Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

{J t) () Zoning Bulletin September 25,20091 Volume 31 No. 18 . court. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts concluded that the de- cision granting the variance was insufficient because the Board's de- cision contained no findings with respect to whether issuance of a variance to Azzam would by substantially detrimental to the public good. In any case, the court said that the dwelling units would be lawful if it was ultimately determined that the Parcels consisted of two separate lots for zoning purposes. Notice-Prehearing notice fails to identify locations related to special exception application Town maintains notice is sufficient because it advises . application is on file in town's planning office Citation: Cassidy v. Zoning Com'n of Town of Woodbury, 116 Conn. App. 542, 976 A.2d 29 (2009) CONNECTICUT (08/18/09}-In Apri12006, The Roman Catho- lic Church of St. Teresa, Inc. (the "church") filed with the town's zoning commission (the "Commission") an application for a special permit. The church sought to expand its existing church building. Concurrently, it sought a special exception to permit it to use addi- tional off-site parking spaces. The Commission scheduled public hearings on the church'sapplica- tion. As required by state law (Conn. Gen. Stat. S 8-7d), the Commis- sion published a legal notice in a local newspaper, informing the public of the hearings. In relevant part, S 8-7d required: "Notice of the hear- ing shall be published in a newspaper having a general circulation in such municipality where the land that is the subject of the hearing is located ...." The published notice provided the dates the public hearings would be held. The notice further informed the public that the hearings would be on: "Application 06-ZC-6016 submitted by [the church] for an expansion of church ;.. and Special Permit for property located at 146 Main Street South." No further information was given, but the notice provided that the application was "on file in the Town Planning Office." The Commission eventually approved both the special permit for expansion of the church and the special exception for off-site parking. Thereafter, Frances and Diane Cassidy (the "Cassidys") challenged the Commission's decision in Superior Court. They claimed that the Commission improperly granted the church's request for a special ex- ception for parking because it did not have jurisdiction to consider the request since the public notice it filed did not comply with state law (S 8-7d). More specifically, the Cassidys maintained that the @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 9 79