Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 20 § 22a-18 (a) to enlarge the powers of a trial court hearing an action in which a party has intervened under § 22a-19. Rather, the court found that § 22a-19 allows intervenors to seek only those forms of relief that otherwise are permitted in the underlying proceeding. Again: "Courts hearing an interven- tion claim under § 22a-19 can enter an equitable remedy only if the underly- ing proceeding otherwise allows for such relief remedy." See also: Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. v. Stamford, 192 Conn. 247, 470 A.2d 1214 (1984). See also: Middletown v. Hartford Electric Light Co., 192 Conn. 591, 473 A.2d 787 (1984), overruled in part on other grounds by Waterbury v. Washington, 260 Conn. 506, 800 A.2d 1102 (2002). See also: Connecticut Water Co. v. Beausoleil, 204 Conn. 38, 526 A.2d 1329 (1987). See also: Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, 259 Conn. 131, 788 A.2d 1158 (2002). Case Note: Hunter Ridge had also argued that the court improperly substituted its judgment on issues of fact for that of the PZC. For the reasons that the court had found § 22a - 18(a) (equitable relief) did not apply to an action in which a party had intervened, the court concluded that §§ 22a -18(b) through (d) which give a trial court the discretion to remand a matter to an agency for consideration of environmental issues and allow the court to adjudicate the environmental issues itself—also did not apply to proceedings with interventions. `Permitting a trial court to entirely reject an agency's decision and render its own findings on an intervenor's environmental claims would eviscerate [statutory) limitations and would convert the trial court's role from that of an appellate tribunal to a court of general jurisdiction," said the court. The court concluded that a trial court can adjudicate facts relating to environmental matters raised by an intervenor only if the underlying proceeding gives the trial court authority to adjudicate such factual issues. If the proceedings the intervenor intends to join do not allow him or her to present new claims or obtain the relief sought, the intervenor must address the environmental concerns through an action under § 22a-16, declared the court. Thus, held the court, in the case at hand, the trial court could not properly have relied on § 22a-18 (b) through (d) to remand the matter back to the PZC for consideration of Taylor's claims or to independently adjudicate the factual issues raised in those claims. `7f the trial court hearing a zoning appeal is to consider ad- ditional evidence not found in the administrative record, it may do so only pursuant to the statutes controlling the procedures on appeal." (See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-8(1c).) Because the trial court in this case based its decision to reject the PZC's findings on § 22a-18 (b) through (d), its decision had to be reversed and remanded for further consideration of Hunter Ridge's appeal and the Taylor's claims, concluded the court. © 2015 Thomson Reuters 11