Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 11 rocee s ings— fter developer's a plications are denie ' , it alleges Sias and ex . arte communications y commissioner Zoning commission contends developer waived claims by not raising them sooner, and, in any case, the Commission's decision was not influenced by the member Citation: Villages, LLC v. Enfield Planning and Zoning Cor'n, 149 Conn. App. 448, 2014 NIL 1365143 (2014) CONNECTICUT (04/15/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a developer waived its claims of bias or ex parte communications with respect to a zoning commission member related to his special permit application. The case also addressed whether a zoning commissioner's ex parte communication resulted in an unfair hearing before the commission. The Background/Facts: In May 2009, Villages, LLC ("Villages") filed an application for a special use permit and an application for an open space subdivision consisting of 38 residential housing lots on 64 acres of land in a residential district in the Town of Enfield, Connecticut (the "Town"). After holding public hearings on Village's applications, the Enfield Planning and Zoning Conunission (the "Commission") denied both applications. Village appealed. On appeal, among other things, Village alleged that the Commission "illegally and arbitrarily predetermined the outcome of each of its applications prior to the public hearing and was motivated by improper no- tions of bias and personal animus when it denied each of the applications." More specifically, Village alleged that a Commission member, Lori Longhi ("Longhi"), was biased against one of Village's owners, Patrick Tallarita ("Tallarita"). Tallarita and Longhi had been social friends and had a falling out. Subsequent to the conclusion of the hearings on Village's applications, Tallarita became aware of a statement Longhi had made namely that she hoped he would suffer a denial by the Commission. Village also alleged that Longhi engaged in an ex parte communication regarding Village's applications when she met with a representative of the Hazardville Water Authority to discuss Village's applications. Longhi denied the meeting, but the Water Authority representative testified "with confidence" that they had met and discussed Village's application. The superior court concluded that, on the basis of the bias Longhi demon- strated against the Village and her ex parte communication, "along with her biased, aggressive, and vociferous arguments against the applications [at one of the public hearings], the [C]ommission's action was not honest, legal, and fair." The court therefore sustained the Village's appeals and remanded the matter to the Commission for further public hearings. © 2014 Thomson Reuters 7