Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wozniak v. Town of Colchester

Appellate Court of Connecticut

October 29, 2019

Victor A. WOZNIAK et al.
v.
TOWN OF COLCHESTER

         Argued April 9, 2019

         Appeal from Superior Court, Judicial District of New London, Knox, J.

Page 133

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 134

          Paul M. Geraghty, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

         Matthew Ranelli, with whom, on the brief, was Amber N. Sarno, for the appellee (defendant).

         Alvord, Elgo and Moll, Js.

          OPINION

         ELGO, J.

         [193 Conn.App. 844] This case concerns the obligation of a municipality to file an application on behalf of a property owner to correct flood maps promulgated by federal administrative authorities. The plaintiffs, Victor A. Wozniak and Olga E. Wozniak,[1] appeal from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, the town of Colchester. The dispositive issue is whether the trial court properly determined that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the plaintiffs [193 Conn.App. 845] were entitled to a writ of mandamus.[2] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         We begin by providing necessary context for the present dispute. "Prior to 1968, there was a growing concern that the private insurance industry was unable to offer reasonably priced flood insurance on a national basis.... Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 to address this concern.[3] The purposes of the NFIA were to provide affordable flood insurance throughout the nation, encourage appropriate land use that would minimize the exposure of property to flood damage and loss, and thereby reduce federal expenditures for flood losses and disaster assistance.... To that end, NFIA authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish and carry out the National Flood Insurance Program .... There are three basic components of [that program]: (1) the identification and mapping of flood-prone

Page 135

communities, (2) the requirement that communities adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations that meet minimum eligibility criteria in order to qualify for flood insurance, and (3) the provision of flood insurance." (Citations omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) National Wildlife Federation v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States District Court, Docket No. C 11-2044 (RSM), 2014 WL 5449859, *1 (W.D. Wash. October 24, 2014); see also 44 C.F.R. § 59.2.

         [193 Conn.App. 846] To carry out its mandate, the NFIA authorizes FEMA to "identify and publish information with respect to all flood plain areas, including coastal areas located in the United States, which have special flood hazards"[4] and to "establish or update flood-risk zone data in all such areas, and make estimates with respect to the rates of probable flood caused loss for the various flood risk zones for each of these areas ...." 42 U.S.C. § 4101 (a). That data then is memorialized on a flood insurance rate map, which is "an official map of a community, on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community...." 44 C.F.R. § 59.1. The present action concerns the mapping of flood prone areas in the defendant municipality.

         The following facts are gleaned from the pleadings, affidavits, and other proof submitted, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Dubinsky v. Black, 185 Conn.App. 53, 56, 196 A.3d 870 (2018). The defendant is a community, as that term is defined in the code,[5] that has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program since 1982, and thus is obligated to adopt adequate flood plain management regulations consistent with federal criteria. See 44 C.F.R. § 60.1. The defendant is also a mapping partner under FEMA guidelines for map modernization that helps "[ensure] the accuracy" of flood insurance rate maps prepared by FEMA.

         [193 Conn.App. 847] At all relevant times, the plaintiffs owned real property known as 159 Lebanon Avenue in Colchester (property), an undeveloped parcel of vacant land. The property is located in an area that is designated as a flood zone on Flood Insurance Rate Map number 09011C0154G (map) prepared by FEMA and dated July 18, 2011. In light of that designation, the plaintiffs had a survey of the property performed, which indicated that the map incorrectly located a portion of Judd Brook on the property. As Wozniak averred in his July 14, 2017 affidavit, the survey confirmed that the map "incorrectly depicts the location of Judd Brook, resulting in our [p]roperty being wrongfully determined to be in a flood zone."

         On April 4, 2012, Wozniak brought that alleged inaccuracy to FEMA’s attention by submitting an application for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA).[6] That application

Page 136

consisted of a two page letter from Wozniak, in which he indicated that "[t]he property is for sale and buyers don’t want to hear about flood plains and flood insurance," and attached three maps of the area in question. As Wozniak explained in his application, "[u]sing Photoshop, [he] approximated the actual course of Judd Brook and added notes" on one of those maps. By letter dated May 25, 2012, a FEMA official responded to Wozniak’s LOMA application by requesting additional information.[7] There is no indication in the record before [193 Conn.App. 848] us that the plaintiffs ever responded to that request or provided any further documentation to FEMA in connection therewith.

         The record also contains three letters sent to the plaintiffs from the defendant’s First Selectman, Gregg Schuster, in the summer and fall of 2012. In his August 1, 2012 letter, Schuster stated: "Based on the [defendant’s] review of the materials you submitted, specifically FEMA’s May 25, 2012 letter of [r]eply regarding your LOMA application, it appears you have been asked to supply additional data in order for FEMA to continue processing your request. It does not appear that they are asking you to submit a [Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) ] application. In any event, as was done for your LOMA application, if in fact you are required to file a LOMR, the [defendant’s] Chief Executive Officer ... would assist you to the extent of reviewing your application and signing a concurrence form contained within your application. The [defendant] has done this for other private property LOMR applications in the past. However, all materials and maps required to complete the submission to FEMA are the private property owner’s responsibility." In his September 7, 2012 letter, Schuster similarly stated that "[a]fter speaking with FEMA representatives, including Caitlin Clifford, who you recommended that we speak with, it is our under-standing that as the property owner, there is no reason why you cannot continue with your LOMA application. Should you continue with your LOMA application, the [defendant] would be more than happy to assist you by giving you concurrence through the First Selectman’s [193 Conn.App. 849] Office." In a third letter dated October 16, 2012, Schuster provided the plaintiffs detailed advice on how to prepare a "successful LOMA application."[8]

Page 137

          In the months that followed, the plaintiffs continued to furnish the defendant with various documentation regarding the apparent inaccuracy on the map. As they allege in their operative complaint: "On various dates between October of 2012 and January of 2013 the [p]laintiffs submitted to the [defendant] scientific data which showed ... the existing [map] for the [property] and the adjacent property to be incorrect. Specifically, the [p]laintiffs’ survey showed that Judd Brook Channel as shown on the [map] was not in fact in the location shown on the [map] and that it was not on the [property]. Plaintiffs through historical data and survey data demonstrated that the sluiceway was located on [193 Conn.App. 850] the abutting property and as a result the flood plain elevation for the [property] was incorrect. This incorrect depiction places a significant portion of the [property] in the flood plain when it is not. As a result of this error, a substantial, if not the entire portion, of the [property] is rendered unusable." The plaintiffs thus demanded that the defendant file a LOMR application with FEMA on their behalf to correct the map in question.

          When the defendant declined to do so, this litigation ensued. The plaintiffs’ operative complaint contains three counts. In the first, they seek a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to file a LOMR application on their behalf to correct the alleged error on the map. The second count sounds in inverse condemnation, alleging that the defendant’s failure to file a LOMR application "effectively resulted in a confiscation of the [p]roperty without compensation." In the third count, the plaintiffs alleged negligence on the defendant’s part "in carrying out its obligations under the National Flood Insurance Program by failing to file a [LOMR] with FEMA." The defendants filed an answer, as well as a special defense to the third count of the complaint, on August 11, 2015. On August 18, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a certificate of closed pleadings, in which they requested a court trial.

          The defendants thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment, which was accompanied by several exhibits, including application forms and instructions for both LOMR and LOMA applications. In response, the plaintiffs filed an opposition, to which they attached copies of various correspondence and Wozniak’s affidavit. The court heard argument from the parties on November 13, 2017. In its subsequent memorandum of decision, the court concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to any of the three counts alleged in the complaint and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.