Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010

Home

....~ ,.. .: ." c 0..'....'..... .:"" -~ r: \i~ .. :":-. Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2010 I Volume 41 No.1 that all applic~tions for a special permit involving large-scale construc- tion (the proposal specified size criteria) be required to submit: "cer- tain studies and. reports regarding the impact of the proposed use on both properties within a three-mile radius of the. development site and' the community's well-being." The petition also proposed amending the zoning regulations to establish a maximum building size of 50,000 square feet. . The PZC denied CCPW's Petition. CCPW appealed to court. Among other things, it argued that it had "special, personal and legal rights in the Petition which were specially and injuriously affected by the [PZC]'s denial of the Petition." Th~ PZC maintain~dthat CCPW did not have standing to chal- lenge the denial of the Petition. The rZC said this was because CCPW failed to show that it was either "statutorily or classically aggrieved." ("CCPW abandoned any claim of statutory aggrievement. Instead, it relied on its claim of classicalaggrieveIIlent.") The trial court held. that CCPW lacked standing. CCPW had failed to establish classical aggrievement, found the court. The co~tdis~ missed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. CCPW appealed. The Court's Decision:.Judgment of trial court affirmed. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that CCPW did not have standing to challenge the denial of its Petition because it had failed to show it had "classical aggrievement." . . The court explained that "[i]n order to have ~tanding to bring an administrative appeal, a person must be aggrieved"----either statutorily (i.e~, a statute grants them standing) or dassically. To establish classical aggrievement a party must show: (1) it has "a specific, personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision, as opposed to a gen- eral interest that all members of the community share"; and (2) that "the agency's decision has specially and injuriously affected that spe- cific personal or legal interest." . The court found that CCPW had failed to show that it was classical- ly aggrieved. The Petition's "proposed amendIIlents were not site spe- cific; they applied townwide to all zones and all property in the town." Thus, CCPW was "not affected by the [pZC]'s decision any differently than any other property owner in [the town], with which they share 'a general interest such as is the concern of the community as a whole... ", Furthermore, CCPW had failed to show that the PZC's decision "spe- cifically and injuriously affected its specific personal or legal interest. " CCPW did not own any real property in the town. Also, it had failed to offer any evidence indicating that any of its members owned real property in the town. . "Despite those patent shortcomings," CCPW had maintained that it was classically aggrieved. It contended this was because "it was the @ 2010 Thomson Reuters ". ,. . -~. .. .:.,~ "(~~~~. ~. ;. ~r' 3 -......,.-----:---::----..--v .... : 55