Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996

Home

Page 4 _2 April 1996 Z.B. The c~)urt found for the city and officials on the building permits claim, so it vacated, the jury's award of damages against the city. However, it affirmed the punitive damages award against the officials and ordered the city not to prosecutCr Strickland for the standing water violation. Strichland, the city, and the officials appealed. DECISION: Reversed in part. The kbwer court properly found Strickland could not claim due process violation.q for denial of his building permit requests. However, it improperly let the verdict against the city officials stand and incorrectly ordered the city not to prosecute!Strickland for the standing water violation. Stricl~land could not sue the city for its denial of building permits until the city actua!ly denied them. Strickland never filled out permit applications he only telel}honed city hall and got two anonymous answers to his informal requests. _lie did not prove it would have been futile to apply for the permits. Strick!and also failed to show he was similarly situated to other property owners who were in violation of the standing water ordinance. Without doing so, he could not sue the city officials under the Equal Protection Clause. The water on Strickland's property existed months longer than on others' property, and the city had not received complaints about anyone else. Although the city accidentai'ly may have caused the standing water problem when, it installed water andlsewer connections, this was irrelevant to Strickland s equal protec- tion claim. The city was allowed to prosecute Strickland for the violation. Environmental Issues m Are Trees and Wildlife Natural Resources? Paigelv. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town of Fairfield, 668 A.~2d 340 (ConnecticuO 1995 In 1991, Fairfield University wanted to subdivide a 13.4-acre wooded site into 40 building lots. It filed with the Fairfield (Conn.) Town Plan and Zoning Commissi~on a subdivision application, along with an application to excavate and fill the land. A neighbor named Paige claimed the proposed subdivision would adversely impact tha environment because trees would be cut and wildlife would be dis- placed. He sought to participate in the commission's proceedings under the 'Environmental Protection Department and State Policy Act, which allowed citizens toldo so when the proposal was "reasonably likely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing, or destroying the public trust in the air, water, or other n~qtural resources of the state [emphasis added]." If the commission found such an adverse effect to be likely, and if less environmentally harmful alternativas existed, the action could not be approved. According to Paige, the universitylhad to file alternative plans for the commission's consideration. The c~mmission approved the subdivision without expressly indicating whether it~ determined natural resources were involved, development of the subdivisioh would harm those natural resources, or alternative plans were Iol