Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/2006

Home

August 25, 2006 - Page 3 (-. Z.B. ~\ ~ (:.. I. The city appealed, arguing that even if a school was a permitted use, Al- bany Prep was riot entitled automatically to a special permit. DECISION: Reversed. Notwithstanding the illegality of the zoning ordinance, the school was not automatically entitled to a special pennit. _ By awarding the permit, the lower court had stripped the board of its abilio/ to engage in the deliberative process and to evaluate the proposed educational use against other legitimate interests that impacted the public welfare. An edu- cational use did not enjoy a conclusive presumption that it outweighed its ill effects automatically. A special permit application had to be submitted to the board so the agency could engage in the requisite balancing to determine whether a special permit should be issued and, if so, whether reasonable conditions should be imposed that would mitigate any bad effects on the community. Importantly, reasonable conditions directly related' to the public's health, safety, and welfare could be imposed under the exercise of the municipal police power. The board had to have the opportunity' to decide on these factors, but the. lower court's ruling sidestepped this part of the process. i 1 Appeal- Property owner and lessee appeal permit denial Commission argues neither was aggrieved Citation: Moutinho v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City oj Bridgeport, Supreme Court of Connecticut, No. SC-17558 (2006) CONNECTICUT (06/20/06) - In 1998, Moutinho submitted an application to the city of Bridgeport's planning and zoning commission fora special permit, site plan review, and coastal site plan review to construct an asphalt plant on prop- erty owned by Julian. If the application was approved. Moutinho and Julian planned to enter into a long-term lease of the property. Moutinho signed theJorm as the applicant; Julian signed the form also, consenting to the application. . . After a public hearing, the commission denied all of Moutinho's requests. Moutinho and Julian appealed the commission's decision to court. After the appeal was f1led, but prior to any proceedings, Julian conveyed ownership of the property to J.R.R.C. Associates, a general partnership. At trial, Moutinho and Julian testified that they had an oral agreement on the long-term lease of the property. The trial court determined that J.R.R.c. was an aggrieved party but that Moutinho was not, because the oral agreement between the parties to enter into a long-term lease was' unenforceable. The court further ruled that, although J .R.R. C. was aggrieved, it had no standing to bring an appeal since it was not an original applicant. Moutinho and J.R.R.c. appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to lower court for further proceedings. There were two distinct categories of aggrievement: classical and statutory. @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 71