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL DIVISION www.jud.ct.gov

1. Status of Litigation:

APPLICATION FOR CASE REFERRAL — LAND USE LITIGATION DOCKET JD­CV­129   New 8­12

Instructions

a. Administrative Appeal:

b. Miscellaneous Land use litigation/environmental enforcement:

c. Trial date assigned:If yes, when is the trial? Estimated Length of trial:

LANDUSECOURT USE ONLY

3. Does the transfer to the Land Use Litigation Docket create any hardships for the parties or attorneys? 

4. Do the parties or attorneys consent to the transfer to the Land Use Litigation Docket?

If yes, explain the hardship.

Case name Docket number

Return date

Briefs Filed:Record Filed:

Pleadings:Discovery Complete:

*LANDUSE*

1. Counsel and self­represented parties seeking to have a case referred to the 

Land Use Litigation Docket must supply all of the information requested 

below. (Not supplying complete and accurate information may result in the 

case not being transferred.) 

2. Information that does not fit on this form should be attached on a separate 

sheet, numbered to correspond to the questions on the form. 

3. Attorneys not excluded from e­filing must e­file this form and select “Land 

Use Litigation Application" when naming the form in e­filing. Attorneys 

excluded from e­filing and self­represented parties must file the original with 

the Clerk in the judicial district in which the case is pending.

Note: Any objection to the transfer of this case to the Land Use Litigation Docket must be filed within 15 calendar days after the 

filing of this application. Attorneys not excluded from e­filing must 

select "Objection to Transfer to Land Use Litigation Docket" when 

naming the objection in e­filing. Attorneys excluded from e­filing 

and self­represented parties must file the objection with the Clerk 

in the judicial district in which the case is pending and must title it 

"Objection to Transfer to the Land Use Litigation Docket.”

Type of land use matter Affordable Housing Appeals Environmental EnforcementPlanning/Zoning (non­variance) Inland/Wetlands Miscellaneous Land Use Litigation

Yes NoYes No

Open ClosedYes NoYes No

Yes No

Yes No Don't Know

and self­represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all attorneys and self­represented parties receiving electronic delivery.

Signed  (Signature of filer) 

CertificationI certify that a copy of this document was mailed or delivered electronically or non­electronically on (date)  to all attorneys

*If necessary, attach additional sheet or sheets with name and address which the copy was mailed or delivered to.

Name and address of each party and attorney that copy was mailed or delivered to*

Print or type name of person signing Date signed

Telephone numberMailing address (Number, street, town, state and zip code)

Presiding Judge, Land Use Litigation Docket 95 Washington Street, Hartford, CT 06106

ADA NOTICE The Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you need a reasonable accommodation in accordance with the ADA, contact a court clerk or an ADA contact person listed at www.jud.ct.gov/ADA.