This appeal by the plaintiffs, Sachem's Head Association, Winifred E. Anderson, and H. Milton Bullard, Jr., concerns the action of the defendant commissioner in issuing a permit to the defendant Madeline A. Greene to erect a seawall in the navigable waters of Sachem's Head Harbor in the town of Guilford. The Superior Court heard evidence to clarify the basis of the commissioner's decision and to determine whether the plaintiffs were aggrieved. See Hotchkiss Grove Assn., Inc. v. Water Resources Commission, 161 Conn. 50, 56-57, 282 A.2d 890. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were not aggrieved and dismissed the appeal. From the judgment rendered the plaintiffs have appealed to this court, assigning error in the facts found; in the refusal to find material facts claimed to be admitted or undisputed; in the rulings on evidence; in the conclusions reached; and in the overruling of the plaintiffs' claims of law.
Since the plaintiffs have failed to brief the claimed error that facts were found without evidence, it is considered abandoned. Pappas v. Pappas, 164 Conn. 242, 243, 320 A.2d 809. The failure to brief the claimed error in rulings on evidence merits the same disposition. Schwartz v. Hamden, 168 Conn. 8, 20, 357 A.2d 488. The remaining assignments of error which are relevant to the issues will be considered in the body of this opinion.
The plaintiffs Anderson and Bullard are the owners of property abutting the defendant Greene's property on the north and south respectively. Sachem's Head Harbor lies to the west of those properties. The length of the proposed seawall is 220 feet, extending some 50 feet into Sachem's Head Harbor from the upland portion of the Greene property. Anderson and Bullard alleged that they were aggrieved by the issuance of the permit because the value of their land would be depreciated by the erection of the seawall. Anderson further claimed that the proposed seawall would interfere with the use of an existing dock extending into the harbor from her land.
As noted, the trial court heard evidence on the issue of aggrievement of Anderson and Bullard and concluded that they had not made the requisite showing that their property rights were adversely
The plaintiffs argue that the court erred in not finding facts based on the "undisputed" testimony of a real estate developer and broker that the value of the Anderson and Bullard properties would depreciate by 10 to 15 percent if the seawall were built. The trial court, however, rejected that testimony as speculative and of little weight. It found that the witness was not a real estate appraiser; that he had never visited the Anderson property for the purpose of making an evaluation; and that he had not prepared any report of his purported appraisal. "To secure an addition to the finding, an appellant must point to some part of the appendix, the pleadings, or an exhibit properly before us which discloses that the appellee admitted that the fact in question was true or that its truth was conceded to be undisputed. Practice Book § 628 (a); Martin v. Kavanewsky, 157 Conn. 514, 515, 255 A.2d 619; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. § 158." Malarney v. Peterson, 159 Conn. 342, 344, 269 A.2d 274. "That a witness testified to a fact without direct contradiction is not of itself sufficient; the trial court must be the judge of the credit to be given to a witness." Practice Book § 628 (a); see McLaughlin v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 164 Conn. 317, 319, 321 A.2d 456. Because there was no credible showing that the property rights of Anderson and Bullard were adversely affected, the trial court did not err in concluding that they were not aggrieved.
Notwithstanding that notice, the association contends that because the required statutory notice was not given to its chief executive officer and chairman of the planning and zoning commission, jurisdiction to issue the permit was lacking. "The fundamental reason for the requirement of notice is to
The association also alleged that it was aggrieved because it had exclusive zoning jurisdiction of the subject area and that, because of the issuance of the permit, its zoning ordinances were violated and the health, comfort, protection and convenience of persons living there were ignored. No showing, however, was made of what specific ordinances had been violated, or how the health, comfort, protection and convenience of the people were ignored. Moreover, the issuance of the permit was subject to all local laws or regulations relative to the subject property.
The trial court's conclusion that the association was not aggrieved cannot be disturbed.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.