Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 1U, LU 11 I Volume 5 I No. 9 The town's Zoning Enforcement Officer (the "ZEO") issued a cease and desist order regarding the use of the mobile home. The ZEO then rejected Komondy's request for an extension of the permit. Komondy then appealed to the town's zoning board of appeals (the "Board") from both the cease and desist order and the denial of her request for an extension. Additionally, she applied for a vari- ance from the "[six] months' time limit" contained in § 113B.5. The Board held a public hearing on Komondy's applications. After the hearing, the Board deliberated the merits of Komondy's applica- tions. The Board ultimately voted to deny both the appeal from the de- cisions of the ZEO and the application for a variance from § 113B.5. Komondy appealed to the superior court. Among other things, she argued that the Board acted illegally because it allowed Theresa Myers ("Myers"), an unseated alternate Board member, to partici- pate in the public hearing and the Board's deliberations. The superior court dismissed Komondy's appeal. In doing so, it rejected Komondy's claim that the Board acted illegally with regard to Myers' participation. In addition, the court concluded that the Board properly denied the variance application because the requi- site hardship was lacking. Komondy appealed. On appeal, she challenged only the superior court's determination regarding Myers' participation in the public hearing and the Board's deliberations. She did not challenge its de- termination related to the denial of the variance application. DECISION: Affirmed. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that the Board did not act illegally in allowing Myers, an unseated alternate Board mem- ber, to participate in the public hearing. However, the court found that the Board did act illegally in allowing Myers to participate in the Board's deliberations. In reaching its conclusion, the court first analyzed whether Myers' participation in the Board's proceedings ran afoul of Connecticut stat- utory law, General Statutes SS 8-5(a) and 8-6(a). Myers had argued that the plain language of § 8-5(a) forbid an alternate member from participating in either the public hearing or board deliberations on an application unless that alternate had been seated pursuant to § 8-5(a). Section 8-5(a) provided in relevant part: "In each municipality having a zoning commission there shall be a zoning board of appeals consisting of five regular members and three alternate members .... Such alternate members ... shall, when seated ... have all the powers and duties set forth in the general statutes relating to zoning boards © 2011 Thomson Reuters 3