Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008

Home

'- 'I ;! " " !\ II Ii :1 I, Ii ,/ I; II !i Ii " 'I ,I I :1 ,_.) September 10, 20081 Volume 21 No. 17 .~ ( \1 1, !i ducted as to violate the fundamental rules of 'natural justice.". The court said decisions of zoning authorities had to be overturned if they were not reached fairly and with proper motives. "Neutrality and im- partiality of members [were] essential to the fair and proper opera- tion of zoning authorities," said the court. The court also explained that for a decision to b~ overturned there need not be proof that an interested commissioner actually acted wrongfully. A decision should be overturned, the court said, if the act of a commissioner created a situation that tended "to weaken public confidence and to undermine the sense of security of individual rights which the property owner must feel assured ~ill always exist." The court concluded that Hill- man's t~stimony accordingly undermined Barry's confidence in the administration of zoning power, and ,deprived her of her right to a fair and impartial hearing. The commission had also a.rgued that Barry's right to fundamental fairness had not been violated because no commissioner was "unduly influenced" by Hillman's testimony and Hillman did not have "con- trol over the commission." The court also rejected this argument. The court said that the test was not whether the personal interest of a commission member conflicted with public duty, but whether it reasonably might conflict. Thus, it was not necessary to know how persuasive Hillman's testimony was to his fellow commissioners; the "unfairness" lay in the fact that he testified against the application. Moreover~ the court noted that the commission relied~ at least to some extent, on Hillman's testimony as the commission incorporated some of his testimony into the denial of Barry's application. See also: Brunswick v. Inland Wetlands Com'n of Town of Bethany, 29 Conn. App. 634,617 A.2d 466 (1992). See also: Nazarko v. Conservation Com'n of Town of East Lyme, 50 Conn. App. 548, 717 A.2d 850 (1998). Case Note: Barry had also cross-appealed. She claimed her ap- plication was automatically approved because the commission failed to provide her with written notice of its denial within the timeframe s!=t by statute (CGS S 7-147e(b)). The court disagreed. It found that because Barry had actual notice and had timely ap- pealed from the denial, she was not entitled under statutory law to an automatic approval of her application. @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 9 69