Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />..;..; <br /> <br /> <br />',: '.. <br /> <br />, :.. : . <br /> <br />,.' " <br /> <br />56 <br /> <br />January 10, 2010 1 Volume 41 No.1 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />applicant that filed the [P]etition with the [PZC]." It argued that be- C.-....~.) <br />cause it exercised .its statutorily-conferred. right to petition a commis- <br />sion to adopt or amend a zoning regulation, it had "a specific, personal <br />right to have that application brought to public hearing and decided <br />by an impartial panel." In other words, it argued that although the <br />proposed zoning amendments would have a general application "for <br />which no person would have standing to challenge on the merits if ad- <br />opted or denied," its right to petition was, itself, "a specific legal right <br />subject to legal protection." The court disagreed. ' : <br />To the contrary, said the court, "standmg to file the zoning' appli- <br />cation, which is subsequently denied, does not alone give a. party the <br />aggrievement necessary to pursuant an appeal of that decision in the <br />courts.~' Moreover, "the mere denial of [a zoning] application does not <br />establish aggrievement." <br /> <br />See also: Fletcher v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of <br />Greenwich, 158 Conn. 497, 264 A.2d 566 (1969). <br /> <br />See also: Trimar Equities, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of City of <br />Milford, 66 Conn..App. 631, 785 A.2d 619 (2001). <br /> <br />(.........., <br />,.. ;/. <br /> <br />Case' Note: CCPW had alleged that it was "comprised of members <br />who would have had standing had they appeale9- in their individ- <br />ual capacity as .. . classically aggrieved members.", The court said <br />that such a "conclusory statement[]" did not satisfy the CCPW;s <br />burden of proving aggrievement. CCPW needed to also allege the <br />"particular nature of the aggrievement." Likewise, allegations only <br />that its members were aggrieved as owners of real property "in <br />the immediate vicinity of property" subject to the proposed zoning <br />amendment would have been insufficient. <br /> <br />'. Case Note: CCPW was asking the court to "recognize a new form: <br />of aggrievement whereby a petitioning party 'has standing to vin- <br />dicate a procedural due process right in an administrative ,appeal <br />on a petition involving a regulation of general application.'" The <br />court declined to do so because there was no appellate precedent (.:.', _ <br />supporting such a proposal._ <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />@ 2010 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />"7~ ' <br /> <br /> <br />, 'I{J' ,~: -.' <br /> <br />'-~ <br /> <br /> <br />r' <br /> <br />