Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2014

Home

July 10, 2014 1 Volume 8 I Issue 13 Zoning Bulletin any portion of the land involved in the decision of the [zoning commission]." Allstar argued that although the Conunission ultimately took no action with respect to its property, the property nonetheless was "land involved" in its decision, as the Commission specifically considered a zone change thereto. The Commission maintained that because its decision was to amend the zoning map with respect to certain parcels that did not include Allstar's property, Allstar's property was not involved in its decision. Finding both interpretations were reasonable, the court declared the statute ambiguous as applied to the facts of the case, and proceeded to look to legislative history and intent for clarity. The court ultimately found that statutory aggrievement pursuant to § 8- 8(a)(1) was intended to benefit "a narrow class" of property owners, and that therefore interpretation of the phrase "land involved in the decision" of the commission cannot confer jurisdiction on a wide class of property own- ers that constitutes "a large portion of the town." The court concluded that "[i]n light of the aim of § 8-8(a)(1) to provide an avenue of appeal to a nar- row class of property owners, the clearest construction of the phrase 'any portion of the land involved in any decision' in this scenario is that it pertains to land that (1) was the subject of the application or (2) whose zon- ing classification was altered in some manner by the adopted zoning change," In other words, the court concluded that when a zoning commis- sion, as part of its sua sponte (i.e., self -initiated) application to amend its zoning regulations or zoning map, refrains from taking action to alter in any manner the zoning classification of a particular property that is not specified in the application as the subject thereof, that property is not "land involved in the decision" of the commission pursuant to § 8-8(a)(1). Therefore, the owner of such property is not within the narrow class of persons that the statute was intended to protect, held the court. Accordingly, the court agreed that Allstar was not statutorily aggrieved by the Commission's decision to amend its zoning map. The court also found that Allstar failed to satisfy the standard for classi- cal aggrievement. The court found that the Commission's decision: did not pertain to Allstar's property; and did not adversely affect Allstar's interest (as its property retained the same zoning classification as was previously held and Allstar therefore remained in the same position as it was in prior to the Commission's decision). The court concluded that Allstar, as owner of property that was not the subject of a zoning application and on which the Commission refrained from taking any action to alter, was not specially and injuriously affected by the Commission's decision, and therefore was not classically aggrieved. Finding Allstar failed to establish that it was classically or statutorily ag- grieved by the decision of the Commission, the court concluded that it did not have standing to bring the action. See also: Caltabiano v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Salem, 211 Conn. 662, 560 A.2d 975 (1989). See also: Stanton v. Planning and Zoning Com'n, 271 Conn. 152, 856 A.2d 400 (2004). 4 © 2014 Thomson Reuters