Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/11/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin erty that he owned in the town of Southington. He wanted to de- velop a multifamily residential complex that would be set aside as affordable housing on the property. After a hearing, the application was denied unanimously. Primus appealed the decision of the conservation to court. Primus instructed the marshal to serve the necessary legal papers on the chair- person of the commission, the commissioner of environmental protec- tion (through the attorney general) and the town clerk. However, the return of service notice indicated that the marshal left two copies of the complaint and related court documents with the town clerk and one copy for the commissioner of environmental protection. The pa- pers were never served on the chair of the commission. At the initial court hearing, the commission asked the court to dis- miss the case due to the lack of service on the chairperson-a require- ment for claims against the commission. The relevant provision stated: "any person aggrieved by any regulation, order, decision or action made [by the commission] .,. [could] ... appeal to the superior court. Notice of such appeal [should] be served upon the inland wetlands agency and the commissioner. " The court agreed that the improper service was grounds to dismiss Primus' claim. Primus appealed. Decision: Affinned. On appeal, Primus argued that another provision governed the ser- vice requirements. That provision stated: "[p ]rocess in civil actions ... agaD."1st a board, commission, department or agency of a town, city or borough, notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, upon the clerk of the town, city or borough, prov""ided two copies of such process shall be served upon the clerk and the clerk shall retain one copy and forward the second copy to the board, commission, department or agency." While the appeal in this case was pending, the state supreme court decided a similar issue in Vitale v. Zoning Board of Appeals. In that case, the court decided that the section that required only two copies of the court documents delivered to the town clerk applied to appeals that were started before Oct, 1, 2004. The regulation that required direct service to the chairperson of a commission applied to appeals started after that date. Because the higher court's ruling controlled this case, and because the appeal was initiated after Oct. 1, 2004, the provision that applied required direct service to the chairperson. Where there was improper service, the court was without jurisdiction to hear the claim. 4 88