Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2010 Volume 41 No. 15 DECISION: Reversed. The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that, even though they did not own land in Connecticut, the Shahs and Coopers had statutory standing to appeal the approvals of the Owners' subdivision application and special permit. In so holding, the court concluded that § 8- 8(a)(1) confers standing to appeal on persons who do not own land within the State of Connecticut. In reaching its decision, the court found that the phrase in § S -8(a) (1) "any person" did "not plainly and unambiguously refer to persons outside the state's territorial jurisdiction." This was because the court "presume[d]" that the legislature in drafting § 8- 8(a)(1) was "aware of the constraints of its power to regulate conduct [outside of the state]." In determining the scope of "any person," the court looked to the legislative history and the intent of the legislature in adopting § 8 -8(a) (1). , The public policy underlying the statutes authorizing municipalities to adopt planning regulations was: "to promote .... the coordinated de- velopment of the municipality and the general welfare and prosperity of its people" and "to secure the uniform and harmonious growth of [mu- nicipalities]." Given these purposes, the court found no reason why, in authorizing nearby landowners to use the appeal process, "the legisla- ture would have intended to exempt... properties in locations where the greatest and most immediate effect of a proposed development would be on the owners of property that is located in another state." Nor did the court find evidence that the legislature intended that an out -of -state land- owner would face the burdens of a land use within a Connecticut mu- nicipality without having recourse. Accordingly, the court concluded that the phrase "any person" in § 8- 8(a)(1) included persons who own land (within 100 feet of the involved land) in another state. Given that conclusion, the court determined that the Shahs and the Coopers did not lack standing to appeal from the Commission's decision on the ground that they did not own land in Connecticut. See also: Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. 4th 1036, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 828, 968 P.2d 539 (1999). Zoning News from Around the Nation MARYLAND Howard County is considering proposed legislation that "would al- low farmers markets or produce stands in residential areas if they are lo- cated on lots between one and two acres, the stand or market would be the sole use of the property, and it faces and has direct access to a road." Source: Howard County Times; www.explorehoward.com © 2010 Thomson Reuters 11