Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

September 25,20091 Volume 31 No. 18 Zoning Bulletin notice did not comply with ~ 8-7d because it failed to reference the church's request for a special exception for additional off-site park- ing. The notice described only the church's concurrent special permit application to expand the church. The town contended that the notice did comply with ~ 8-7d. It said this was because the notice advised readers that additional information relevant to the application was on file in the town's planning office. The Superior Court agreed with the town. It concluded that the notice was legally sufficient. The Cassidys appealed. DECISION: Superior Court reversed. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that the published pre- hearing notice was legally insufficient because it failed to alert those who might be interested in the church's re'quest for the special excep- tion for off-site parking. The court explained that the Commission would have subject matter jurisdiction to hold a hearing to consider an application for a special permit only if ithad published a prehearing notice that com- plied with ~ 8-7d. Such a prehearing notice did not need to "predict the precise action to be taken by the [C]ommission." However, it did have to "fairly and sufficiently [apprise] those who may be af- fected of the nature and character of the action proposed, so as to make possible intelligent preparation for participation in the hear- ing ...." Here, the Commission's public notice referred to only one of two special permits requested by the church. This shortcoming, held the court, was not cured by the' Commission's inclusion in the notice of the statement that the application was on file in the town's plan- ning office. The notice was insufficient because it "require[d] mem- bers of the public to conduct additional research simply to determine whether they [would] be affected by proposed zoning actions." If . the published notice had informed the public of the locations of the proposed off-site p'arking, it would have been sufficient because any- one with an interest in those locations would have been prompted to check the application. However, that was not the case; the notice omitted all of the off-site locations for which the church was seek- ing the parking special exception. Those potentially impacted by the church's proposed off-site parking "were not prompted by the pub- lished notice to examine the filed application to determine which in- terests were at stake in the public hearing." See also: City of Bridgeport v. Plan and Zoning Com'n of Town of Fairfield, 277 Conn. 268, 890 A.2d 540 (2006). See also: Shrobar v. Jensen, 158 Conn. 202, 257 A.2d 806 (1969). 10 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 80 () , I () { :'1 \~ I I , I ! I I I , I I 1 I I , I I I I I i I ! I I I I I I J