Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 I Issue 9 action in an adjudicatory forum. Here, the court found there was no pend- ing or prospective litigation regarding Handsome's alleged permit violations. Moreover, the court explained that "[e]ven if the [PZC] members had considered initiating a zoning enforcement action, § 1- 200(6)(B) still would not have applied because the [PZC] [could not] be a party to its own regulatory proceeding." Although public agencies may consider taking nonjudicial action in executive session pursuant to § 1- 200(6)(B) and (9)(C), public agencies are not allowed to consider taking such action in executive session when the action would not be taken in con- nection with a pending or prospective proceeding in court or another forum, said the court. The Supreme Court of Connecticut also agreed with FOIC with regard to topic one discussed in the PZC's executive session: how to respond to the Superior Court's order regarding the permit extension. The court held that topic was inappropriate for executive session because the issue had been finally adjudicated before the executive session and thus did not justify convening the executive session. The court found that at the time of the PZC's executive session—approximately eight months after the superior court's order on the permit extension—the case had been finally adjudicated in that the decision could not be altered or modified on appeal since the ap- peal period had passed. The court rejected the PZC's claim that because the superior court continued to have jurisdiction over the matter, the matter was not yet finally adjudicated when the PZC convened its executive session. See also: Furhman v. Freedom of Information Corn'n, 243 Conn. 427, 703 A.2d 624 (1997). Case Note: Because the case presented an issue of statutory construction that had never been subject to judicial scrutiny and "lack[ed] an agency's time -tested interpretation," the court determined that the FOIC's determination was not entitled to any special deference. © 2015 Thomson Reuters 5