Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/2011

Home

28 November 10, 2010 1 Volume 41 No. 21 Zoning Bulletin Moreover, the court emphasized that because this was an afford - .% able housing case, conditional approval was "required," not merely "allowed. " - In other contexts, zoning commissions were "allowed" to approve a proposed development project on the condition that the ap- plicant obtains another agency's approval. In the context of affordable housing projects, § 8 -30g required, among other things, that in deny- ing an affordable housing project, the commission show that "it rea- sonably could have concluded that it could not simultaneously grant the site plan application and protect the public interest" That require- ment was meant to advance the legislative purpose of encouraging the construction of affordable housing. Therefore, in the context of afford- able housing, unless, the commission could show this, the conditional granting of an application. "was not only authorized but required." Here, the PZC had not demonstrated that its denial of CMB's ap- plication had been "necessary to protect substantial public interests." In other words, the PZC failed to show that "it reasonably could have concluded that it could not simultaneously grant the site plan applica- tion and protect the public interest." CMB had not yet submitted a formal application to the Authority. Further, as found by the court, the Authority's negative referral was "pre- , liminary in nature." There was evidence showing that the Authority an- ticipated potential sewage problems would be addressed in CMB's formal application. Here, conditioning CMB's approval on CMB obtaining ap- proval from the Authority protected against the risk of harm to the public interests. "If [CMB]'s application is approved by the [ A]uthority, then the public interests in maintaining adequate sewage systems will not be ad- versely affected. If, however, [CMB] does not obtain approval from the [A]uthority for its sewer application, then [CMB] cannot implement its proposed development and the public interests in maintaining adequate sewage systems will remain protected:" Therefore, reasoned the court, "a conditional approval ... protects the public interests in maintaining ad- equate sewage systems and `advances the legislative purpose of encourag- ing the construction of affordable housing.'" See also: Gerlt v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of South Wind- sor, 290 Conn. 313, 963 A.2d 31 (2009). See also: Kaufman v. Zoning Com'n of City of Danbury, 232 Conn. 122, 653 A.2d 798 (1995). Case Note: The PZC had also raised other issues on appeal, which i are not addressed in this summary. 4 © 2010 Thomson Reuters i