Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2015 I Volume 9 1 Issue 20 Planning and Zoning Commission (the "PZC") of the Town of Newtown (the "Town"). The PZC denied the application, finding that Hunter Ridge failed to meet the open space requirements in the Town's subdivision regulations. Hunter Ridge appealed to the trial court. Spencer Taylor ("Taylor") intervened in the appeal pursuant to Connect- icut's Environmental Protection Act of 1971 (the "Act"). The Act provides any person seeking to prevent unreasonable pollution two separate avenues for bringing their concerns before a court: (1) an independent cause of action under § 22a-16; or (2) intervention in an existing administrative, licensing, or other proceeding pursuant to § 22a-19. Here, Taylor intervened under § 22a -19(a). Section 22a -19(a)(1) allows a person to intervene in an existing proceed- ing relating to conduct that may impact the natural resources of the state. In relevant part, the statute provides that, "[i]n any administrative, licensing or other proceeding," any person or legal entity "may intervene as a party on the filing of a verified pleading asserting that the proceeding or action for judicial review involves conduct which has, or which is reasonably likely to have, the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state." Section 22a-19 (b) also directs agencies to consider the allegations of likely harm to the environment and provides that no conduct shall be approved if there exists a "feasible and prudent alternative" to the harmful conduct. Here, Taylor raised concerns related to the environmental impact of the proposed subdivision. Taylor sought and received permission from the trial court to present additional evidence that was not included in the administra- tive record. After receiving the evidence, the trial court concluded that Taylor made out a case, on its face, on his environmental claims. The court remanded the matter back to the PZC for fact -findings relative to Taylor's claims. The PZC responded to the trial court's request for fact-finding, concluding that Hunter Ridge's proposed subdivision would not "unreasonably pollute, impair or destroy the natural resources on the property." Ultimately, with the matter returning to the trial court, the court set aside the PZC's findings, adjudicated the factual issues itself, and found that the proposed subdivision would have an unreasonable impact on the natural re- sources of the property. The court enjoined Hunter Ridge from developing a portion of its property without prior court approval or without meeting certain conditions in the court's order. Hunter Ridge appealed. Hunter Ridge claimed, among other things, that: the Act did not give the trial court authority to enter an injunction in the context of a zoning appeal. Hunter Ridge maintained that the grant of power in § 22a-18(a)—which authorizes a court to enter temporary and permanent equitable relief as necessary to protect natural resources from unreasonable destruction—applied only to independent actions for declaratory and equita- ble relief brought under § 22a-16, and not to interventions brought under § 22a -19(a)(1). Taylor countered that the court did have power to enter an injunction in the context of a zoning appeal, pursuant to § 22a -18(a). © 2015 Thomson Reuters 9