Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 13 CONNECTICUT (05/27/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether an owner of property has standing to appeal a zoning decision when it is undisputed that (1) its property was not the subject of a zoning application, and (2) the zoning classification of its property was not altered, amended, or otherwise affected by a zoning commission's self -initiated revision of its zoning regulations and zoning map. The Background/Facts: In early 2008, the Planning and Zoning Com- mission (the "Commission") of the City of Bridgeport (the "City") com- menced an exhaustive review that included an examination of the existing zoning map and regulations. During this review, Allstar Sanitation, Inc. and its predecessor in interest Greenwood Manor, LLC (hereinafter, collec- tively, "Allstar"), requested that the Commission amend the zoning clas- sification of a 9.9-acre parcel owned by Allstar from a "Residential A Single Family Zone (R-A)" to a "Residential C Multi -Family Zone." The Commission eventually adopted an amended plan of conservation and development for the City (the "plan"). The plan did not recommend any change to the zoning classification of the Allstar's property, which continued to be designated as part of the R-A zone. Allstar appealed the Commission's approval of the plan to superior court. The court concluded that Allstar was neither statutorily nor classically ag- grieved by the Commission's decision and therefore did not have standing (i.e., the legal right) to bring the appeal. The court dismissed Allstar's appeal. Allstar appealed that decision. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that Allstar was neither statutorily aggrieved nor classically aggrieved and therefore did not have standing to challenge the Commission's zoning decision. In so holding, the court explained that, under Connecticut law, "any person aggrieved" by a decision of a zoning commission may take an ap- peal to the superior court. The court explained that in order to bring the ap- peal, Allstar had to show either statutory aggrievement or classical aggrievement. Statutory aggrievement exists where a statute grants standing to those who claim injury to an interest protected by that legislation. Classi- cal aggrievement requires a showing: (1) of a specific, personal, and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision (as opposed to a general interest that all member of the community share); and (2) that an agency's decision has specifically and injuriously affected that specific personal or legal interest. Allstar had claimed that it was both statutorily and classically aggrieved. With regard to statutory aggrievement, Allstar claimed that, pursuant to the plain and unambiguous language of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-8(a)(1), it was statutorily aggrieved by the Commission's amendment of its zoning map. Section 8-8(a)(1) provides in relevant part: " `Aggrieved person' means a person aggrieved by a decision of a [zoning commission]. . . . In the case of a decision by a zoning commission . . .`aggrieved person' includes any person owning land that abuts or is within a radius of one hundred feet of 2014 Thomson Reuters 3