Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

August 10, 2010 Volume 4 1 No. 15 Zoning Bulletin As for the last reason for rescission —that the constructive approval was unintended —the court concluded that alone did "not supply `good reason "' for the rescission. Rather, the Board had to provide a substan- tive basis for the rescission. Rescinding the constructive approval result- ed in the denial of the Owners' application, and that denial "ha[d] to be defended on its own merits," said the court. Because the Board failed "to provide a defensible substantive reason for denying the application, its rescission decision [could] not stand." See also: Young v. Planning Bd. of Chilmark, 402 Mass. 841, 525 N.E.2d 654 (1988). Weight Given to Other Board Reports — Zoning Commission Approves Revised Site Plan Application In doing so, commission does not resubmit revised plan to wetlands commission for secondary approval Citation: Vine v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town Wallingford, 122 Conn. App. 112, 2010 WL 2365674 (2010) CONNECTICUT (06/22/10) —This case discussed the level of con- sideration that must be given to the report of an inland wetlands agency given the statutory requirement that such report be given "due consideration." The Background/Facts: In February 2007, Ilia Athan filed an appli- cation with the town's zoning commission (the "Zoning Commission ") for site plan approval to construct a commercial kennel and a dwelling house on property (the "Property") in the town. The Property contained 6.25 acres, including approximately two acres of wetlands. Because of the wetlands on the Property, Athan's application also required review by the town's inland wetlands and watercourse commission (the "Wet- lands Commission "). The Wetlands Commission approved Athan's site plan. Subsequently, Athan amended his application. He diminished the scope of the project by withdrawing the request to construct a dwelling house on the Property. Ultimately, the Zoning Commission voted to approve the site plan ap- plication for the kennel. A town citizen, Alan Vine, appealed the Zoning Commission's ap- proval of Athan's site plan application for the kennel. He opposed the kennel, citing concerns that it would "create noise, change the rural character of the area and have an adverse effect on property values In his appeal to the court of the approval of the plan, he argued that the Zoning Commission failed to give due consideration to the Wetlands Commission, as required under state law —Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8 -3(g). 8 © 2010 Thomson Reuters