Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

() i i I ji il --".. ! , I ~ , i i J 'I " :1 :! 'I il II !I I' il II II I. I' .1 II 1: II " II 'j Ii II I' 11 :1 !i i: :! December 10, 20071 Volume 11 No. 23 Appeal~Zoning c.ommissioner fails to reveal potential conflict of interest Commission claims commissioner's vote not crucial to the outcome Citation: Limestone Business Park, LLC v. Plainville Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Com'n, 2007 WL 3318253 (Conn. -Super. Ct. 2007) CONNECTICUT (10/30/07)-Limestone Business Park, LLC, owned more than eight acres of land in the town of Plainville. There was a building on the front portion of the premises and open land at the rear. A portion of land along the back of the property appeared on the Plainville inland wetlands and watercourses map. Limestone applied to the wetlands commission for permission to remove the portion of affected land from the wetlands map so that it could use it for development. Some residents that lived nearby objected to any change in the wetlands map because they had experienced flood- ing in their yards and basements; they anticipated that the removal of the wetlands designation would "make a bad situation with standing water even worse." Public hearings on the matter were held before the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission, and the matter became quite conten- tious'. There was a debate as to whether a protected "watercourse" ex- isted on the property, which would have effectively defeated Limestone's application. After a vote, the application was defeated. One of the commissioners, Mcqueeney, lived within 120 feet of the area in question and his wife had signed a petition against any poten- tial development, but he did not disclose this at the hearings or abstain from voting. Mcqueeney argued ardently for the determination that there was a watercourse on the property, despite expert opinions to the contrary, and he ultimately voted against the application. Limestone appealed the commission's decision to court, claiming that Mcqueeney had a conflict of interest and that the decision was not sup- ported by substantial evidence in the record. DECISION: Appeal sustained; case returned to commission for rehear- ing with alternate commissioner presiding. A general law provided that "[n]o member ... of ... [the inland wet- lands] commission shall participate in the hearing or decision of such ... commission of which he [or she] is a member upon any matter in which he [or she] is directly or indirectly interested in a personal or financial sense." In such an instance, the commissioner should disqualify him or herself from the proceedings. However, case law provided that a member of a planning commis- sion did not have to disqualify him or herself merely because he or she owned property that could potentially be affected by a commission deci- 11 73