Buschmann v. Connecticut Siting Council

── Buschmann v. Connecticut Siting Council ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 28, 2026 Author: Clark Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Buschmann v. Connecticut Siting Council MARK BUSCHMANN, TRUSTEE, ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL ET AL. (AC 48168) Clark, Seeley and Palmer, Js. Syllabus The plaintiffs appealed from the Superior Court’s judgment denying their motion to open the court’s judgment sustaining their appeal from the defen- dant Connecticut Siting Council’s decision to approve an application for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the construc- tion of a cell phone tower. The plaintiffs filed their motion to open after the newly constituted council, on remand, unanimously approved the application without holding a new public hearing. They claimed that the court abused its discretion in denying their motion to open because the court’s memorandum of decision did not adequately specify the manner in which the council was to proceed on remand. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to open, as the plaintiffs failed to establish a compelling reason to grant the motion. Argued September 10, 2025—officially released April 28, 2026 Procedural History Appeal from a decision by the named defendant approv- ing an application for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the construction of a cell phone tower filed by the defendant Homeland Tow- ers, LLC, et al., brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain and tried to the court, Budzik, J.; judgment sustaining the plaintiffs’ appeal; thereafter, the court, Budzik, J., denied the plaintiffs’ motion to open the judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Affirmed. David F. Sherwood, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Robert L. Marconi, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney general, for the appellee (named defendant). Brendan M. Goodhouse, with whom was Christopher B. Fisher, for the appellees (defendant Homeland Tow- ers, LLC, et al.).  Buschmann v. Connecticut Siting Council Opinion PALMER, J. In this case involving an administrative appeal from an adverse decision of the defendant Con- necticut Siting Council (council), the plaintiffs, Mark Buschmann and Jamie Buschmann, as trustees, and Mark Buschmann, as an intervenor pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-19,1 appeal from the decision of the trial court, Budzik, J., denying their motion to open the judg- ment of