Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2011

Home

September 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 18 Zoning Bulletin court explained that a party bringing a complaint has standing based on statutory aggrievement if they claim an injury to an interest protected by legislation. The court explained that if a person can prove statutory aggrievement, they are not required to plead and to prove the elements of classical aggrievement (i.e., a unique personal interest has been specifi- cally and injuriously affected by the decision). The court looked to Connecticut General Statutes S 8-8, which pro- vides in relevant part that "Aggrieved [Pierson" means: " a person ag- grieved by a decision of a board and includes ... any person owning land that abuts or is within a radius of one hundred feet of any portion of the land involved in the decision of the board." The court found that the Lucases had plead: that they owned prop- erty located in the CR zone; that the Town redefined buildable area sole- ly in the CR zone; and that therefore their property was specifically af- fected by the decision to amend § 2.3 of the regulations. The court con- cluded that the Lucases' pled sufficient facts in their complaint to allege statutory aggrievement. This, however, did not end the court's analysis. Again, the court had said that in order to have standing to bring their appeal, the Lucases had to allege and prove statutory aggrievement. The court concluded that the matter should be remanded to the trial court with direction to consider the appeal, including the issue of whether, on the basis of the existing record, the Lucases proved aggrievement (i.e., proved that they owned property within one hundred feet of the CR zone, which the amendment affected). See also: Timber Trails Corp. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Sherman, 222 Conn. 374, 610 A.2d 617 (1992). See also: Cole v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Cornwall, 30 Conn. App. 511, 620 A.2d 1324 (1993). See also: Lewis v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of the Town of Ridge- field, 62 Conn. App. 284, 771 A.2d 167 (2001). Case Note: The Town had argued that in order to allege statutory aggrievement, the Lucases also had to have alleged that they sus- tained an injury. The court commented: "A statutorily aggrieved person need not have sustained any injury." In any case, the court found the Lucases had alleged that the amendment redefining build- able area in a CR zone caused them injury in that it affected their property and amounted to a taking of their property. 8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters