Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

August 10, 2010 Volume 41 No. 15 Zoning Bulletin Standing— Citizens of Another State, Owning Nearby Property, Appeal Commission Approvals of Land Use Applications Applicants argue citizens lack standing because they are not in -state landowners Citation: Abel v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of New Canaan, 297 Conn. 414, 2010 WL 2650519 (2010) CONNECTICUT (07/13/10) —This case addressed the issue of whether "any person aggrieved" —given the right to appeal a land use decision under Connecticut statutory law— includes persons that do not own land in Connecticut. The Background/Facts: Grace Property Holdings, LLC, and Pacific Farm, LLC, (the "Owners ") applied to a Connecticut town's planning and zoning commission (the "Commission ") for: a subdivision of property (the "Property") located in the town and for a special permit to build a church on a newly created parcel. The Commission approved the applications. Sanjit Shah, Mary Shah, Daniel Cooper, and Karen Cooper owned land in New York within 100 feet of the Property. The Shahs and Coo- pers appealed separately from each approval. Their appeals were made under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8 -8(b). Section 8 -8(b) provides in relevant part that: "[A]ny person aggrieved by any decision of a board, including... a special permit or special exception... may take an appeal to the superior court for the judicial district in which the municipality is located." Sec- tion 8- 8(a)(1) further provides that, in the case of a decision of planning commission, an "`aggrieved person' includes any person owning land that abuts or is within a radius of one hundred feet of any portion of the land involved in the decision of the [commission]." The Owners filed with the trial court motions to dismiss the appeals. They argued that the Shahs and Coopers did not have standing to appeal because their properties were not located in the State of Connecticut. The trial court agreed, granting the motions to dismiss the appeals. The Shahs and Coopers then appealed from the judgments of dis- missal. They maintained that pursuant to §S 8 -8(b) and 8- 8(a)(1), "any person aggrieved" "plainly and unambiguously encompasses all person who own land within 100 feet of the land involved in a board or com- mission's decision, regardless of whether they own land within [the State of Connecticut]." On appeal, the Owners countered that "there is a strong presumption against" the application of statutes outside of the state. They said that presumption could only be overcome if the legislature expressly states that the statute has an extraterritorial affect (i.e., an affect outside of the state). Accordingly, the Owners argued that "any person " — allowed standing to appeal planning commission decisions —is limited to persons who own land in Connecticut. 10 © 2010 Thomson Reuters