Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2009

Home

March 10,20091 Volume 31 No.5 Zoning Bulletin In reaching its conclusion, the court explained that if decisions made during the proceedings on a general plan of development were binding and could not be revisited by interested partieS, such proceedings "could be used to evade the mandatory and more stringent procedures applica- ble to site plan applications under [town regulations and state law]." The court ordered that Gerlt and. all interested parties be allowed to raise concerns regarding all aspects of Evergreen Walk's proposed de- velopment, "including the cumulative impact of the separate site plans, during the site plan proceedings." Procedure-After close of public hearing, planning commission member sends memorandum to other members Landowner challenges e-mail as prohibited ex parte communication Citation: Lee and Lamont Realty v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Vernon, 112 Conn. App. 484, 963 A.2d 98 (2009) CONNECTICUT (02/03/2009)-In May 2005, the town planner filed an application with the town's planning and zoning commission {the "PZC") to update the town's zoning regulations and zoning map. He proposed several amendments, including the elimination of the ex- isting planned mixed use development zone and the creation in its place of two separate planned development zones. the PZC held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on June 9, 2005. It closed the public hearing testimony that night. On June 13, 2005, the PZC adopted the town planner's proposed amendments. The final adopted regulations required an additional twenty-five feet of depth to the front, rear, and side yards for each ad- ditional 20,000 ~quare feet of building footprint over an initial 40,000 square feet. The rationale given for the zoning amendments was to "have growth that is controlled and [to] preserve the character and quality of life of the town." . In the interim between when the public hearing was closed and the amendments adopted, a member of the PZC sent an e-mail to other members. The text of the e-mail said that the PZC member had re- viewed her notes from various public hearing meetings related to' grad- uated open-space requirements for buildings over 40,000 square feet, and that she "wanted to put my thoughts [into] writing." She attached to the e-mail a memorandum containing those thoughts. Lee & Lamont Realty ("LLR"), which owned land in one of the newly created planned development zones, appealed from the zoning 6 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 108 \ !