author: WEST, J.

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ
    (AC 30422)
    DiPentima, Robinson and West, Js.

      Argued March 17
    officially released June 30, 2009

      Lisa J. Steele, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

      SusannE. Gill, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state’s attorney, and Joseph T. Corradino, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

WEST, J.

“It is hardly necessary to say that, the right to counsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Peeler, 265 Conn. 460, 470, 828 A.2d 1216 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1029, 124 S. Ct. 2094, 158 L. Ed. 2d 710 (2004), quoting Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932). “To be sure, [however] the right to counsel of choice is circumscribed in several important respects.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006). The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Enrique Martinez, the defendant, a continuance to secure the services of counsel of his choice in violation of his rights under the sixth amendment to the federal constitution. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal follows a retrial of the case after our Supreme Court reversed, in part, the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial. See State v. Martinez, 278 Conn. 598, 900 A.2d 485 (2006). In the defendant’s original trial, “[t]he state charged the defendant with one count of attempted murder in violation of [General Statutes] §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-54 (a), one count of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of [General Statutes] §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-54a (a), one count of assault in the first degree in violation of [General Statutes] § 53a-59 (a) (1), one count of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of [General Statutes] § 53a-92 (a) (2) (C), one count of carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a), and one count of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). In the second part of the information, the state also charged the defendant with one count of commission of an offense while released on bond in violation of General Statutes § 53a-40b. Thereafter, the case was tried to the jury, which returned a verdict of guilty on all counts except for the firearms charges, and found that the defendant had committed those offenses while out on bond in violation of § 53a-40b.” State v. Martinez, supra, 278 Conn. 603-604. On appeal, our Supreme Court reversed the judgment in part and remanded the case for a new trial on the charges of attempt to commit murder, assault in the first degree and kidnapping in the first degree and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. On remand, the state again charged the defendant with attempt to commit murder, assault and kidnapping. After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of those charges, and the court, Hauser, J., imposed a total effective sentence of thirty years incarceration. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in denying a continuance to allow him to secure the services of defense counsel of his choice and thus violated his rights under the federal constitution. We disagree.

The following facts are relevant to our resolution of the defendant’s claim. After the remand by our Supreme Court, the court, Fasano, J., held a hearing on June 30, 2006, concerning the defendant’s bond. At the hearing, the defendant was represented by his appellate counsel, Robert E. Byron. Byron indicated to the court that he would not be representing the defendant in his retrial. Senior assistant state’s attorney Joseph T. Corradino, appearing at the hearing, suggested to the court, in light of the state’s pending motion to correct filed with the Supreme Court concerning the opinion that remanded the defendant’s case for retrial and the fact that the defendant had private counsel during his original trial, that “[i]t might be appropriate to allow [the defendant] time to come up with money [to] retain counsel and . . . [therefore] put this [matter] over to the new term in September.” The court, however, set the next hearing for July 20, 2006.

At the outset of the July 20, 2006 hearing, the court, Comerford, J., addressed the defendant’s desire to hire private counsel. The defendant informed the court that his attempts to secure private counsel had been fruitless because the attorney whose services he was seeking to retain was on vacation. The court, at the defendant’s request, scheduled the next hearing for August 10, 2006, to give him enough time to arrange for representation by private counsel. At the August 10, 2006 hearing, the defendant indicated that he was unable to hire private counsel because of financial problems and requested the services of a public defender. The court, Fasano, J., found that the defendant was eligible for public defender services and appointed the public defenders’ office to represent the defendant. The next hearing was held on August 24, 2006, at which Jonathan Demirjian, an attorney from the public defenders’ office, appeared for the defendant. Demirjian represented to the court, Comerford, J., that due to the public defenders’ prior representation of some of the witnesses and victims in the case, it would need to appoint a special public defender to represent the defendant. In September, 2006, Eroll V. Skyers was appointed as special public defender to represent the defendant.

Jury selection was scheduled to commence on January 29,2007. At that hearing, however, Skyers requested a five month continuance to familiarize himself with the transcripts of the defendant’s original trial and to prepare a strategy for the retrial. The court, Hauser, J., granted a continuance until February 15, 2007, and scheduled jury selection to begin then. On February 13, 2007, Skyers filed a motion for a continuance, which was granted. The next hearing was held on March 6, 2007, at which time jury selection was to begin. At the outset of the hearing, the court heard from the defendant directly. The defendant complained about Skyers’ not visiting him, inadequately discussing trial strategy with him and not obtaining for him copies of transcripts of the original trial and other documents pertinent to the retrial. In response, the court pointed out to the defendant that Skyers had been representing him in his retrial since September, 2006, and that both he and Skyers had been in court concerning the retrial on several occasions since then, the last time in January. The court continued, stating: “At that time, you asked for a continuance, and I believe Mr. Skyers joined in it and since—at that time there was no—no discussion with the court that you were seeking another attorney, that you were looking for a private lawyer to represent you. This is—you come up to the court now, [at] the moment of trial, [and] you bring it up.”

The court also informed the defendant of the following. “Gary Mastronardi, [a defense attorney in private practice], I think I should put on the record, contacted the court and indicated that he might be willing to enter an appearance on [the defendant’s] behalf, but he needed at least sixty to ninety days [to prepare], and that’s something that the court just couldn’t allow. The case has been down, it was supposed to go forward previously, and there has been a good amount of time [since then].” After discussing with Skyers his level of preparedness and hearing from the state, the judge concluded that “[t]o have a continuance of sixty to ninety days on the day of—on the day of trial would— would not be something that this court would countenance, given all the totality of the circumstances for this case, so based on that, I’m not going to grant a continuance. We’re going to start with our jury selection this morning.” It is this ruling that the defendant challenges on appeal. Further facts will be set forth as necessary.

“The determination of whether to grant a request for a continuance is within the discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. ... A reviewing court is bound by the principle that [e]very reasonable presumption in favor of the proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion will be made. ... To prove an abuse of discretion, an appellant must show that the trial court’s denial of a request for a continuance was arbitrary. . . . There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied. . . . After the commencement of trial, neither a right to be represented by counsel of choice nor a right to due process entitle a defendant to a continuance on demand. . . . Among the factors that may enter into the court’s exercise of discretion in considering a request for a continuance are the timeliness of the request for continuance; the likely length of the delay . . . the impact of delay on the litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; the perceived legitimacy of the reasons proffered in support of the request . . . the timing of the request; the likelihood that the denial would substantially impair the defendant’s ability to defend himself; [and] the availability of other, adequately equipped and prepared counsel to try the case .... We are especially hesitant to find an abuse of discretion where the court has denied a motion for continuance made on the day of the trial. ... In order to work a delay by a last minute [replacement] of counsel there must exist exceptional circumstances.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ross V., 110 Conn. App. 1, 7-8, 953 A.2d 945, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 939, 958 A.2d 1247 (2008). Last, we emphasize that “an appellate court should limit its assessment of the reasonableness of the trial court’s exercise of its discretion to a consideration of those factors, on the record, that were presented to the trial court, or of which that court was aware, at the time of its ruling on the motion for a continuance.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Hamilton, 228 Conn. 234, 242, 636 A.2d 760 (1994).

The defendant makes several arguments in support of his claim, many of which, however, are based on factors not on the record or presented to the court, or are claims of which the court was not aware at the time of its ruling. First, the defendant contends that “because . . . Mastronardi desired a sixty day continuance, and [the taking of evidence] was intended to start thirty-six days later . . . the difference of twenty-four days (as planned), or amere eleven days [as actually took place], was so small” that it amounted to an abuse of discretion and, therefore, violated the defendant’s sixth amendment right to counsel of his choice. We first note that the record shows that Mastronardi represented to the court that, at a minimum, he required sixty to ninety days to prepare for the defendant’s trial. The defendant’s representation that Mastronardi desired only a sixty day continuance is, at best, not a fact on the record or one of which the court was aware at the time it made its ruling. Therefore, we will not consider as a factor in our assessment of the reasonableness of the court’s denial of the continuance that Mastronardi represented to the court that he required only a sixty day continuance. For the same reason, we also will not consider as a factor, as the defendant asserts on appeal, that Mastronardi would have agreed to split the representation of the defendant, in that he would have allowed Skyers to select the jury and that Mastronardi would have taken over the trial when the taking of evidence commenced. The record does not reflect whether any such arrangement was in existence at the time the motion was denied. Although we will not consider such factors as these, we must consider those factors that were on the record or presented to the court or of which the court was aware at the time of its ruling on the defendant’s motion for a continuance.

Those factors that we must consider include the following. The defendant initially appeared before the court for his retrial on June 30, 2006, and several more times during the ensuing months. Both the court and the state paid special attention to the defendant’s purported desire to secure private representation. The state advocated for an extended continuance at that first hearing after the remand of the case to give the defendant an opportunity to hire private counsel. On July 20, 2006, the court granted a continuance to the defendant for the purpose of securing the services of counsel of his choice. Only when it became apparent to the court, on the basis of the defendant’s representations to it, that he was not able to secure the services of counsel of his choice, did the court appoint a public defender in September, 2006. On December 4, 2006, the defendant appeared in court when his case was put down on the firm jury trial list. On January 29, 2007, jury selection was to commence, and the defendant was, again, before the court. The case, however, was continued because of a request from Skyers. On neither of those occasions, nor at any time prior, did the defendant express to the court any misgivings with Skyers’ representation, desire for private counsel or request a continuance to seek private counsel.

On March 6, 2007, after the court had granted a second request for a continuance on February 13, 2007, and jury selection was to commence, the defendant requested to speak directly to the court. The defendant made complaints about Skyers’ (1) inadequately conferring with him about the retrial on three occasions, (2) not visiting him while he was incarcerated and (3) not timely giving him copies of documents pertinent to the retrial. The defendant also stated that he “was trying to hire a lawyer at the same time, and [he] was trying to see if [he] could get a little bit more time to hire a lawyer.” It was in response to this that the court stated: “Mastronardi, [a defense attorney in private practice], I think I should put on the record, contacted the court and indicated that he might be willing to enter an appearance on [the defendant’s] behalf, but [that] he needed at least sixty to ninety days [to prepare] . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

Prior to ruling, the court considered the length of time the case had been ready for retrial and questioned Skyers on his level of preparedness. Skyers assured the court that he had reviewed the transcripts of the defendant’s original trial as well as other pertinent documents and had discussed with the defendant trial strategy, including the efficacy of hiring an investigator. Skyers further assured the court that he was prepared to go forward with the case that day and that he could “put up a good defense.” The state also addressed the court on this matter. The state underscored that the evidence in the retrial would be virtually identical to the evidence it presented at the defendant’s original trial. The only new evidence, the state reported, was the four page agreement that a co-offender, Alex Gonzalez, had entered into with the state and the resulting three page statement in which Gonzalez implicated the defendant and, by March 6, 2007, both documents had been given to the defendant. The state also told the court that Gonzalez had already been tried and convicted on the basis of the same evidence on which the defendant previously had been convicted and would be used against him in the retrial. The state, in addition, told the court that Skyers also had been given the transcripts from the Gonzalez trial. The court, on the basis of the totality of the circumstances, denied the request for a continuation.

On the record before us and on the basis of the factors presented in State v. Ross V., supra, 110 Conn. App. 7-8, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s implicit request for a continuance. The court, in its oral decision, reflected on the facts that the defendant’s request was made on the day jury selection was to begin, that the defendant had made no representations in his previous appearances that he desired new counsel, that it was a sixty to ninety day continuance that he requested and that Skyers represented to the court that he was prepared to go forward. The court acted within its discretion in considering each of these factors. Moreover, the court need not have considered those factors not on the record or brought to its attention that the defendant now urges this court to consider. See State v. Hamilton, supra, 228 Conn. 242. Other factors that were present on the record, however, and were presented to the court, or of which the court was aware at the time of its ruling on the motion for a continuance support our conclusion that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request. One such factor we find compelling is Mastronardi’s ultimate availability to represent the defendant. Even aside from the defendant’s unfounded assertion that Mastronardi was willing to take over representation after Skyers had selected the jury, the court explicitly stated that Mastronardi represented that he might be willing to enter an appearance on the defendant’s behalf. It can hardly be suggested that this is a representation of counsel prepared and willing to take over the case. See State v. Ross V., supra, 8. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a continuance.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The sixth amendment to the federal constitution provides in relevant part: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

       “After the jury returned its guilty verdict, the defendant conceded culpability on another pending charge that he had violated his probation, and the trial court then found by a preponderance of the evidence that he had violated his probation.” State v. Martinez, supra, 278 Conn. 604 n.12.

       The underlying facts detailing the incidents that led to the defendant’s arrest and conviction, which are not relevant to this appeal, were set forth thoroughly by our Supreme Court; see State v. Martinez, supra, 278 Conn. 601-604; and will not be recounted here.

       The defendant also claims that the court’s denial violated his rights under article first, § 8, of the state constitution. The defendant, however, has provided no analysis for this claim. “We have repeatedly apprised litigants that we will not entertain a state constitutional claim unless the defendant has provided an independent analysis under the particular provisions of the state constitution at issue. . . . Without a separately briefed and analyzed state constitutional claim, we deem abandoned the defendant’s claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 167-68, 962 A.2d 81 (2009). Accordingly, we decline to review the defendant’s state constitutional claim.

       The record reveals that Skyers entered his appearance for the defendant on September 21, 2006.

       The state concedes, and we agree, that it is apparent from the record, including the court’s subsequent inquiry and ruling on the matter, that the court treated those circumstances—the defendant’s assertion of dissatisfaction with Skyers and apparent eleventh hour foray into his replacement along with Mastronardi’s contact with the court—as an implicit request for a continuance by the defendant. We shall do the same on appeal because, in these circumstances, it is clear that the defendant’s claim fits within the parameters of this court’s holding that it will hear a claim only if it appears on the record that the question was distinctly raised at trial and was ruled on and decided by the court adversely to the appellant’s claim. See In re Candids E., 111 Conn. App. 210, 214 n.7, 958 A.2d 229 (2008).

       The court, soon after denying the request, stated to the venire panel, “[o]ur goal is to start [taking evidence in this case] on Wednesday, April 11 .... If we are unable to meet that date, then we will be starting April 24.” The record shows that the taking of evidence commenced on April 24, 2007.

       The level of Mastronardi’s willingness to represent the defendant was never further explored on the record.

       The defendant also argues that because the court’s denial of his request for a continuance violated his right to counsel of choice, it is not subject to harmless error analysis, but, rather, it is structural error subject to automatic reversal. The United States Supreme Court has held, however, that it is the “erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice, with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, [that] unquestionably qualifies as structural error.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, supra, 548 U.S. 150. Because we conclude that the court’s denial of the defendant’s request was a proper exercise of its discretion, it was, therefore, not erroneous and we need not address this issue.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: ROBINSON, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    GOODSPEED AIRPORT, LLC v. TOWN OF EAST HADDAM
    (AC 29526)
    Flynn, C. J., and Robinson and Stoughton, Js.

      Argued March 10
    officially released June 30, 2009

      Kenneth Rosenthal, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      JohnS. Bennet, with whom, on the brief, was Kenneth McDonnell, for the appellee (defendant).
   Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

The plaintiff, Goodspeed Airport, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying relief on its claim seeking classification and assessment of its property as open space. The defendant, the town of East Haddam, had denied two applications filed by the plaintiff seeking open space classification. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied the plaintiff any relief for the defendant’s wrongful refusal to grant an open space classification and (2) concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to classification for additional acreage of its property as open space pursuant to General Statutes § 12-107e. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our review of the plaintiffs appeal. The present matter arises from three related tax appeals involving the plaintiffs 57.12 acre parcel located at 15 Lumberyard Road in East Haddam. The property contains a commercial utility airport that occupies 14.08 acres of the parcel. The airport has existed at this location since 1964 and operates under a special exception to the East Haddam zoning regulations. The remaining 43.04 acres contain open fields located entirely within a flood plain.

On the October 1, 2003 grand list, the property was valued at $2,354,020 with a tax assessment based on 70 percent of that value, or $1,647,810. On October 8, 2003, the plaintiff filed a written application to have 43.04 acres of its property classified, and thereby assessed, as open space pursuant to § 12-107e. The town assessor denied this application, and the plaintiff filed an appeal with the board of assessment appeals of East Haddam (board). The board elected not to conduct a hearing and, on March 15, 2004, issued a notice pursuant to General Statutes § 12-111 (a). The notice stated that any further appeal must be directed to the Superior Court.

Thereafter, on May 19, 2004, the plaintiff filed the first of three tax appeals in the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12-117a and 12-119. The original appeal subsequently was amended on June 14, 2004, and contained two counts. In count one, the plaintiff alleged that it was aggrieved by the town assessor’s refusal to classify 43.04 acres of its parcel as open space pursuant to § 12-107e, thereby resulting in an excessive valuation of its property. In count two, the plaintiff claimed that the improper classification amounted to a 'wrongful assessment. Following a trial on the merits, the court concluded that the town assessor used an improper standard in determining the classification of open space land. The case was remanded to the assessor to make the necessary factual findings. On January 19, 2007, the assessor issued a determination of facts, concluding that 43.04 acres of the plaintiffs parcel qualified as open space.

While this first appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed two additional appeals in the Superior Court arising from the October 1, 2005 assessment of the property. The cases were consolidated on November 20, 2006. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that it was aggrieved by the assessor’s refusal to classify 56.12 acres of the parcel as open space, thereby resulting in an excessive assessment value. The plaintiff also alleged wrongful assessment pursuant to § 12-119.

After a hearing, the court disposed of all three appeals through a memorandum of decision issued on December 20, 2007. In light of the assessor’s factual findings on remand that the property qualified as open space, the court determined that the only issue before it regarding the 43.04 acres was the fair market value. The court then concluded that the plaintiff had failed to sustain its burden of proving that the property was overvalued, and, accordingly, the first appeal was denied. The court also found in favor of the defendant on the consolidated 2005 appeals, concluding that the plaintiff did not establish that the assessor’s refusal to grant open space classification for 13.08 of the remaining 14.08 acres was improper. The plaintiff then filed the present appeal. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

A

The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly denied it relief despite the court’s conclusion that the defendant had wrongfully refused to grant open space classification for 43.04 acres of the 57.12 acre parcel. Specifically, the plaintiff maintains that § 12-107e (d) establishes, as a matter of law, that the improper denial of an application for the classification of land as open space constitutes aggrievement and does not require a second showing of aggrievement by overassessment pursuant to § 12-117a. Accordingly, it is the plaintiffs position that the court’s decision denying the plaintiff relief due to the absence of evidence of an overassessment is contrary to the statutory language of § 12-107e. We disagree.

The resolution of this issue rests on our interpretation of § 12-107e and its relationship to § 12-117a. “Our standard of review for issues of statutory interpretation is well settled. Issues of statutory construction raise questions of law, over which we exercise plenary review.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Urich v. Fish, 112 Conn. App. 837, 840-41, 965 A.2d 567 (2009).

We begin our analysis with a review of the pertinent statutory authority. Section 12-107e (d) provides: “Any person aggrieved by the denial by an assessor of any application for the classification of land as open space land shall have the same rights and remedies for appeal and relief as are provided in the general statutes for taxpayers claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of assessors or boards of assessment appeals.” Section § 12-117a provides such a method for an aggrieved party to seek relief: “Any person . . . claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the board of tax review or the board of assessment appeals . . . may . . . make application, in the nature of an appeal therefrom . . . to the superior court .... The court shall have power to grant such relief as to justice and equity appertains, upon such terms and in such manner and form as appear equitable . . . .” General Statutes § 12-117a.

In addition to the statutory language, we also must be cognizant of the extensive jurisprudence that has developed and shaped the current tax appeal process because it provides a necessary context to the statutory language and the court’s conclusion. “Section 12-117a, which allows taxpayers to appeal the decisions of municipal boards of [assessment appeals] to the Superior Court, provide [s] a method by which an owner of property may directly call in question the valuation placed by assessors upon his property . . . . In a § 12-117a appeal, the trial court performs a two step function. The burden, in the first instance, is upon the plaintiff to show that he has, in fact, been aggrieved by the action of the board in that his property has been overassessed. . . . Only after the court determines that the taxpayer has met his burden of proving that the assessor’s valuation was excessive and that the refusal of the board of [assessment appeals] to alter the assessment was improper, however, may the court then proceed to the second step in a § 12-117a appeal and exercise its equitable power to grant such relief as to justice and equity appertains .... If a taxpayer is found to be aggrieved by the decision of the board of [assessment appeals], the court tries the matter de novo and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the applicant’s property.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Breezy Knoll Assn., Inc. v. Morris, 286 Conn. 766, 775-76, 946 A.2d 215 (2008).

The statutory language of § 12-117a does not delineate this two step process specifically; however, the development of this process can be traced back to our Supreme Court’s analysis in Ives v. Goshen, 65 Conn. 456, 459-460, 32 A. 932 (1895), in which the court stated: “The assessment of property for taxation is an administrative proceeding; the judicial power is called into action to remedy an illegal assessment. The difficulty of obtaining redress in such a case through an ordinary civil action, probably induced the legislature to provide this proceeding whereby an aggrieved party might prevent the infliction of an injury, viz: the collection of an illegal tax, instead of being left to his inadequate remedy in a civil action after the injury has been inflicted. This law does not impose on the Superior Court the duties of assessors, nor of a board of relief, unless so far as may be necessary to grant relief to a person who has been aggrieved by the action of the board. The statute does not purport to give the court general authority to review the action of the assessors or board of relief; said ‘court shall have power to grant such relief—that is, relief to the aggrieved applicant—‘as shall to justice and equity appertain . . . upon such terms and in such manner and form as appears equitable.’ The question whether or not the applicant has been aggrieved is made a judicial question, and must be determined in the affirmative before the power to grant relief, which is in its nature largely administrative, and is given in terms so broad as to imply great discretionary power, is called into action. An applicant can be aggrieved only by such action of the board of relief as must result in his payment of an unjust and therefore practically illegal tax; this can happen only by an improper listing of his own property, or, by an improper listing of the property of others so as to increase his taxation.”

In the present case, the court analyzed the plaintiffs claim in accordance with the well established two step process for the evaluation of a § 12-117a appeal. The court recognized that the plaintiff wrongfully had been denied its original application for open space classification; however, after reviewing the testimony of each party’s appraiser, the court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff did not sustain its burden of proving overvaluation. The propriety of the court’s application of the § 12-117a rubric is the gravamen of the plaintiffs claim on appeal.

Under a plain reading of the language of § 12-107e, the plaintiff must establish aggrievement through the denial of an application for open space classification. Only after it establishes this initial threshold does the plaintiff become entitled to the “same rights and remedies for appeal and relief as are provided in the general statutes for taxpayers claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of assessors or boards of assessment appeals.” General Statutes § 12-107e (d). It is the plaintiffs contention that aggrievement is established by the denial of the application, and, accordingly, once the application is denied, the plaintiff then became entitled to a de novo review of the valuation of the property pursuant to the rights and remedies afforded to an aggrieved party under § 12-117a. The plaintiff further argues that it was not required to overcome the initial procedural hurdle in § 12-117a of sustaining the burden of establishing aggrievement by overvaluation. This argument misconstrues the meaning of taxpayer aggrievement in a tax appeal.

As stated in Ives v. Goshen, supra, 65 Conn. 460, and adopted by its long line of legal progeny, a taxpayer is aggrieved only by an action of a board that results in the payment of an illegal tax. Thus, for the plaintiff to assert a claim successfully that it was aggrieved by the denial of an application for open space classification, it must establish that the denial of the application resulted in an illegal assessment. This demonstration is inherent to its claim of aggrievement. Only after it satisfied this initial threshold is it entitled to “the same rights and remedies for appeal and relief as are provided in the general statutes for taxpayers claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of assessors or boards of assessment appeals.” General Statutes § 12-107e (d). To interpret the language of § 12-107e to mean that a taxpayer is aggrieved by the mere denial of an application for open space classification would ignore the long line of precedent that has defined “aggrievement” as a term of art in the context of a tax appeal.

We therefore conclude that a taxpayer who alleges aggrievement by the denial of an application for open space classification still must sustain the initial burden of proving that the denial has resulted in an overassessment of his property. It is not sufficient merely to establish that the application improperly was denied; to be aggrieved, the taxpayer must establish that the denial resulted in an overassessment. This conclusion is based on the plain language of § 12-107e and can be read in harmony with § 12-117a and the extensive case law that has developed in this area. “[W]e are required to read statutes together when they relate to the same subject matter .... Accordingly, [i]n determining the meaning of a statute . . . we look not only at the provision at issue, but also to the broader statutory scheme to ensure the coherency of our construction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316, 322, 951 A.2d 587, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929, 958 A.2d 157 (2008). “Legislation never is written on a clean slate, nor is it ever read in isolation or applied in a vacuum. Every new act takes its place as a component of an extensive and elaborate system of written laws. . . . Construing statutes by reference to others advances [the values of harmony and consistency within the law]. In fact, courts have been said to be under a duty to construe statutes harmoniously where that can reasonably be done.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, 259 Conn. 131, 157, 788 A.2d 1158 (2002).

Accordingly, the court properly analyzed the plaintiffs claim under the well established rubric for review of claims brought pursuant to § 12-117a.

B

The plaintiff also argues that the court improperly failed to conduct a de novo review of the valuation of the property in light of the overwhelming evidence that the plaintiff had submitted to establish that the assessment was excessive. We already have concluded that the plaintiff had to establish aggrievement by way of an overassessment before it was entitled to a de novo review of the value of the property classified as open space; therefore, we review this claim to the extent that the plaintiff is contesting the court’s finding that the plaintiff did not sustain its burden of proving an overassessment of its property.

“[W]e review a court’s determination in a tax appeal pursuant to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Under this deferential standard, [w]e do not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached. Rather, we focus on the conclusion of the trial court, as well as the method by which it arrived at that conclusion, to determine whether it is legally correct and factually supported. ... A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sakon v. Glastonbury, 111 Conn. App. 242, 246, 958 A.2d 801 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 916, 965 A.2d 554 (2009).

In the present case, Louis E. Durocher, the plaintiff’s appraiser, testified that the highest and best use of the 14.08 acres was as vacant land, despite the fact that this property was currently used as an airport. After noting that highly comparable land sales were difficult to obtain, he selected five sales along the Connecticut River. The court reviewed all five of these sales and concluded that “Durocher’s so-called comparables are simply not similar to the subject property.” The court also noted that Durocher did not attribute a value to the improvements on the airport site, having concluded that they were obsolete and of no value despite the fact that an airport facility was still operated at that location. Regarding the remaining 43.04 acres, Durocher conducted an independent valuation of this area and concluded that the value of the land, as open space, was $3000 per acre. The court found it significant that Durocher used the negative aspects of the airport located on the 14.08 acres to decrease the value of the remaining portion of the parcel, despite his previous conclusion that the highest and best use of the 14.08 acres was as vacant land. The court ultimately found Durocher’s appraisal to lack credibility and, accordingly, determined that the plaintiff did not sustain its burden of proof.

On appeal, the plaintiff does not provide legal argument to undermine the court’s credibility determination of his appraiser, Durocher; rather, its principal argument is that the evidence provided by the defendant’s assessor demonstrates that the property is overvalued because the defendant’s assessor indicated a proposed value that itself was $400,000 less than the assessed value of the property as it appeared on the 2002 grand list. This argument ignores that fact that the plaintiff carries the burden of establishing aggrievement and that the court found that the plaintiffs appraiser was not credible. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argument relies on the accuracy of testimony that itself was found to lack credibility. The court found that the defendant’s appraiser, Robert Mulready, had provided credible testimony regarding the highest and best use of the property; however, it also concluded that Mulready’s valuation of the property lacked the same credibility as that of the plaintiffs appraiser. The court stated: “[T]he comparables selected by Mulready to establish value lacked the same credibility. For the most part, Mulready’s selection of comparable sales, like those of Durocher, were not similar or comparable to the subject land.” Therefore, the plaintiffs argument relies on the accuracy of testimony that the court found to lack credibility.

“[T]he determination of the credibility of expert witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony is within the province of the trier of facts, who is privileged to adopt whatever testimony he reasonably believes to be credible.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Abington, LLC v. Avon, 101 Conn. App. 709, 719, 922 A.2d 1148 (2007). Here, the court provided an ample review of the testimony of both appraisers and specifically found that neither appraiser provided a credible valuation of the property. On the basis of this finding, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish that its property was overassessed. Upon review of the record, we find no reason to conclude that the court’s determination was clearly erroneous, and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to a de novo review of the valuation of its property.

II

The plaintiff next claims that the court improperly concluded that it was not entitled to open space classification for an additional 13.08 acres of its property, which would result in all but one acre of the 57.12 acre parcel being classified as open space. The plaintiff had sought this classification in its 2005 application, while the original application for classification of the 43.04 acres was pending, and maintains that it satisfied the requirements delineated in § 12-107e. Therefore, the plaintiff argues that the court should have concluded that the application was denied improperly by the defendant.

“[T]he scope of our appellate review depends upon the proper characterization of the rulings made by the trial court. To the extent that the trial court has made findings of fact, our review is limited to deciding whether such findings were clearly erroneous. When, however, the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary and we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bristol v. Tilcon Minerals, Inc., 284 Conn. 55, 87, 931 A.2d 237 (2007). When the resolution of an issue requires us to review and to analyze the relevant town zoning regulations, “the interpretation of the regulations presents a question of law [and] our review is plenary.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hescock v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 112 Conn. App. 239, 244, 962 A.2d 177 (2009).

Here, the plaintiff maintains that it satisfied the requirements of § 12-107e because (1) its property was included in the areas designated for open space classification in the defendant’s plan of development, (2) its application for classification was timely filed and (3) there had not been a change in use from the date of the planning commission designation and the date of the classification. Our review of the record, however, reveals that the court did not reach the second and third issues, having concluded that the plaintiffs property was not included in the areas designated as open space. It also is relevant to note that the plaintiffs 2005 application for open space classification sought the classification of all but one acre of the 57.12 acre parcel. This court already has addressed the trial court’s analysis as it related to the 43.04 acre portion not used as an airport, and, therefore, we focus our analysis on the court’s decision as it relates to 13.08 acres of the 14.08 acre portion of the property that the court found was used as a commercial airport.

In accordance with § 12-107e (a), the court began its analysis of the eligibility for open space classification with a review of the defendant’s 1981 plan of development. Referencing a list of “existing and proposed open space” areas, the court acknowledged the inclusion of inland wetlands and watercourses and special flood hazard areas on this list, and concluded that the subject property was located within the area that the planning commission had recommended for open space. The court then noted, however, that the airport use of the property dated back to the 1960s and was approved before the adoption of the inland wetland laws and current restrictive flood regulations. Currently, the airport is located in a lake and riverfront district (LR district) with an overlay flood plain zone. The airport is a permitted use in the flood plain zone; however, it operates as valid preexisting use in the LR district. Because the airport operates pursuant to a special exemption, the court determined that “the issue must be whether the planning commission contemplated that the airport use of the subject property at the time it adopted the development plan, included the airport as open space land.” In response to its own question, the court concluded that the airport was not intended to be included. Specifically, the court stated that “[t]he granting of the special exception to the zoning regulations authorizing the use of the subject property for airport service in the 1960s, as acknowledged in the [defendant’s] plan of development, together with the physical presence of the airport runway, airport hangars, terminal building and the operation of the airport itself, support the assessor’s determination that the airport land was not classified in the plan of development as ‘open space land.’ ”

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the property is included in the wetlands and flood hazard area and that there is no evidence to support the court’s conclusion that the plan of development intended to carve out exceptions to these designations. This argument ignores the fact that the airport operates pursuant to a special exemption. Thus, although the plaintiff attempts simply to characterize its land as wetlands or a flood plain, it was appropriate for the court to review the application cognizant of the fact that the land is currently the location of an operating commercial airport.

As provided in § 12-107e (a): “The planning commission of any municipality in preparing a plan of conservation and development for such municipality may designate upon such plan areas which it recommends for preservation as areas of open space land, provided such designation is approved by a majority vote of the legislative body of such municipality. . . .’’In the 1981 plan of development, the defendant’s planning commission contemplated seven types of open space land that qualified as “existing and proposed open space.” This list, however, was included in the section of the plan of development that discussed proposed land use. Upon a close reading of the plan of development in its entirety, we note that the plan provides a detailed discussion of its intent to preserve open space that provides necessary context to the list of existing and proposed open space. Given the dual nature of the property, further discussion of the plan’s intent is merited.

The plan of development sets forth a comprehensive “Environmental Goal” that encompasses several policies that are relevant to our discussion. In the section entitled “Unique Scenic and Natural Open Spaces,” the plan states: “The overall intent of planning for open space preservation is to create an environment that continuously enriches the lives of the Town’s present and future populations. It is the preservation of those key parcels of land which gives the Town its character or uniqueness, and if withdrawn from their present natural state would have a negative effect on the quality of human experience.” The plan then continues: “The framework for this section is based upon the three major functions of open space: (1) Conservation of natural resources; (2) Shaping community design; and (3) Provision of outdoor recreation areas.”

Notwithstanding the guidance offered by this language, the plaintiff bases its claimed entitlement to open space classification on language that appears in a later section of the plan entitled: “Proposed Land Use.” This section is intended to describe “in effect a ‘blue print’ for the future use of land in the Town of East Haddam. It is intended to provide decision makers in the years to come with a sound basis for evaluating development proposals and with a growth management tool which recognizes the need for balance among the several possible land uses.” It is this section that lists land that is intended to fall in the category of existing and proposed open space. The list includes the following, without the benefit of additional discussion: “[1] All existing State of Connecticut Park and Forest Land, [2] Town of East Haddam municipal, recreational and open space areas, [ 3] East Haddam Fish and Game Club property which is related in the Eight Mile River Preservation Corridor, [ 4] Nature Conservancy Land, [5] Proposed Gateway Acquisition Areas, [6] Inland wetlands and water courses [7] Special flood hazard areas.”

The following legal principles will aid our review of the plan of development. Pursuant to General Statutes § 8-23, a town planning commission is required to prepare, amend and adopt apian of conservation and development for the municipality. We review this plan as we would a local ordinance to determine the intent of the planning commission. “A local ordinance is a municipal legislative enactment and the same canons of construction which we use in interpreting statutes are applicable to ordinances. ... A court must interpret a statute as written . . . and it is to be considered as a whole, with a view toward reconciling its separate parts in order to render a reasonable overall interpretation. ... A zoning ordinance is a local legislative enactment, and in its interpretation the question is the intention of the legislative body as found from the words employed in the ordinance. . . . The words employed are to be interpreted in their natural and usual meaning. . . . The language of the ordinance is construed so that no clause or provision is considered superfluous, void or insignificant. . . . The regulations must be construed as a whole and in such a way as to reconcile all then-provisions as far as possible. . . . [Regulations are to be construed as a whole since particular words or sections of the regulations, considered separately, may be lacking in precision of meaning to afford a standard sufficient to sustain them.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fedus v. Zoning & Planning Commission, 112 Conn. App. 844, 849-50, 964 A.2d 549, cert. denied, 292 Conn. 904, 905, 973 A.2d 103, 104 (2009).

Given the detailed discussion in a prior section of the plan specifically addressing open space preservation, we conclude that the categorical list contained in the “Proposed Land Use” section was intended as a summary of the types of land contemplated by the defendant that, if preserved as open space, would satisfy the overarching environmental goal. Therefore, the fact that an airport exists on a wetlands and flood hazard plain does not entitle the plaintiff, in itself, to open space classification of that land. The defendant set forth clear goals to be accomplished by open space preservation: (1) conserve natural resources, (2) shape community design and (3) provide outdoor recreation areas. The seven types of open space included in the later section of the plan satisfy these goals, thereby allowing the sections of the plan to be read in harmony. Given the unique nature of the airport, however, the determination of whether the defendant intended to include the airport is based on whether an operating commercial airport satisfies the environmental goal. We conclude, as did the court, that it does not.

As found by the court: “The subject property contains a commercial utility airport with a 2100 foot paved runway. The airport does not have a control tower and primarily serves small single engine airplanes weighing 12,500 pounds or less. The subject airport consists of 14.08 acres of land containing a terminal building and two buildings with a combined total of thirty-five individual hangars.” Furthermore, it is relevant to our analysis that the plaintiff implicitly conceded that the airport itself is not entitled to open space classification. The plaintiff specifically sought open space classification for 13.08 acres of the remaining 14.08 acres on the basis of the fact that the aggregate footprint of the buildings on the property was less than one acre, leaving 13.08 acres of undeveloped space. The court did not make a finding regarding the location or size of the buildings and specifically found that the airport consisted of 14.08 acres. The plaintiff did not seek an articulation on this issue, and, therefore, we will not consider the argument regarding the purported size of the airport. “The failure to seek an articulation of the trial court’s decision to clarify [an] issue and to preserve it properly for appeal leaves this court without the ability to engage in a meaningful review.” Auerbach v. Auerbach, 113 Conn. App. 318, 330-31 n.5, 966 A.2d 292, cert. denied, 292 Conn. 901, 971 A.2d 40 (2009).

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The board elected not to conduct an appeal hearing because it involved commercial property with an assessed value in excess of $500,000.

       General Statutes § 12-111 (a) provides in relevant part: “The board shall notify each aggrieved taxpayer who filed a written appeal in the proper form and in a timely manner, no later than March first immediately following the assessment date, of the date, time and place of the appeal hearing. Such notice shall be sent no later than seven calendar days preceding the hearing date except that the board may elect not to conduct an appeal hearing for any commercial, industrial, utility or apartment property with an assessed value greater than five hundred thousand dollars. The board shall, not later than March first, notify the appellant that the board has elected not to conduct an appeal hearing . . . .”
      We note that the record indicates that notice was sent to the appellant on March 15, 2004. Section 12-111 (a), provides that such notice shall not be sent later than March first; however, this issue was not raised by the parties.

       The 56.12 acres comprised the same 43.04 acres and an additional 13.08 acres for which the plaintiff sought open space classification.

       For the purposes of this opinion, we discuss distinct portions of the parcel by referencing the specific acreage of an area of the parcel; however, it is relevant to note that the subject property is a single parcel that has not been subdivided.

       The two step process required to receive redress under § 12-117a was developed and implemented in the long line of cases that can be traced back to Ives. See Breezy Knoll Assn., Inc. v. Morris, supra, 286 Conn. 775-76; Konover v. West Hartford, 242 Conn. 727, 734-35, 699 A.2d 158 (1997); O’Brien v. Board of Tax Review, 169 Conn. 129, 131, 362 A.2d 914 (1975); Sibley v. Middlefield, 143 Conn. 100, 105, 120 A.2d 77 (1956).

       We further note that if we adopt the plaintiffs interpretation of aggrievement under § 12-107e, which circumvents the initial threshold of proving that the property was overvalued, the Superior Court would step into the role of an assessor and determine, de novo, the true value of property in any situation when an application has been denied. This result is in direct contradiction of the role of the Superior Court in an administrative appeal.

       We further note that the plaintiffs interpretation of the statutory language renders the inclusion of the word “aggrievement” superfluous because the plaintiffs interpretation could be accurate if the statute simply read: Any person who has been denied an application for the classification of land as open space land shall have the same rights and remedies for appeal and relief as are provided in the general statutes for taxpayers claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of assessors or boards of assessment appeals. “Interpreting a statute to render some of its language superfluous violates cardinal principles of statutory interpretation.” American Promotional Events, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 285 Conn. 192, 203, 937 A.2d 1184 (2008).

       The plaintiff states in its brief that “extensive additional evidence presented by plaintiff in appraisals, reports and testimony on the value of the open space and nonopen space portions of the property, respectively, fully satisfied whatever preliminary showing the law may require by way of aggrievement.” This statement, however, is not substantiated by even a cursory analysis of the evidence or a citation to the specific documents.

       “If the trial court finds that the taxpayer has failed to meet his burden because, for example, the court finds unpersuasive the method of valuation espoused by the taxpayer’s appraiser, the trial court may render judgment for the town on that basis alone.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Union Carbide Corp. v. Danbury, 257 Conn. 865, 870, 778 A.2d 204 (2001).

       General Statutes § 12-63 (a) provides: “The present true and actual value of land classified as farm land pursuant to section 12-107c, as forest land pursuant to section 12-107d, or as open space land pursuant to section 12-107e, or as maritime heritage land pursuant to section 12-107g shall be based upon its current use without regard to neighborhood land use of a more intensive nature, provided in no event shall the present true and actual value of open space land be less than it would be if such open space land comprised a part of a tract or tracts of land classified as farm land pursuant to section 12-107c. The present true and actual value of all other property shall be deemed by all assessors and boards of assessment appeals to be the fair market value thereof and not its value at a forced or auction sale.”

       General Statutes § 12-107e provides in relevant part: “(a) The planning commission of any municipality in preparing a plan of conservation and development for such municipality may designate upon such plan areas which it recommends for preservation as areas of open space land, provided such designation is approved by a majority vote of the legislative body of such municipality. Land included in any area so designated upon such plan as finally adopted may be classified as open space land for purposes of property taxation or payments in lieu thereof if there has been no change in the use of such area which has adversely affected its essential character as an area of open space land between the date of the adoption of such plan and the date of such classification.”
      Subsection (b) further states that “[a]n owner of land included in any area designated as open space land upon any plan as finally adopted may apply for its classification as open space land on any grand list of a municipality by [timely] filing a written application for such classification. . . . The assessor shall determine whether there has been any change in the area designated as an area of open space land upon the plan of development which adversely affects its essential character as an area of open space land and, if the assessor determines that there has been no such change, said assessor shall classify such land as open space land and include it as such on the grand list. . . .” General Statutes § 12-107e (b).


author:
      Opinion
     LAVERY, J.

text:
    DRAIN DOCTOR, INC. v. JASON LYMAN
    (AC 29616)
    Harper, Beach and Lavery, Js.

      Argued December 8, 2008
    officially released June 30, 2009

      Dennis L. Kern, with whom, on the brief, was Robert C. Bird, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Craig C. Fishbein, for the appellee (defendant).
   Opinion

LAVERY, J.

The plaintiff, Drain Doctor, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after the granting of the motion to strike filed by the defendant, Jason Lyman. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly held (1) that plumbing and piping work is subject to the provisions of the Home Improvement Act, General Statutes § 20-418 et seq., and (2) that the exemption in the Home Improvement Act for licensed plumbers did not apply to the plaintiff because the work it performed was beyond what it was licensed to do. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings.

The following facts are relevant to the plaintiffs appeal. The plaintiff is a Connecticut corporation and is operated under a plumbing and piping limited license issued to Gary E. Schmidt. On October 12, 2004, the defendant contacted the plaintiff regarding a sewer problem at his home in Wallingford. The home was constructed on a concrete slab. The defendant had a broken sewer line underneath the concrete slab, which rendered the home uninhabitable. The parties entered into an oral contract for the work. Upon the filing of a motion to strike, the parties cannot thereafter dispute the factual allegations. Therefore, the parties do not dispute that the plaintiff (1) installed a four inch sanitary sewer line upgraded to the town’s specifications, (2) repaired a storm water drain under the driveway in two locations, which was damaged during the installation of the sewer line, and (3) restored both the driveway and lawn to their previous condition where they had been displaced to install the sewer line. To install the sanitary line and to repair the storm water drain, the plaintiff had to dig through the driveway to reach the drain and, subsequently, patched the driveway and laid seed on the lawn. After the work was completed, the plaintiff billed the defendant $6707.77 for the services, which the defendant has refused to pay.

On February 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a three count amended complaint, which contained the previous allegations and sounded in breach of contract, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. On March 1, 2007, the defendant filed a motion to strike, claiming that the repairs fall within the protection of the Home Improvement Act and that because there was no written contract, the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation. The plaintiff argued in its memorandum of law in opposition to the motion that as a licensed plumber performing plumbing and pipe work, it is exempt from the requirements of the Home Improvement Act. The court, Prestley, J., found that the sewer work was subject to the Home Improvement Act. The court further found that the plaintiff did not plead that it was a licensed plumber and, therefore, that fact would not be considered by the court. The court granted the defendant’s motion to strike.

The plaintiff filed a substitute complaint on July 24, 2007, which additionally alleged that it operated under a valid plumbing license. The defendant again filed a motion to strike, arguing that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff cannot recover on any theory alleged. The court, Shapiro, J., also determined that the work performed by the plaintiff fell within the protection of the Home Improvement Act. The court then found that the exemption from the Home Improvement Act that the plaintiff claimed applied did not apply because “the plaintiff did not confine its activities to the work it was licensed to perform.” The court granted the defendant’s motion to strike. After the plaintiff did not file a new pleading within fifteen days after the granting of the motion to strike, the court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment. The plaintiff appealed to this court.

To resolve the plaintiffs claim that plumbing and piping work is not subject to the Home Improvement Act, this court must interpret the relevant statutes. “When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. ... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. ... In seeking to determine that meaning, General Statutes § l-2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextua! evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered. . . . When a statute is not plain and unambiguous, we also look for interpretive guidance to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Koczur, 287 Conn. 145, 152-53, 947 A.2d 282 (2008), quoting Kinsey v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 277 Conn. 398, 405, 891 A.2d 959 (2006).

Statutory interpretation is a question of law, and, thus, our review is plenary. Gelinas v. West Hartford, 65 Conn. App. 265, 275, 782 A.2d 679, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 926, 783 A.2d 1028 (2001). “[W]e must determine whether the court’s conclusions are legally and logically correct and are supported by the record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dept. of Social Services v. Saunders, 247 Conn. 686, 697, 724 A.2d 1093 (1999).

The relevant statutory language of General Statutes § 20-429 (a), which is encompassed within the Home Improvement Act, is as follows: “No home improvement contract shall be valid or enforceable against an owner unless it: (1) Is in writing, (2) is signed by the owner and the contractor, (3) contains the entire agreement between the owner and the contractor, (4) contains the date of the transaction, (5) contains the name and address of the contractor and the contractor’s registration number, (6) contains a notice of the owner’s cancellation rights in accordance with the provisions of chapter 740, (7) contains a starting date and completion date, and (8) is entered into by a registered salesman or registered contractor. . . .”

Further, General Statutes § 20-419 sets forth definitions for the Home Improvement Act. This section provides that “(4) ‘Home improvement’ includes, but is not limited to, the repair, replacement, remodeling, alteration, conversion, modernization, improvement, rehabilitation or sandblasting of, or addition to any land or building or that portion thereof which is used or designed to be used as a private residence, dwelling place or residential rental property, or the construction, replacement, installation or improvement of driveways, swimming pools, porches, garages, roofs, siding, insulation, sunrooms, flooring, patios, landscaping, fences, doors and windows and waterproofing in connection with such land or building or that portion thereof which is used or designed to be used as a private residence, dwelling place or residential rental property or the removal or replacement of a residential underground heating oil storage tank system, in which the total cash price for all work agreed upon between the contractor and owner exceeds two hundred dollars. ‘Home improvement’ does not include: (A) The construction of a new home; (B) the sale of goods by a seller who neither arranges to perform nor performs, directly or indirectly, any work or labor in connection with the installation or application of the goods or materials; (C) the sale of goods or services furnished for commercial or business use or for resale, provided commercial or business use does not include use as residential rental property; (D) the sale of appliances, such as stoves, refrigerators, freezers, room air conditioners and others which are designed for and are easily removable from the premises without material alteration thereof; and (E) any work performed without compensation by the owner on his own private residence or residential rental property.”

Because the language of § 20-419 (4) has the expansive language “includes, but is not limited to,” we must look to the remaining portions of the Home Improvement Act to determine whether the plumbing work at issue here falls within its ambit. The “exemptions” for the Home Improvement Act under General Statutes § 20-428 are in relevant part: “This chapter shall not apply to any of the following persons or organizations ... (4) any person holding a current professional or occupational license issued pursuant to the general statutes . . . provided such person engages only in that work for which such person is licensed or registered.” To reconcile these statutes and to determine what is intended by the language exempting a licensed professional that “engages only in that work for which such person is licensed,” we turn to legislative history and case law for guidance.

The legislative history reveals that when the exemptions to the Home Improvement Act pursuant to § 20-428 were being discussed, Senator George L. Gunther explained that they “would exclude any licensed occupation. And what we are talking about is licensed electricians, plumbers, oil burner repair and anybody who is licensed under the existing law that we have now.” 33 S. Proc., Pt. 10, 1990 Sess., p. 3277.

This court, in analyzing the Home Improvement Act in relation to a plumbing corporation, wrote that “[t]he purpose of the [Home Improvement Act] is to ensure that home improvements are performed by qualified people.” Avon Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Fey, 40 Conn. App. 351, 358, 670 A.2d 1318 (1996).

Although the definition of home improvement within § 20-419 is broad and includes jobs like the plumbing work at issue in this case, the exemptions within § 20-428 (4) clearly indicate that the work of the plaintiff, an entity holding an occupational license, falls within the license and is not subject to the Home Improvement Act. This interpretation of the statute follows the legislative intent that the Home Improvement Act protects consumers from those home improvement contractors that are not otherwise licensed.

The plaintiff is a plumbing and piping limited contractor pursuant to General Statutes § 20-330 et seq. This court has held and affirmed that “[General Statutes] § 20-337, which is also a component of title 20 [of our General Statutes] dealing with the licensing of plumbers, makes it clear that the ownership of a business that provides the services of licensed persons need not be in the control of a licensed person. ... If [a company’s] employees are licensed plumbers, [the company] is considered licensed also for purposes of § 20-428 (4).” Avon Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Fey, supra, 40 Conn. App. 358; see also Santa Fuel, Inc. v. Varga, 77 Conn. App. 474, 494, 823 A.2d 1249, cert. denied, 265 Conn. 907, 831 A.2d 251 (2003). Because the plaintiff is a licensed company, we now consider what the plaintiff is licensed to do.

To determine whether the plumbing work in this case was work that the plaintiff was licensed to do, we look to the statutes regarding licensing of plumbers. General Statutes § 20-330 (3) defines “[p]lumbing and piping work” as “the installation, repair, replacement, alteration or maintenance of gas, water and associated fixtures, laboratory equipment, sanitary equipment, other than subsurface sewage disposal systems, fire prevention apparatus, all water systems for human usage, sewage treatment facilities and all associated fittings within a building and includes lateral storm and sanitary lines from buildings to the mains, process piping, swimming pools and pumping equipment, and includes making connections to back flow prevention devices, and includes low voltage wiring, not exceeding twenty-four volts, used within a lawn sprinkler system, but does not include (A) solar work, except for the repair of those portions of a solar hot water heating system that include the basic domestic hot water tank and the tie-in to the potable water system, (B) the installation, repair, replacement, alteration or maintenance of fire prevention apparatus within a structure, except for standpipes that are not connected to sprinkler systems, and (C) medical gas and vacuum systems work. . . .”

Specifically, we look to the language of that statute to determine whether the plaintiffs repair work on the defendant’s existing sewer line constituted work that the plaintiff was licensed to perform. To do this, we look to the commonly approved usage of “repair” because the term is not defined in the statute. See Groton v. Mardie Lane Homes, LLC, 286 Conn. 280, 288, 943 A.2d 449 (2008). “If a statute or regulation does not sufficiently define a term, it is appropriate to look to the common understanding of the term as expressed in a dictionary.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Cashman, 283 Conn. 644, 656, 931 A.2d 142 (2007). Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines “repair” as “to restore to a good or sound condition after decay or damage.” Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (2d Ed. 2001).

We do not agree with the court’s conclusion that the exemption to the Home Improvement Act did not apply to the plaintiff because “the plaintiff did not confine its activities to the work it was licensed to perform” when it retrenched and patched the driveway and reseeded the lawn. The language of the statute includes the work performed on the driveway and lawn because it was a part of the “repair [of] . . . sanitary lines from buildings to the mains . . . .” General Statutes § 20-330 (3). Part of the common usage of repair would be for the plaintiff to put the driveway and lawn back to its original condition after the piping work had been completed. This work was ancillary to the plumbing work that the plaintiff was licensed to perform and, therefore, falls within the ambit of the licensing statute. The defendant’s home was not in a livable condition when the plaintiff was hired. By installing the sanitary sewer line and repairing the storm water drain, the plaintiff made the home livable again. The plaintiff had to dig holes in the driveway and lawn to make the repairs. To complete the repairs, the plaintiff had to fill in the holes, to repair the driveway and to seed the lawn. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the installation and repair activities fell within the Home Improvement Act; however, on the basis of the facts of this case, this job was exempt from the contractual mandates of § 20-429 (a) because the plaintiff is a licensed plumber that engaged in work for which it is licensed.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       “Because a motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court, our review of the court’s ruling on [a motion to strike] is plenary. ... On a motion to strike, the trial court’s inquiry is to ascertain whether the allegations in each count, if proven, would state a claim on which relief could be granted. . . . [I]f facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied. . . . Thus, we assume the truth of both the specific factual allegations and any facts fairly provable thereunder. In doing so, moreover, we read the allegations broadly, rather than narrowly.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Advanced Financial Services, Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Services, Inc., 79 Conn. App. 22, 37, 830 A.2d 240 (2003).

       General Statutes § 20-334a (a) (1) provides in relevant part: “(A) An unlimited contractor’s license may be issued to a person who has served as a journeyman in the trade for which such person seeks a license for not less than two years and, if such service as a journeyman was outside this state, has furnished evidence satisfactory to the appropriate state board that such service is comparable to similar service in this state, or has furnished satisfactory evidence of education and experience and has passed an examination which has demonstrated that such person is competent in all aspects of such trade to be an unlimited contractor. (B) A limited, contractor’s license may be issued to a person who fulfills the requirements of subparagraph (A) of this subdivision as to a specific area or areas within the trade for which such person seeks a license. . . .” (Emphasis added.)

       General Statutes § 20-341a (3) defines a subsurface sewage disposal system as “a septic tank followed by leaching pits, trenches, beds or galleries.”

       Black’s Law Dictionary defines “ancillary “ as, “Aiding; attendant upon; describing a proceeding attendant upon or which aids another proceeding considered as principal. Auxiliary or subordinate.” Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990).