Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2011

Home

May 10, 2011 1 Volume 51 No. 9 Zoning Bulletin of appeals and their members ...." Section 8-6(a) enumerated the "powers and duties" of a zoning board of appeals. Those "powers and duties" included: "[t]o hear and decide appeals ...." Analyzing the statute, the court found that the Legislature had been "silent" on the issue of participation by board members in the public hearing. Participation in public hearings was neither a power nor duty set forth in the statutes relating to zoning boards of ap- peals and their members, found the court. Accordingly, the court concluded that Myers' participation in the public hearing did not contravene the statute. As to participation in boards of appeal's deliberations, the court found the statute was not silent. Section 8-6(a) vested boards of ap- peal with power to "decide" certain matters and to "determine and vary the application of the zoning ... regulations." The court inter- preted this to indicate that the boards' powers included something other than simply voting on a particular matter; the intent of the legis- lature, found the court, was to include deliberations of a zoning board of appeals among the powers and duties set forth in § 8-6(a). Because under § 8-5(a) only "seated" alternate members possessed the powers and duties set forth in § 8-6(a), the court found that § 8-S(a) preclud- ed the participation of an unseated alternate —like Myers —in board deliberations following the close of the public hearing. Nevertheless, the court concluded that Myers' participation in the Board's deliberations did not result in material prejudice to Ko- mondy; the superior court had found the requisite hardship for a variance was lacking and Komondy had not challenged this finding. Accordingly, the court concluded that Komondy's appeal had been properly. dismissed. See also: S.I.S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Bristol, 33 Conn. App. 281, 635 A.2d 83S (1993). See also: State v. Anderson, 227 Conn. 518, 631 A.2d 1149 (1993). See also: Murach v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of City of New London, 196 Conn. 192, 491 A.2d 1058 (1985). Case Note: The court found support for its decision regarding the permissibility of unseated alternate board members to partici- pate in public hearings in: the fact that "the burden rests with the applicant to demonstrate its entitlement to the requested relief"; § 8-6(a) delineated matters that could be acted upon by a zon- ing board of appeals, and this did not include public hearing par- 4 © 2011 Thomson Reuters