Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/2002

Home

I I I I I I I I I '1 Z.B. November 10, 2002 -- Page 3 Standing -- Private citizen intervenes in application, citing environmental conceFIIs Did he have standing? CONNECTICUT' (10/01/02) A manufacturing company and the municipal water pollution control commission jointly applied to' the zoning commission for a special permit and site plan approval of the construction of a wastewater treatment facility. Keiser filed a notice of intervention, alleging the wastewater treatment fa- cility would have a detrimental impact on the environment. State law provided any person could intervene, as a party with verified concerns that the proceed- ing inv61ved conduct that was "reasonably likely to have' the effect of unrea- sonably polluting, impairing, or destroying:the public trust in the air, . water, or other natural resources of the state." At a zoning commission-meeting, Keiser testified the building site was contaminated with cinder f'fll and said hazardous materials could be released into the Norwalk River, which abutted the site. The zoning commlssion approved the special permit and the site plan. Keiser appealed to the Iower court, but the court decided he lacked stand- ing. The court also concluded, even if he had standing '"he could not prevail on the merits of his claim because there was substantial evidence supporting the zoning commission's decision." Keiser appealed the issue of standing only. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. Keiser had standing to intervene to raise his environmental concerns. Keiser had standing as an intervenor raising environmental issues, only if 1) thoseissues were within the jurisdiction.of'the particular agenCy, conducting the proceeding into which the party sought to intervene, and 2) the allegations were "sufficient to allow the agency'to determine from the face of the petition whether the intervention implicate [dj. an.issue, within the agency's jurisdiction." Here, the zoning commission had jurisdiction to consider environmental concerns. Keiser's petition also satisfied the second requirement by containing suffi- ciently specific factual allegations that identified an environmental issue. Spe~ cifically, the application to construct the plant included "the siting of.. such. sys- tems and facility, in an area historically used. for repose of hazardous waste." This was specific, even if it wasn't worded with precision. It revealed Keiser's concern that the waste at the site would be stirred up and released while con- structing the plant. · Citation: Court of see also: see ada'o: Keiser v. Zoning Commission of the Town of Redding, Appellate· Connecticut, No. AC 196581 (2002). Nizz. ardov. Stare Traffic Commission, 788 A. 2d 1158. (2002). Giulietti v. Giulietti, 784 A.2d 905 (2001). 31