Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/1998

Home

Page 4 -- November 25, 1997 Z.B. minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The commission ruled in favor of the neighbhors. It reversed the zoning board's decision and denied Sportacres' variance requests. Sportacres appealed to court, arguing the commission improperly relied on the neighbors' unsubstantiated testimony rather than the substantive evidence. The court reversed the commission's decision, finding the commission based its decision on unsubstantiated lay opinion testimony rather than on the other competent evidence in the record. The neighbors appealed. DECISION: Reversed in favor of the neighbors; commission's decision reinstated. Substantial evidence supported the commission's decision to reverse the zoning board's approval of Sportacres' frontage and lot-size variance requests. In addition to the neighbors' testimony, the county commission had access to the zoning board's records on Sportacres' application. The records contained maps, rep0rt~", and other information that, in conjunction with the neighbors' testimony (if believed by the commission), constituted substantial evidence. Site Plan Approval N Is appeal rendered moot by approval of revised site plan? Baumer v. Zoning Commission of the Borough of Newtown, 697 A.2d 704 (ConnecticuO 1997 The Baumers lived near a library in the borough of Newtown, Conn. The library trustees wanted to expand the library, and applied to the borough zoning commis- sion for site plan approval. The commission granted the library's application. The Baumers appealed the commission's decision to court. The commission asked the court to dismiss the Baumers' lawsuit because they never served a copy of their complaint on the borough's clerk, as required by state law. Meanwhile, the library submitted a revised site plan for the same parcel involved in 'the pending appeal. The revised plan incorporated all of the items the commission previously approved in the first site plan, and added some others. Neither the Baumers nor anyone else appealed the commission's approval of the revised site plan. The court dismissed the Baumers' lawsuit, and the Baumers appealed. The commission claimed the Baumers' appeals had to be dismissed because the issues had become moot once the commission's approval of the library's revised site plan became final. The Baumers didn't dispute that the commission's approval of the revised plan became final because it was never appealed. They admitted the revised site plan was substantially similar to the original site plan and the only changes were additional plantings and the designation of certain areas as future rather than current parking areas. Instead, the Baumers argued that the issues weren't moot because they had a potential claim for a violation of their constitutional rights if the court found the commission acted arbitrarily or with a discriminatory intent in approving