Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin sion. Rather, the decision whether a particular interest was sufficient to disqualify was "necessarily a factual one and depend[ed] on the circ~- stances of the particular case." The record here supported the conclusion that Mcqueeney should have disqualified himself. He lived in close proximity to the Limestone property, his wife had signed a petition opposing the map change, and he participated extensively in the hearings. While the court did not find actual conflict, there was sufficient evidence that the commissioner had a potential personal interest in the matter. The commission argued that Limestone knew of the potential conflict at the time of the commencement of the publich\;aring and made no objection, thereby waiving its claim to disqualify. But case law provided that the issue of disqualification could be raised on appeal after a public hearing. Also, it was not clear whether Limestone did indeed know of the conflict at the time of the hearing. Finally, the commission argued that since the vote rejecting the map change was three to three, Mcqueeney's vote was irrelevant. But, turn- ing once again to case law, the court found that in cases concerning the disqualification of a zoning commissioner, there had to be a new hear- ing, regardless of the vote tally. The case was sent back before the commission with the order for an alternate commissioner to hear and vote on the matter. See also: Dana-Robin Corp. v. Common Council of City of Danbury, 166 Conn. 207, 348 A.2d 560 (1974). See also: Murach v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of City of New London, 196 Conn. 192, 491 A.2d 1058 (1985). 12 74 (~ ,,--,., ( ')