Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2010

Home

March 25, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No: 6 Zoning Bulletin ~~ JZ appealed the denial. JZ claimed that it was aggrieved (i.e., that it had a legal interest that was injtued) by the PZC's denial because it was the buyer of the Property, pursuant to the P & S Agreement. The trial court found JZ was aggrieved by the denial. It also found that the denial of JZ's special use permit application was not supported by substantial evidence. The PZC appealed. On appeal, the PZC claimed that JZ was. not ag- grieved by the PZC's denial because the P & S Agreement had expired. The Court's Derision: Decision of trial court reversed; matter remanded. The Appellate Court of Connecticut agreed with the PZC. It held that JZ lacked standing to appeal the denial.of its special use permit applica- tion because it was not "aggrieved" by the PZC's denial of the special use permit application. The court explained that in order to show aggrievement (and have standing to appeal the PZC's decision), JZ had to show: (1) it had a "specific, personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the deci- lion; as opposed to a general interest that all members of the commu- nity share ... ;" arid (2) that the PZC's decision had "specifically and injuriously affected that specific personal or legal interest." In order to "retain standing as an aggrieved person," JZ had to have and maintain: "a specific, personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the appeal [i.e., here, the denial of the special use permit application] throughout the course of the appeal." Thus, the fact that JZ had an interest in the property at the time of application may be "sufficient to establish ag- grievement at the time of its application," but it would not, alone, be enough to "maintain" standing as an aggrieved party. Here, JZ had not sought zoning approval for the needed special use permit until just two days prior to the expiration of the P & S Agree- ment. Also, by the time JZ appealed the denial to the trialcourt, the P, & S Agreement had been expired for over one year. Since the P & S Agree- ment was no longer in effect at the time the trial court heard JZ's appeal from the PZC's denial,'the court held t]tat JZ did not have a "specific, personal and legal interest in the [PZC]'s decision." Since at the time of JZ's appeal of the PZC's denial, JZ was not "aggrieved" by the denial,.. j JZ did not have standing to appeal. - ~J See also: Moutinho a Planning and Zoning Com'n of City of Bridge- port, 278 Conn. 660, 899 A.2d 26 (2006). ( 1 See also: Primerica v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Green- - wich, 211 Conn. 85; 558 A.2d 646 (1989). m 2010 Thomson Reuters 46